Legal Opinion
Carolyn Pittman and Daniel Pittman v. Money Mart, Inc., of Mendenhall, Mississippi, a Mississippi Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided February 9, 1981No. 79-3016PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TATE, Circuit Judge:
The plaintiff debtors (the Pittmans) sue their creditor (Money Mart) to recover for failure of the creditor’s disclosure statement to comply with the requirements of the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-65, as implemented by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.1-226.1002. Without reaching other violations urged, the district court granted summary judgment holding that on its face the late-charge (delinquency) provision was ambiguous because of its use of the word “may”; it therefore awarded the Pittmans twice the amount of the finance charges, the statutory…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. MilhollinSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Mary S. Smith v. Don Chapman, D/B/A Don Chapman Motor SalesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- John C. Pollock and Barbara Pollock v. General Finance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- John C. Pollock v. General Finance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- David Gambardella v. G. Fox & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Margrette Burton v. Public Finance Corporation of Akron 3Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- David Gambardella v. G. Fox & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983