Robert C. Griggs and Jacqueline M. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Company, 680 F.2d 927, 3rd Cir. (1982)

680 F.
2d 927
Robert C. GRIGGS and Jacqueline M. Griggs

v.
PROVIDENT CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY,
Appellant.
No. 81-2989.
United States Court of Appeals,

Third Circuit.
Argued May 13, 1982.
Decided June 2, 1982.
Sheldon C. Jelin (argued), Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Henry J. Sommer (argued), Community Legal Services, Inc., Law Center
Northeast, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees.
Before GIBBONS and HUNTER, Circuit Judges, and GERRY, District
Judge.*
OPINION OF THE COURT
GIBBONS, Circuit Judge:
The Provident Consumer Discount Company (Provident) appeals from a final

order of the district court assessing statutory damages against it for violating
the Truth in Lending Act (the Act), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z
of the Federal Reserve Board, 12 C.F.R. 226.1 et seq. We hold that the
district court erred in holding that a disclosure statement violated the Act and
the Regulation. Thus we reverse and remand for consideration of other
contentions.
I.
2
In June 1979, Robert and Jacqueline Griggs (Griggses) obtained a personal loan
from Provident for $2940. At that time they received from Provident a
document entitled "Note, Security Agreement and Disclosure Statement" which
in paragraph 17-E set forth the extent and nature of Provident's security
interests in plaintiffs' real and personal property. Soon thereafter, plaintiffs filed
a Petition in Bankruptcy. After being discharged from their obligations, they
instituted this action, alleging that Provident violated the Act and Regulation Z
in three respects. They contended (1) that the description of Provident's security
interest taken in after-acquired property is inaccurate and misleading; (2) that
Provident improperly calculated the refund of prepaid interest due on an earlier
loan refinanced by the present loan, and (3) that the inclusion in the disclosure
statement of a non-existent security interest in insurance proceeds was
improper. Provident counterclaimed for a setoff against any recovery of the
Griggses' pre-bankruptcy obligations to it. The district court dismissed
Provident's counterclaim, and granted summary judgment to the Griggses. 1 The
court held that Provident's disclosure of its security interests in after-acquired
property was inaccurate and misleading to potential borrowers. The remaining
contentions were not reached since one violation of the Act is sufficient to
establish liability for statutory damages. Having determined liability, the court
awarded the Griggses separate recoveries of.$1000.00 each under 15 U.S.C.
1640(a). Provident filed a Notice of Appeal from the order on January 16,
1981.2 We dismissed that appeal, 3 Cir., 672 F.2d 903, because the district
court's order was not appealable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54. Subsequently, the
district court directed the entry of a separate final judgment under Rule 54(b).
On November 17, 1981 defendant filed in the district court a Motion for
Reconsideration and Motion to Alter, Amend and Vacate Judgment. On
November 19, 1981, a Notice of Appeal was filed. On November 23, 1981, the
district court dismissed Provident's motions.
II.
3
Section 1601 of the Act sets forth the congressional purpose for enacting the
Truth in Lending Act:
4 Congress finds that economic stability would be enhanced and the competition
The
among the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of
consumer credit would be strengthened by the informed use of credit. The informed
use of credit results from an awareness of the cost thereof by consumers. It is the
purpose of this subchapter to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that
the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available
to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit.
5
15 U.S.C. 1601 (1976). The Act was passed to prevent the unsophisticated
consumer from being misled as to the total cost of financing. See Mourning v.
Family Publications Services, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 363-69, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1657-
60, 36 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973). It mandates the disclosure of certain information in

financing agreements and enforces that mandate by "a system of strict liability
in favor of consumers who have secured financing when (the) standard(s) (are)
not met." Thomka v. A. Z. Chevrolet, 619 F.2d 246, 248 (3d Cir. 1980); 15
U.S.C. 1640(a). See also Ives v. W. T. Grant Co., 522 F.2d 791 (2d Cir.
1975). A plaintiff thus does not need to show that he was in fact deceived by
substandard disclosures. See Dzadovsky v. Lyons Ford Sales, Inc., 593 F.2d
538, 539 (3d Cir. 1979) (per curiam ). Moreover, since the Act provides for
statutory damages in addition to actual damages, a plaintiff need not even show
actual harm.
6
The Act obligates "(e)ach creditor ... (to) disclose clearly and conspicuously, in
accordance with the regulations of the Board, to each person to whom
consumer credit is extended and upon whom a finance charge is or may be
imposed, the information required under (the Act)." 15 U.S.C. 1631. Part of
that information is "(a) description of any security interest held or to be retained
or acquired by the creditor in connection with the extension of credit, and a
clear identification of the property to which the security interest relates." 15
U.S.C. 1639(a)(8). No liability can result, however, from "any act done or
omitted in good faith in conformity with any rule, regulation, or interpretation
thereof by the (Federal Reserve) Board." 15 U.S.C. 1640(f).
The Federal Reserve Board has issued Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.1 et seq.,
pursuant to its rulemaking powers conferred in Section 1604 of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 1604 (1976). Regulation Z mandates that "(t)he disclosure (under the
Act) ... be made clearly, conspicuously, (and) in meaningful sequence." 12
C.F.R. 226.6(a), and that "additional information or explanations may be
supplied with any disclosure required ..., but none shall be stated, utilized, or
placed so as to mislead or confuse the customer or lessee or contradict, obscure,
or detract attention from the information required." 12 C.F.R. 226.6(c). The
creditor must provide "(a) description or identification of the type of any
security interest held or to be retained or acquired by the creditor in connection
with the extension of credit, and a clear identification of the property to which
the security interest relates.... If after-acquired property will be subject to the
security interest, or if other or future indebtedness is or may be secured by any
such property, this fact shall be clearly set forth in conjunction with the
description or identification of the type of security interest held, retained or
acquired." 12 C.F.R. 226.8(b) (5). Special deference must be given the Board
regulations since a determination of what is "meaningful disclosure" under the
Act is an empirically achieved balance between incomplete disclosure and
informational overload, a task to which the Board is better suited than the
courts. See Ford Motors Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555, 568-69, 100
S.Ct. 790, 798-99, 63 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980).

8
Our task is to determine whether the district court committed an error of law in
applying the Act and Regulation Z.3 Paragraph 17-E of Provident's "Note,
Security Agreement and Disclosure Statement" provides:
E. SECURITY: Until the Total of Payments and all other obligations of

Borrower to Provident, direct, or contingent, joint, several or independent, now
or hereafter existing, due or to become due, whether created directly or
acquired by assignment or otherwise, have been paid in full and as security
therefor, Borrower grants Provident a security interest in the following assets
and all cash and non-cash proceeds thereof ("Collateral"):
10
The issue is the legal import of the bold faced after acquired property clause at
the end of the paragraph.4 The bold faced section is part and parcel of the
security disclosure paragraph. It comes immediately at the end of the
description of security and specifically indicates that it addresses "the security
interest set forth herein," i.e., in Paragraph 17-E. Whatever the bold faced
words might mean if standing alone, they form part of the paragraph and must
be interpreted in that context.5
11
Reading the bold faced section in the context of the entire Paragraph 17-E, the
reference to after-acquired personal property is modified by Paragraph 17-E 2
to mean household goods and only those acquired within ten days of the loan
transaction. The reference to after-acquired real property is accurate as to
Paragraph 17-E 4 since under Pennsylvania law, in the event plaintiffs'
Judgment Note is recorded or recovered upon, all the real property then owned
by plaintiffs (including those acquired after the loan issues) in the county
where the judgment is entered of record, becomes subject to the lien. 42
Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. 4303 (Purdon 1981). The bold faced section has no
application to Paragraph 17-E 3 since that paragraph contains no after-acquired
provisions but instead describes a well defined mortgage on a well defined
property. The bold faced sub-paragraph thus is modified by the substantive
provisions preceding it, and a reading of the paragraph as an integral whole
indicates no inaccuracies.
12
The district court also held that, even if accurate, the bold faced section was
confusing and misleading, because "there is no reason for the additional
confusing information to be present.... If the bold print adds nothing to the
security interest taken, there is no reason to have it in the form at all." 503
F.Supp. at 250. We disagree. The bold faced section fulfills a useful function. It
signals to the potential customer that after-acquired property will be subject to

defendant's security interest and, thereby, insures that the customer focus on the
preceding paragraph to understand the full scope of his commitments. The
Board regulations specifically require that "(i)f after-acquired property will be
subject to the security interest ..., the fact shall be clearly set forth in
conjunction with the description or identification of the type of security interest
held, retained or acquired." 12 C.F.R. 226.8(b)(5). This requirement of clear
disclosure of "after acquired property security interests" justifies Provident's
use of a bold face warning flagging a customer's attention to the existence of
such security interest.
13
Thus we hold that the district court erred in determining that defendant violated
the Act and Regulation Z in its disclosure of security interests. The district
court did not, however, reach plaintiffs' allegations that the defendant
improperly calculated the refund due to them of interest prepaid on the original
loan. Neither can we, absent district court factfinding. We must therefore
remand for a determination of the Griggses' remaining grounds for relief.
III.
14
Since on remand the question may arise of setting off plaintiffs' pre-bankruptcy
obligations to Provident against their recovery, if any, that question should be
addressed.
15
The Act has important penal characteristics. See Mourning v. Family

Publications Service Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 376, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1664, 36 L.Ed.2d
318 (1973); Riggs v. Government Employees Financial Corp., 623 F.2d 68 (9th
Cir. 1980); Newton v. Beneficial Finance Company of New Orleans, 558 F.2d
731 (5th Cir. 1977). The Senate Report stated:
16 enforcement of the bill would be accomplished largely through the institution of

The
civil actions authorized under section 7 (15 U.S.C. 1640) of the bill. Any creditor
who fails to disclose the required information would be subject to a civil action with
a penalty of twice the finance charge.... The committee has not recommended
investigative or enforcement machinery at the Federal level, largely on the
assumption that the civil penalty section will secure substantial compliance with the
act.
17
S.Rep.No.392, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1967). The Report indicates a

congressional intent to deter improper disclosure practices by a system of civil
liability. The Act allows recovery even when the complainant was not deceived
by misdisclosure, and provides for statutory damages in addition to actual
damages. Thus the Act imposes a civil penalty, the purpose of which is to
provide an incentive for private litigants to institute actions and thereby enforce
the Act's provisions.
18
A setoff of bankruptcy discharged debts owed a creditor would interfere with

the penal purpose of the Act. Newton v. Beneficial Finance Company of New
Orleans, supra, 558 F.2d at 732; see also Riggs v. Government Employees
Finance Corp., supra, 623 F.2d at 73-75. If a creditor were allowed a setoff, the
deterrent effect of the civil penalty liability would be reduced. A setoff would
remove incentives for an obligor to sue under the Act. Moreover, a setoff would
be anomalous since the cause of action inures to the plaintiff as a private
attorney general. Superficially it may appear unfair to Provident to make it pay
statutory damages in addition to the losses incurred as a result of the Griggses'
bankruptcy. The losses due to bankruptcy, however, are a product of
Provident's judgment in making a loan. Bankruptcy is a business risk which any
lender takes. Bankruptcy losses are thus independent from the Act and
Provident cannot rely on these losses for relief from the Act's penalty
provisions. Neither can Provident complain that the Griggses receive a windfall
by recovering damages under the Act while having their loan discharged. That
windfall is provided by Congress in order to stimulate truth in lending suits. We
hold, therefore, that there can be no setoff of the bankruptcy discharged debt
against any recovery of statutory damages. Accord Newton v. Beneficial
Finance Company of New Orleans, 558 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1977); see Riggs v.
Government Employees Financial Corp., 623 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1980). Cf.
McCollum v. Hamilton National Bank, 303 U.S. 245, 58 S.Ct. 568, 82 L.Ed.
819 (1938) (debt discharged by bankruptcy cannot be used to offset a penalty,
imposed by federal statute, against national bank for taking usurious interest.).
IV.
19
The judgment appealed from will be reversed and the case remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Hon. John F. Gerry, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey,
sitting by designation
The district court opinion is reported. 503 F.Supp. 246 (E.D.Pa.1980)
The Griggses urge that this matter is not appealable because Rule 4(a)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that "(a) notice of appeal filed
before the disposition of any of the above motions shall have no effect."
Appellant did fail to satisfy Rule 4(a)(4) but though a premature notice of
appeal is subject to dismissal, we have generally allowed appellant to proceed
unless the appellee can show prejudice resulting from the premature filing of
the notice. Tose v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 648 F.2d 879, 882 n.2 (3d
Cir.), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 390, 70 L.Ed.2d 208 (1981); Hodge v.
Hodge, 507 F.2d 87, 89 (3d Cir. 1975); accord Williams v. Town of Okoboji,
599 F.2d 238 (8th Cir. 1979). See also 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 204.14 (2d
ed. 1982). In our case, the Griggses have shown no prejudice by the premature
filing of a notice of appeal
3
This is not a case where the court was presented with a record containing
conflicting evidence in the form of written documents from which it had to
draw factual inferences. Were that the case, Rule 52(a) would require us to
review the findings under the "clearly erroneous rule."
"Rule 52 broadly requires that findings of fact not be set aside unless clearly
erroneous. It does not make exceptions or purport to exclude certain categories
of factual findings from the obligation of a Court of Appeals to accept a district
court's findings unless clearly erroneous. It does not divide facts into categories;
in particular, it does not divide findings of fact into those that deal with
"ultimate" and those that deal with "subsidiary" facts.... The rule does not apply
to conclusions of law ... (nor does it) furnish particular guidance with respect to
distinguishing law from fact."
Pullman-Standard v. Swint, --- U.S. ----, ----, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1789, 72 L.Ed.2d
66 (1982). The issue before us is one of drawing a legal conclusion regarding
the consequences of a document. See generally, Borden Co. v. Clearfield
Cheese Co., 369 F.2d 96 (3d Cir. 1966). The district court cannot, by couching
a legal conclusion as a finding of fact, prevent appellate review of legal errors.
Cf. Scott Paper Co. v. Scott's Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225 (3d Cir. 1977)
(whether trademark acquired secondary meaning outside the paper goods
product line); Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904 (3d Cir.),
cert. denied, 423 U.S. 863, 96 S.Ct. 122, 46 L.Ed.2d 92 (1975) (whether
defendant's chart infringes copyrighted chart as a matter of law); Sears,
Roebuck and Co. v. Johnson, 219 F.2d 590 (3d Cir. 1955) (trade name
infringement established as a matter of law).
The Griggses also claim that Paragraph 17-E 5 is inaccurate and confusing
because it refers to non-existent insurance. This argument is without merit.
Paragraph 17-E 5 indicates that there is a security interest in insurance required
or purchased in accordance with Paragraph F. Paragraph F, in turn, indicates
that no insurance was purchased. Paragraph 17-E 5 alone does not show that
there is a security interest in insurance proceeds and we, therefore, find no
inaccuracy. Moreover we fail to see any source of confusion or obstruction

when upon reading 17-E 5 the borrower refers to Paragraph F and finds it
completely blank. It would be apparent to even the most unsophisticated
borrower that there is no insurance and hence no security interest
5
We agree with the Griggses that if the bold faced section in conjunction to
paragraph 17-E were to disclose more security interests than what defendant
actually had, there would be a violation of the Act and regulations. The purpose
of the Act is for customers to be able to make informed decisions. This would
be adversely affected as much by overstating a lender's security interests as by
understating them

Robert C. Griggs and Jacqueline M. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Company, 680 F.2d 927, 3rd Cir. (1982)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robert C. Griggs and Jacqueline M. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Company, 680 F.2d 927, 3rd Cir. (1982)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robert C. Griggs and Jacqueline M. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Company, 680 F.2d 927, 3rd Cir. (1982)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

680 F.

Robert C. GRIGGS and Jacqueline M. Griggs

United States Court of Appeals,

Sheldon C. Jelin (argued), Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

The Provident Consumer Discount Company (Provident) appeals from a final

60, 36 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973). It mandates the disclosure of certain information in

S.Ct. 790, 798-99, 63 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980).

E. SECURITY: Until the Total of Payments and all other obligations of

signals to the potential customer that after-acquired property will be subject to

The Act has important penal characteristics. See Mourning v. Family

16 enforcement of the bill would be accomplished largely through the institution of

S.Rep.No.392, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1967). The Report indicates a

A setoff of bankruptcy discharged debts owed a creditor would interfere with

The district court opinion is reported. 503 F.Supp. 246 (E.D.Pa.1980)

inaccuracy. Moreover we fail to see any source of confusion or obstruction

You might also like