Legal Opinion
Margrette Burton v. Public Finance Corporation of Akron 3
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided September 1, 1981No. 79-3521PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
Margrette Burton appeals from a summary judgment which dismissed her action and held that Public Finance Corporation’s (Public) loan statement and security agreement complied with the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226 et seq. Burton contends that the district court erred in holding that the loan agreement’s deferral clause complied with the “clear and conspicuous” requirement of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.6(a). We agree and reverse.
The deferral clause in the loan statement used by Public states:
A deferment charge may be made for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- 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
- Basham v. Finance America Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
- Dorothy Allen v. Beneficial Finance Company of Gary, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
- Carolyn Pittman and Daniel Pittman v. Money Mart, Inc., of Mendenhall, Mississippi, a Mississippi CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
3Cited by2 opinions
- Clement v. American Honda Finance Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2001
- Hemauer v. ITT Financial ServicesDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1990