Discussion #8: Part I: Use of Credit Reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
ID: 349470 • Letter: D
Question
Discussion #8: Part I: Use of Credit Reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; Part II: Repossession and Breach of the Peace
Course Content Learning Objective: Demonstrate how the legal environment controls activities between businesses and private citizens; Describe and explain important legal concepts, demonstrate the ability to apply them to new situations and communicate solutions
Chapter 9 Learning Objective: How consumers enter into credit transactions and what protections they are afforded when the do.
Chapter 10 Learning Objective: Priorities for claims on the security interest
Part I: Read the case study below Rodgers V. McCullough and answer the three questions at the end of the case study. Make certain to clearly indicate your answers to each of the three questions. Be complete in your answers.
Rodgers v. McCullough
296 F.Supp.2d 895 (W.D. Tenn. 2003)
This case concerns the Defendants’ receipt and use of Christine Rodgers’ consumer report. Ms. Rodgers gave birth to a daughter, Meghan, on May 4, 2001. Meghan’s father is Raymond Anthony. Barbara McCullough, an attorney, represented Mr. Anthony in a child custody suit against Ms. Rodgers in which Mr. Anthony sought to obtain custody and child support from Ms. Rodgers. Ms. McCullough received, reviewed, and used Ms. Rodgers’ consumer report in connection with the child custody case.
Ms. McCullough instructed her secretary, to obtain Ms. Rodgers’ consumer report. She reviewed the report in preparation for her examination of Ms. Rodgers during a hearing. She also used the report during the hearing, including attempting to move the document into evidence and possibly handing it to the presiding judge.
The dispute in this case centers around whether Ms. McCullough obtained and used Ms. Rodgers’ consumer report for a purpose permitted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”). Plaintiff contends that Ms. McCullough, as well as her law firm, Wilkes, McCullough & Wagner, a partnership, and her partners, Calvin J. McCullough and John C. Wagner, are liable for the unlawful receipt and use of Ms. Rodgers’ consumer report in violation 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681o (negligent failure to comply with the FCRA) and 1681n (willful failure to comply with the FCRA or obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses). Plaintiff has also sued Defendants for the state law tort of unlawful invasion of privacy.
Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on the questions of whether Defendants failed to comply with the FCRA (i.e. whether Defendants had a permissible purpose to obtain Ms. Rodgers’ credit report), whether Defendants’ alleged failure to comply was willful, and whether Defendants’ actions constituted unlawful invasion of privacy.
The United States Court of Appeals,W.D. Tennessee GRANTED Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the question of whether Defendants had a permissible purpose to obtain Ms. Rodger’s credit report. It DENIED Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the question of willfulness under the act. It also DENIED Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the question of whether Ms. McCullough obtained and used Ms. Rodger’s credit report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose.
Case Questions
3. Why did the court deny the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the question of whether the defendant “willfully” failed to comply with the act? Is the plaintiff out of luck on that question, or can it be litigated further?
Explanation / Answer
3. Ms. McCullough has availed the report without taking permission from Christine Rodgers which led to violation of the FCRA and might have used the report to prove that Christine Rodgers is irresponsible towards payments. Ms. McCullough tried to use the credit report as an evidence to get the child custody and to ensure future child support payments from Christine Rodgers. But these purposes are not listed as permissible purposes under FCRA and Ms. McCullough might have used the credit report due to lack of knowledge on the permissible purposes under FCRA. An action can be considered as willful noncompliance of the act only if it is committed knowingly and intentionally. But here the actions of Ms. McCullough does not seem to be intentional and under sufficient knowledge because if she had the knowledge of the same, she might not have used the credit report in the court. It is difficult to prove the noncompliance to be willful and is not enough to use for accepting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The court might have considered the failure as act as ‘non willful’ and hence denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
.Plaintiff is not out of luck and it can be litigated further. The court decision may change if the plaintiff can prove that Ms. McCullough had sufficient knowledge on the permissible purposes under FCRA by analyzing her previous cases. If she is found to have knowledge on the same, her noncompliance would become willful and the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment would be granted.