Plaintiff in suit for violation of FCRA must prove damages Sarver v. Experian Information Solutions (7th Cir. 2004) To prevail against a credit reporting agency on an FCRA claim based upon an inaccurate report of a Bankruptcy filing an individual must prove damages (e.g. a denial of credit) after he notified the credit reporting agency of the error. A denial of credit arising before such notification does not constitute "damages" under the FCRA.

____________________

Supreme Court rules that TILA caps damages individual may recover

Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh, certiorari from Fourth Circuit, November 30, 2004

On November 30 the Supreme Court held that the most recent changes by Congress to the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) resulted in a cap on the damages an individual could recover for consumer loan violations. Several Circuits had interpreted that new language to mean that damages to personal-property loans should be twice the amount of the finance charge with no limitation, while closed-end mortgages were subject to a $200 minimum and $2,000 maximum.

__________________

Fraud finding in State Court is res judicata in Bankruptcy Court

In re Shore (10th Cir. 2004)

Where a prepetition State Court fraudulent transfer judgment articulated that the Court had found by clear and convincing evidence that a transferee was liable under the UFTA's so-called "actual fraud" provisions for "willful conduct and fraud," and where the Court had imposed punitive damages, that judgment collaterally established liability in a later 523(a)(6) dischargeability action in the transferee/Debtor's Bankruptcy.

___________________

Hotel expense in Fee Application disallowed

In re Fibermark, Inc. (Bankr. VT 2004)

A one-night New York City hotel expense reimbursement request of $770 is not allowable in the absence of an explanation for why the expense was out of line with other lodging expenses on the same Fee Application.

_____________________

Property held by Tenancy-by-the-Entirety is not property of the Estate

In re Musolino (11th Cir 2004)

Property owned by a Chapter 13 Debtor in tenancy-by-the-entirety with a non-debtor under Florida law is not part of the Estate and therefore cannot be reached by creditors.

_____________________

Attorney sanctioned for electronically filing without Debtor's original signature

In re Phillips (8th Cir. BAP 2004)

The 8th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the Bankruptcy Court did not err in imposing Rule 9011 sanctions against an Attorney who electronically filed a Petition that the Debtor had not signed. After having her first Petition filed by a particular firm, on December 5, 2003 an Attorney from that same firm electronically filed a second Chapter 13 Petition for the Debtor. The Debtor did not sign that second Petition, did not give that Attorney permission to file it and, in fact, had never even spoken to that particular Attorney. After receiving the signed Petition from the first case, the Attorney decided that he had authority for a second filing. That Attorney later acknowledged that no Petition bearing the Debtor's original signature existed for that second case, but that he had filed the second Petition believing time was of the essence because of a pending foreclosure sale of the Debtor's home. The Debtor never attended the Meeting of Creditors in the second case because she was unaware of the second filing. On December 29, 2003, while the second case was still pending, the Debtor retained an Attorney for a different firm and filed what turned out to be her third Petition. Ed. Note: Upon the filing of the 3rd Petition, hilarity ensued.