Wharram v. Credit Services Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 1052970
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's, CSC Credit Services, Inc., [FN1] ("CSC"), Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Trans Union LLC and Equifax Information Services have joined in CSC's Motion for Summary Judgment. Wharram's complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when they deleted a loan from his consumer report. The Court heard oral arguments on January 7, 2004.
FN1. CSC credit services is an affiliate of Equifax Information Services.
On January 5, 1999, Wharram borrowed money from Wells Fargo Bank to purchase a vehicle. On January 23, 2002, Wharram made an eight thousand dollar ($8,000.00) payment to Wells Fargo. In Wharram's estimation, this lump payment was an early pay off of the loan for the vehicle. Wells Fargo, however, believed that the eight thousand dollar payment did not satisfy the debt and that Wharram owed additional monies on the loan.
On July 1, 2002, Wells Fargo Bank and Wharram entered into a Settlement & Release. The pertinent portion of the release stated, I, Dominic J. Wharram, in consideration of a payment in the sum of $246.69, to Wells Fargo Bank, MN ... hereby release and forever discharge Wells Fargo & Company ... from any and all manner of action or actions, suits, claims ... which I ever had ... against Wells Fargo up to and including the date of this Release. (Decl. of Chad M. Pinson at Ex. 2(B)). In turn, Wells Fargo "acknowledge[d] that the loan account ... will be reported at all credit bureaus as paid in full, with no adverse credit marks and in good standing." Id. According to Wharram, on May 22, 2002, he mailed a check for the amount of $246.69 to Wells Fargo. It is not clear whether Wells Fargo ever received Wharram's check.
On August 14, 2002, Wharram learned that the Wells Fargo account was adversely reported on his credit report by the various credit reporting agencies ("CRA"). Experian reported the account as 90 days late and as an "npaid balance reported as a loss by the credit grantor." Likewise, Equifax reported the account as 90 days late and as a "[c]harged off account." Trans Union noted the account was "[c]harged off as bad debt [p]rofit and loss write-off." On September 11, 2002, Wharram disputed the status of the accounts by sending a letter to Equifax and CSC. The letter stated, "I dispute the Norwest/Wells Fargo account # 7520[* * * * * * * * * *] as a charge-off and as being delinquent ... I adamantly insist it is [sic] should never have been sent to Wells Fargo's loss recovery department; it is not a charge-off and never was delinquent."
In response to Wharram's letter, CSC sent Norwest Bank a automated dispute verification form ("ACDV") stating, [s]ubscriber [c]omment/[r]emark [m]essage [d]isputed. Present [s]tatus [i]ncorrect. Please [v]erify." On September 30, 2002, Norwest responded to the ACDV by stating, "[t]his was a misdirected ACDV-[p]lease [r]eroute. Belongs to Wells Fargo Auto Finance." CSC concluded that the status of the Wells Fargo account was no longer verifiable and, in accordance with CSC policy, deleted the disputed Wells Fargo notation from Wharram's credit report. CSC informed Wharram, by a letter dated October 3, 2002, that "[the contested Norwest/Wells Fargo account] has been deleted from the credit file." CSC had no further contact with Wharram until Wharram served CSC with this law suit on December 20, 2002.
Wharram's complaint alleges that CSC "failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of a consumer report regarding [Wharram] .... [and] knowingly and intentionally committed an act in conscious disregard for [Wharram's] rights to the [sic] have an accurate credit report available...." (Compl. at 8, ¶¶ 50-51).
CSC argues for summary judgment on several grounds. First, CSC argues that the Wells Fargo loan was properly reported as delinquent because Wells Fargo never cashed Wharram's check. Minnesota law, however, suspends the obligations of the debtor when the debtor tenders a check as payment. Minn.Stat. § 336.3- 310(b)(1). The relevant portion of the statute states, "[u]nless otherwise agreed ... if a note or an uncertified check is taken for an obligation, the obligation is suspended to the same extent the obligation would be discharged if an amount of money equal to the amount of the instrument were taken...." Id. The debt is suspended until the check is dishonored or until it is paid or certified. Minn.Stat. § 336.3-310(b)(2). There are unresolved questions of fact as to whether Wells Fargo received the Wharram's check. If Wells Fargo received Wharram's check, then it cannot be said, under Minnesota law, that the loan was delinquent. Therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate.
Next CSC argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because it "complied with Wharram's request to 'remove' the Wells Fargo tradeline from his consumer report." (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 10). At the outset the Court notes, that the burden of assuring accuracy in the consumer's credit report falls to the consumer reporting agency and not with the consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). CSC is referring to the letter that Wharram sent to dispute the unfavorable notation. In that letter, Wharram stated, "please investigate the reason or reasons why this error is on my credit report." According to CSC, removing the tradeline all together complied with Wharram's request. According to Wharram, however, this letter was never intended to result in the removal of the entire tradeline, just the errors within that tradeline. What Wharram intended by the letter is a question of fact that must be resolved by a trier of fact.
CSC also argues that Wharram may not complain about information not appearing on his consumer report. The plain language of the statute suggests otherwise. The statute states, "[w]henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information concerning the individual about whom the report relates." 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) (emphasis added). Deleting the entire tradeline did not assure the maximum possible accuracy of information relating to Wharram because it failed to convey the positive credit history Wharram established with Wells Fargo prior to the instant dispute. Maximum accuracy, under the statute, applies equally to favorable information as it does to unfavorable information. The Congressional mandate and intent underlying 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) is clear, which is to "require consumer reporting agencies to adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information...." 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b) (emphasis added).
[u]Next CSC argues that is it entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it complied with 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5). That statute states, If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5). This argument is not persuasive because Wharram's request for the investigation could reasonably be interpreted two ways. From Wharram's view it is a request to investigate what he perceived as an error. In that case, the only portion of Wharram's loan history that should have been deleted or modified was the portion that listed the loan status as delinquent. From CSC's view it is a request to remove "the Wells Fargo tradeline from his consumer report." (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 10). In that case, the deletion of the entire tradeline may have been appropriate. The resolution of this fact question is within the purview of the proper trier of fact. Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate.
CSC's final argument is that Wharram suffered no damages and therefore summary judgment is appropriate. The Court disagrees. At the least, Wharram may be entitled to punitive damages because CSC admits that it was its policy "to suppress the disputed tradeline from the consumer's report." (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. at 5). A trier of fact could reasonably find that CSC intentionally suppressed the tradeline and that CSC was conscious that its act impinged on the rights of Wharram. Punitive damages are permitted in the absence of actual damages and therefore summary judgment based on the damages argument is not proper. Bakker v. McKinnon, 152 F .3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir.1998) (citations omitted).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [Dock. No. 46] is DENIED.
Wharram v. Credit Services Inc.
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 1052970 (D.Minn.)
- General Discussions, Forum Registration, and ID Theft and Credit-Related News Stories
- General Discussion
- News Stories on Identity Theft, Personal Data Thefts and Credit Reporting Abuses
- Current Cases
- Lawyer Jokes
- FCRA Statute and Defined Terms Under the FCRA
- FCRA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq.
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Reporting Agency?
- What is a Consumer [Credit] Report?
- Resellers: Who are They? What Do They Do? Are They Liable Under the FCRA?
- Investigative Consumer [Credit] Reports
- Who is a Furnisher?
- How to Get Your Credit Reports and How and Who to Write Your Dispute Letters to
- How To Get Your Credit Reports
- Dispute Letters
- Do You Have To Pay For Your Credit Report?
- FCRA Private Rights of Action and Duties Imposed by the FCRA
- Impermissible Access: 15 U.S.C. 1681b[f] and 1681q
- Front End Duties of the Credit Reporting Agencies: 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b)
- Back End Duties of the CRAs: 1681i[a]:
- Credit Bureau's Duty to Provide Consumer Documentation to Furnisher: 1681i[a][B]
- Duty to Add a Consumer's Dispute Statement in Association with a Specific Account and In Connection with the Credit File/Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681i[c]
- Furnisher FCRA Liability: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2
- Failing to Mark Contested Accounts As Disputed: 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2[a]
- Obsolescence: When Must the Credit Reportings Come Off of the Credit Report: 15 U.S.C. 1681c
- Duty to Notate Disputed Accounts As Such: 15 U.S.C. 1681c[f]
- Adverse Action Notice Rules: 15 U.S.C. 1681m and ECOA
- Credit Solicitations Are Required to be Clear and Conspicuous: 1681m[d]
- Potential Exposure For Sanctions Due to Filing Bad Faith FCRA Cases: 15 U.S.C. 1681n[c], 28 U.S.C. 1927, and Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 11
- Credit Repair Organizations Act [CROA]
- 1681g: Credit Bureaus' Duties to Provide Reports/Disclosures and to Add 100 Word Statements of the Consumer
- Affiliate Sharing Problems and Violations, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-3
- Common Credit Report Errors and Agency Misconduct
- Credit Errors
- Theft of Identity
- Mixed File Cases
- Re-Aging: Debt Collector's Efforts to Revive Obsolete Reportings
- Reinsertion of Previously Deleted Data: How and When Can It Happen?
- VIP Databases and Offline Status
- Deceased Reporting Cases
- Causation: The Crucial Link Between Breach of a Duty and Damages
- Causation to Damage [Proving Your Damages Are Related to and Caused by the Defendants
- Types of Damages, Remedies, and Awards Under the FCRA and Related State Law Claims
- Damages Under FCRA
- Punitive Damages: 15 U.S.C. 1681n
- Injunctive Relief: FCRA and State Law
- Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses and Costs:
- Declaratory Relief Under the FCRA
- What is Your Potential Case Worth? Other Case Verdicts, etc.
- FCRA Jury and Bench Trial Verdicts
- Other Federal Laws Related to Credit Reporting, Data Privacy, Billing Errors and ID Theft
- FDCPA Statute And Amendments: 15 U.S.C. 1692, et. seq.
- Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666, et. seq.
- Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, 18 U.S.C. §1028
- Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives Program (“HAFA”)
- State Law Claims Related to Credit Reporting, Billing Errors, Privacy Breaches and ID Theft
- Invasion of Privacy: State Law
- Defamation: State Law
- Interference With Prospective Credit: State Law
- Interference With Marital/Family Relations: State Law
- Infliction of Emotional Distress/Mental Anguish: State Law
- Data Breach Claims and Issues
- Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Claims: State Law
- Jurisdiction, Venue, Removal to Federal Court, Remand to State Court, and Other Pre-Trial Jurisdicti
- Removal of FCRA Cases From State Court To Federal Court
- Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in Credit Reporting Cases
- FCRA Litigation Strategies and Procedural Issues and Law
- Settlements, Releases, Prevailing Party Status, and Other Things You Need to Know If You Resolve Your Case Before Judgment
- Offers of Judgment In FCRA Litigation
- Secret Documents, Product Information and Testimony
- Choicepoint Secret Documents:
- Equifax/CSC and Affiliates Secret Documents:
- Experian Secret Documents
- Innovis Secret Documents:
- Trans Union Secret Documents
- Furnisher and Public Records Suppliers Secret Documents
- Respondeat Superior, Vicarious Liability, and Whether Others Are Liable
- Liability For Employee's FCRA Violations? Liability For FCRA Violations by Third Parties?
- FCRA Preemption, Immunity, and Qualified Immunity
- FCRA Preemption: 15 U.S.C. 1681t[b][F] and Related Discussions
- FCRA Qualified Immunity: 15 U.S.C. 1681h[e] and Related Discussions
- States/Govermental Immunity From FCRA Claims?
- Jury Voir Dire, Instructions, Verdict Forms, etc.
- Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Forms
- Jury Questionnaires, Voir Dire, Jury Selection and Jury Bias
- Credit Card Issues
- Credit Card Liabilities
- Do You Have a Right to Bring Claims and How Long Do You Have?
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- Standing to Sue
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, and Other Report Codes
- Credit Scores, Adverse Action Codes, Risk Factors, Denial Codes and Other Scores and Codes Supplied by the Credit Reporting Agencies
- The Mechanics of Credit Reporting
- Public Records Reportings [Non-Bankruptcy]
- Bankruptcy Reporting
- Student Loan Credit Reporting
- Metro Tape [I and II]: Standardized Credit Reporting Formats Used by the Credit Industry
- Defenses Asserted by Credit Reporting Defendants
- What Law Applies? Problems Barring Use of the Court and Law
- Arbitration, Forum Selection, Choice of Law, Choice of Venue and Other Adhesionary Clauses
- Conflicts of Laws Issues in FCRA and Related State Law Issues
- Standing and Statutes of Limitations
- Statute Of Limitation: 15 U.S.C. 1681p
- FCRA Legal Forms [Suits, Discovery, etc.]
- Discovery: Interrogatories, Requests For Production of Documents, Requests to Inspect, Requests For Admissions, Deposition Notices, Subpoenas, Deposit
- FCRA Sample Pleadings: Complaints, Motions, Oppositions and Other Standard Lawsuit Filings
- Defenses Frequently Asserted by Defendants to Consumer's Actions
- FCRA Class Actions and Class Issues
- FCRA Class Actions
- Special Evidentiary Issues: What is Evidence?
- Evidentiary Issues in FCRA Cases
- Expert Witnesses, Special Issues and Daubert and Related Challenges
- Appellate Issues, Rules, Law, Etc.
- Defenses Asserted by Industry and Abuse Stories
- Defense Counsel Abuses and War Stories
- Law Outlines: Various Topics
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests