Glenn A. Souife v. First National Bank of Commerce

First Circuit

Glenn A. Souife v. First National Bank of Commerce

653 F.2d 142, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18665

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 1981

Docket78-2562

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 653 F.2d 142 (Glenn A. Souife v. First National Bank of Commerce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glenn A. Souife v. First National Bank of Commerce, 653 F.2d 142, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18665 (1st Cir. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In our first opinion, Souife v. First Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 628 F.2d 480 (5 Cir. 1980), we held that the creditor’s right to receive incidental insurance proceeds and returned premiums constitutes a “security interest” that must be adequately disclosed pursuant to the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a) (1976), and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.8(b)(5) (1980). 1 Consideration of appellee’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc was deferred pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue as presented in Valencia v. Anderson Brothers Ford, 617 F.2d 1278 (7th Cir.1980), cert. granted 449 U.S. 981, 101 S.Ct. 395, 66 L.Ed.2d 242 (1980).

The Supreme Court has now spoken in disagreement with our conclusion, holding that “the term ‘security interest’ as used in both the revised and unrévised versions of Regulation Z does not include an interest in unearned insurance premiums in a transaction such as this.” Anderson Brothers Ford v. Valencia,-U.S.-,-, 101 S.Ct. 2266, 2272, 68 L.Ed.2d 783 (1981) (Burger, C. J., and Stewart, Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting). 2

In light of this development, we withdraw our initial reversal and affirm the judgment below.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Although Judge Anderson agreed that this understanding of the term “security interest” was mandated by this Court’s prior holding in Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc., 577 F.2d 291, cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951, 99 S.Ct. 2180, 60 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1979), he dissented in part on the disclosure issue, concluding that the Bank adequately disclosed a security interest in the proceeds of the property insurance. We also held that the district court correctly concluded that certain taxes and fees were properly delineated in the section of the disclosure form entitled “Other Charges.”

2

. Although the Valencia decision factually deals only with unearned premiums, it is apparent that its force extends to the other incidental insurance rights at issue in our case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

In our first opinion, Souife v. First Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 628 F.2d 480 (5 Cir. 1980), we held that the creditor’s right to receive incidental insurance proceeds and returned premiums constitutes a “security interest” that must be adequately disclosed pursuant to the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a) (1976), and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.8(b)(5) (1980). 1 Consideration of appellee’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc was deferred pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue as presented in Valencia v. Anderson Brothers Ford, 617 F.2d 1278 (7th Cir.1980), cert. granted 449 U.S. 981, 101 S.Ct. 395, 66 L.Ed.2d 242 (1980).

The Supreme Court has now spoken in disagreement with our conclusion, holding that “the term ‘security interest’ as used in both the revised and unrévised versions of Regulation Z does not include an interest in unearned insurance premiums in a transaction such as this.” Anderson Brothers Ford v. Valencia,-U.S.-,-, 101 S.Ct. 2266, 2272, 68 L.Ed.2d 783 (1981) (Burger, C. J., and Stewart, Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting). 2

In light of this development, we withdraw our initial reversal and affirm the judgment below.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Although Judge Anderson agreed that this understanding of the term “security interest” was mandated by this Court’s prior holding in Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc., 577 F.2d 291, cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951, 99 S.Ct. 2180, 60 L.Ed.2d 1057 (1979), he dissented in part on the disclosure issue, concluding that the Bank adequately disclosed a security interest in the proceeds of the property insurance. We also held that the district court correctly concluded that certain taxes and fees were properly delineated in the section of the disclosure form entitled “Other Charges.”

2

. Although the Valencia decision factually deals only with unearned premiums, it is apparent that its force extends to the other incidental insurance rights at issue in our case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

653 F.2d 142, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenn-a-souife-v-first-national-bank-of-commerce-ca1-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack