Case Cite

[jlynn]

Someone with a better memory than me, help!!!

I am looking for the huge FCRA case cite (very recent) where a large bank, I think it might have been MBNA, lost to the tune of 90K+ because they did not perform an adequate reinvestigation. I think the plaintiff was a woman, and I believe she may have been an AU but they insisted she had signed the cc agreement.


Anybody remember it?

[VexatiousLitigant]

Johnson v MBNA.

[VexatiousLitigant]

Johnson v. MBNA, 357 F.3d 426

[spinn]

http://www.epic.org/privacy/fcra/03-...0MBNA%20pdf%22

Love this case ......court rules MBNA didnt investigate a dispute...I cant believe they didnt investigate.

[jlynn]

Thanks! Thats it.

[rubyruby27]

No, Thank you, just might be my ticket, if they don't reinvestigate.

[spinn]

What might also be important is what I have seen Normie say....

She won $90,000 in an FCRA case. I think a lot of us are kind of pushing a rock up a hill in that winning that opens the door for all sorts of subjective affects. Things such as mental distress, medical issues, stress all sorts of things.

I have one of the most stressful jobs on earth, I can take a lot of heat. When I filed to have a sewer service judgment vacated, I can honestly say in hindsight that it affected me for six months. I was a nervous wreck and didnt sleep for two weeks before the court date. Did I overreact...yes. If they had not sued me for a card I never had.....would I of had the opportunity to overereact?

The point is...winning an FCRA/FDCPA case is the first step...not the last.

I hope everyone reads that case......if these $1000 and $2000 wins for the good guys start turining into $18,000 to $20,000 judgments I think MBNA may add to their staff of four people to investigae 22 million accounts.

[VexatiousLitigant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubyruby27 No, Thank you, just might be my ticket, if they don't reinvestigate.

The bulletin board material from that case is that Johnson submitted a dispute stating she was merely an authorized user, not a coapplicant. MBNA's investigation consisted merely of checking their computer records. The judge held that the computer records were the source of the dispute in the first place, so checking the consumer's dispute against what was the source of the dispute is not a proper investigation... if that makes any sense.

Linda Johnson: I was not a coapplicant on that card, merely an authorized user. I am not responsible for the debt.

MBNA: It says right here on our computer screen that you were a joint holder of the credit card.

LJ: Okay well I am disputing that fact, please investigate your records.

MBNA: Okay we looked at our computer screen again and it says you are liable.

[rubyruby27]

According to what I read all they did was look at the computer data and if 2 out of 4 items matched that was a reinvestigation according to their policy. Those items being name, ss, address, phone number (I think those where the 4).

This case was simply its not mine-my computer data says yes it is I looked at it twice. They never looked for the paper trial to see if she was a authorized user or a coapplicant.

I think the point is when you tell them specific's they must investigation those specific's not just look at the computer data.

I will reread this case, as I do with everything in law, but I think it is the manner of how they reinvestigated which I think would apply to any reinvestigation.

Am I wrong in looking at it this way.

[roybean]

Also see Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mort. Corp. 282 F.3d 1057, 2002. These two cases are very similar.

[rubyruby27]

Thanks for the caselaw, I just read it, but it is saying the same thing to me. They must investigate beyond looking at computer data. ALong with private right of action to sue.

Am I correct in what I am thinking.

Yes, I need reassurance, sometimes I miss key words or thing they mean something else.

[roybean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubyruby27 Thanks for the caselaw, I just read it, but it is saying the same thing to me. They must investigate beyond looking at computer data. ALong with private right of action to sue. Am I correct in what I am thinking. Yes, I need reassurance, sometimes I miss key words or thing they mean something else.

Yes, they must have in place procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy. Each of these cases are in case law and the more you read the more you will build your confidence. The law and its terminology can be confusing. Even judges read and then re-read and then they also have staff to re-read it again. Trust me, they do research to no end.

[rubyruby27]

Thanks Roy

[VexatiousLitigant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean Also see Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mort. Corp. 282 F.3d 1057, 2002. These two cases are very similar.

I like the Amicus Brief the FTC filed in that one.

[roybean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant I like the Amicus Brief the FTC filed in that one.

Yes, it is a good read.


http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/briefs/nelsont.pdf

[CtrlAltDelete]

On the emotional / punitive damages here's a link I just found to probably 30 cases:

http://www.choicepointlitigation.com/gpage20.html

Issues not always mentioned in summaries, but damages ranging form $5,000 to $900,000 for emotional punative - mix Fed State cases.