Consumers Get Right to Sue over Incorrect Credit Data March 5, 2002 â?? The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used a Las Vegas case Friday to give consumers across the West the right to sue companies that add incorrect information to consumers' credit history. The court of appeals' decision in Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., reverses U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson's April 2000 order dismissing the case. At that time, Rawlinson, who now sits on the court of appeals, ruled that the Fair Credit Reporting Act only allowed states and the federal government â?? not consumers â?? to sue companies who reported incorrect credit data. But U.S. Circuit Judge John Noonan found that Rawlinson and Chase had misread the statute. "We cannot suppose that Congress made an amendment without a purpose," wrote Noonan, referring to a 1996 amendment of the act. "That purpose, to provide some private remedy to injured consumers, coheres with what we see as a primary purpose for the FCRA, to protect consumers against inaccurate and incomplete credit reporting." To Las Vegas attorney Mitchell Gliner, Noonan's words aptly describe the predicament facing Toby Nelson and millions of others around the country. In 1995, Nelson co-signed a mortgage loan for $119,950 with Anthony Proietty in Las Vegas. Three years later, Proietty declared bankruptcy, but Nelson continued to make payments on the loan as they came due. Nevertheless, Chase reported Proietty's bankruptcy on Nelson's credit report. "At one point, Chase said Mr. Nelson's credit report was accurate because even though Mr. Nelson never declared bankruptcy, a bankruptcy was declared with reference to his account," said Gliner, who represented Nelson at the district court. "Technically that's true, but it's incomplete." After U.S. Bank denied Nelson a truck loan because of the bankruptcy notation on his credit report, Nelson sued Chase. At the trial court level, attorneys for Chase argued that the act didn't allow private citizens to sue banks that provide erroneous credit information. "(Friday's decision) is the first appellate ruling on the issue and we think it will be very persuasive to district courts around the country," said John Daly, deputy general counsel to the Federal Trade Commission, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Nelson. Las Vegas attorney Gerald Waite, who argued the Chase's case, said the decision merely sent the matter back to the District Court. "The focus now will be to determine if the information Chase provided to the credit reporting agency was correct, which we believe it was," he said. Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal - March 2, 2002
I don't get this... I mean didn't the FCRA always give us the right to sue creditors for incorrect reporting? Wasn't that the whole point!@!
At that time, Rawlinson, who now sits on the court of appeals, ruled that the Fair Credit Reporting Act only allowed states and the federal government â?? not consumers â?? to sue companies who reported incorrect credit data. But U.S. Circuit Judge John Noonan found that Rawlinson and Chase had misread the statute. "We cannot suppose that Congress made an amendment without a purpose," wrote Noonan, referring to a 1996 amendment of the act. "That purpose, to provide some private remedy to injured consumers, coheres with what we see as a primary purpose for the FCRA, to protect consumers against inaccurate and incomplete credit reporting." I guess prior to 1996 we couldn't.
So let me see, Chase was saying that since the info was reported prior to the new FCRA, then a consumer could not sue to remedy the incorrect reporting... the court ruled that new FCRA applies and the consumer could sue Chase. Is this right? If so, I guess this a very good thing for me... I am considering sueing a cc for mis-reporting info on my report and some of the incorrect reporting occurred prior to the new FCRA ammendments. At least this would give me one leg to stand on!
