• FCRA Claim against Furnisher is dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence that the Furnisher Received Notice from a CRA
  • March 24, 2010 | Author: Paul W. Sheldon
  • Law Firm: Strasburger & Price, LLP - Frisco Office
  • Diana I Am v. National City Mortgage Company, et al.,. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13606 (D. Hi. Feb. 17, 2010)

    Facts: Plaintiffs brought suit against Pacific Rim Appraisals (“Pacific Rim”) and PNC Mortgage Company (“PNC”), among others, alleging violations of the FCRA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), and other common law claims. Plaintiff’s claims stem from a foreclosure on her home that occurred due to allegations that she was in default due to a refinance that occurred based in part on an appraisal performed by Defendant Pacific Rim. Plaintiff alleges that some Defendants violated the FCRA by providing negative information about her credit to the credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) regarding the status of the mortgage loan. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming in part that Plaintiff failed to contact a CRA, a prerequisite under the FCRA for furnisher liability. The Court agreed.

    • Furnisher Duties. There is no private right of action against furnishers on a §1681s-2(a) claim, which deals with the duty of a furnisher to provide accurate information. However, a private right of action is available against a furnisher under §1681s-2(b), regarding a furnisher’s duty to conduct an investigation upon receipt of notice of dispute from a CRA.  
    • Furnisher Investigation. To successfully bring a §1681s-2(b) claim, a Plaintiff must show that (1) a consumer notified a CRA of an inaccuracy; (2) the CRA notified the furnisher of the inaccuracy; and (3) the furnisher failed to take appropriate action. Plaintiff failed to make the evidentiary showing of each element under this provision.