Roberts v. First State Bank

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 3, 2000
• Docket: 00-1297
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LATONYA ROBERTS,  Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST STATE BANK, Defendant-Appellee,  No. 00-1297 and GEORGE LOVELACE, d/b/a D & K Auto Sales, Defendant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-99-16-4)

Submitted: October 26, 2000

Decided: November 3, 2000

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Elmer Woodard, Danville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jerry L. Williams, Jr., WILLIAMS, LUCK & WILLIAMS, Danville, Virginia, for Appellee. 2 ROBERTS v. FIRST STATE BANK

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Latonya Roberts sued First State Bank and George Lovelace for violating the Truth-in-Lending Act and state law in the sale of an automobile. The district court denied Roberts’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed her action on the ground that the defendants were not required to provide the disclosures mandated by Regulation Z of the Truth-in-Lending Act in a form Roberts could keep prior to the consummation of the transaction. See Roberts v. First State Bank, No. CA-99-16-4 (W.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2000). This Court recently held to the contrary, stating that the required disclosures must be made in writing, in a form the consumer can keep, before consummation of the transaction. See Polk v. Crown Auto, Inc., 221 F.3d 691, 692 (4th Cir. 2000). Although the district court did not have the benefit of our Polk opinion when it ruled in this case, we must, under Polk, reverse the district court’s order dismissing Roberts’ action and remand the case for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi- als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro- cess.

REVERSED AND REMANDED