Kramer v. Marine Midland Bank

559 F. Supp. 273
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 1, 1983
Docket80 Civ. 4431 (WK)
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 559 F. Supp. 273 (Kramer v. Marine Midland Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kramer v. Marine Midland Bank, 559 F. Supp. 273 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

WHITMAN KNAPP, District Judge.

BACKGROUND

The ease is before us on cross-motions for summary judgment. On August 3, 1979 plaintiff bought an automobile from Toyota of Rockland, Inc. (the dealer). The transac *276 tion contemplated a partial down-payment of about $2,100, the balance of the price— about $2,800 — to be financed by Marine Midland Bank (the bank) in 48 equal monthly instalments. It is undisputed that the bank maintained a business relationship with the dealer. Pursuant to this relationship the bank regularly financed the dealer’s sales, provided the dealer with forms, approved the creditworthiness of each borrower, and was immediately assigned the sales contract entered into between the customer and the dealer. The Retail Instalment Contract form supplied by the bank 1 contains an indication — evidenced by plaintiff’s additional signature in the appropriate box — that plaintiff purchased credit life insurance, the premiums on which insurance were advanced by the bank and included in the total amount financed. Plaintiff contends, however, that such insurance was foisted upon him by the prevarication of the dealer who is alleged to have given a “vague answer to the effect that that was the way the [bank’s] form was set up” in response to plaintiff’s question why two separate signatures were required.

On October 22, 1979 — after the instalments of September 3 and October 3 had been paid 2 — plaintiff was ready to pay off the balance due on the loan. He inquired from the bank what was the outstanding balance and then paid the amount he was told to be due. A few weeks later, however, he received in the mail a $30.22 refund because — so the bank advised him — the amount due at the time of prepayment had been overstated.

This small refund piqued plaintiff’s curiosity as to precisely how the correct amount due had been calculated. He was advised at the bank to write for information, but plaintiff elected initially to pursue his inquiries by telephone. Such efforts, however, proved unsuccessful. In December of 1979 he finally made a written request for information.

In response, the bank confirmed that the loan had been fully paid off, advised him that a refund on unearned credit life insurance might be due, but failed otherwise to respond as completely as plaintiff wished. Plaintiff appears to have been particularly irked by the bank’s perceived parsimoniousness in providing the desired information combined with its suggestion that he apply to the dealer for a refund on unearned credit life insurance premiums. Later inquiries by an attorney also failed to produce a response which measured up to plaintiff’s expectations. Finally, plaintiff brought this action charging the bank 3 with at least ten different violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act [TILA], 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, Regulation Z [Reg. Z], 12 C.F.R. 226.1 (1982) et seq., reprinted in 15 U.S.C.A. fol. § 1700, and with several violations of various New York consumer protection laws. 4

THE TRUTH-IN-LENDING CLAIMS

I

The instalment contract includes the following clause on its front page:

*277 4. PREPAYMENT OF CONTRACT. If I pay this contract in full before the final due date, what I owe you will be reduced by the amounts of the Finance Charge and insurance charge which have not yet been earned, figured by the RULE OF 78’S. (That is a method authorized by law for figuring earned charges and refunds.) You may deduct a fee of $15 from the Finance Charge before figuring the unearned portion. You don’t need to give me any Finance Charge credit or insurance charge credit which amounts to less than $1. (Emphasis added).

Plaintiff argues that this statement is in violation of TILA because “the payoff balance [was] not reduced by the amount of unearned [insurance] charges, but in fact Marine Midland relegated the consumer to his own devices to seek out and attempt to obtain the insurance rebate from other sources.” Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief at 16a-17 (emphasis in original). See also Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum at 30. This factual contention is undisputed. See Affidavit of F.G. Cologgi ¶ 6. The bank responds on two fronts. First, it claims that the quoted paragraph complies with Reg. Z 226.8(b)(7) which only requires “[identification of the method of computing any unearned portion of the finance charge in the event of prepayment...” 5 Second it claims that it has no obligation— under federal or state law — to rebate any portion of the unearned insurance charges. See Defendant’s Memorandum at 13; Defendant’s Reply Memorandum at 10.

We hold that a violation of Reg. Z 226.6(a) 6 and Reg. Z 226.6(c) 7 has been established. The quoted paragraph cannot fairly be understood in any other way but to state that the buyer is not required — in the event he were to prepay his debt — to pay the bank an amount which includes the unearned insurance charges. As, in fact, the bank’s practice is not to credit unearned insurance charges, the quoted paragraph can hardly be said to constitute a “clear” disclosure under Reg. Z 226.6(a), or one that is not “misleading” or “confusing” under 226.6(c). Cf. Wright v. Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc. (5th Cir.1982) 679 F.2d 436, 444 (statement that borrower subject to non-existent charges held to be misleading; burden on creditor to prove that additional information is not misleading); Smith v. Chapman (5th Cir.1980) 614 F.2d 968, 977 (statement that a sum includes a particular item when it is not so included held to be misleading); Weaver v. General Finance Corp. (5th Cir.1976) 528 F.2d 589, 590 (statement that premiums for voluntary insurance would be “deducted” from the amount financed, when, in fact, they were part of the total amount borrowed, held to be misleading).

The bank’s arguments entirely miss the mark. It is altogether irrelevant whether the quoted paragraph complies with another provision of Reg. Z or whether the bank is or is not under an obligation to rebate or credit unearned life insurance premiums. 8 On the assumption that the *278

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

Related

Eicken v. USAA Federal Savings Bank
498 F. Supp. 2d 954 (S.D. Texas, 2007)
Diaz v. Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc.
424 F. Supp. 2d 519 (E.D. New York, 2006)
Hicks v. Star Imports, Inc.
5 F. App'x 222 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
ITT Financial Corp. v. Johns
27 V.I. 51 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 1992)
Dixon v. S & S Loan Service of Way-Cross, Inc.
754 F. Supp. 1567 (S.D. Georgia, 1990)
Steinbrecher v. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount Co. (In Re Steinbrecher)
116 A.L.R. Fed. 881 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1990)
Lanier v. Associates Finance, Inc.
499 N.E.2d 440 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1986)
Semar v. Platte Valley Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
791 F.2d 699 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
Kramer v. Marine Midland Bank
577 F. Supp. 999 (S.D. New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
559 F. Supp. 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-v-marine-midland-bank-nysd-1983.