Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Oregon couple win credit risk ruling against Chase
By William McCall, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, June 03, 2009 | No comments posted.
PORTLAND (AP) — In a legal victory for consumers, a federal appeals court has ruled that Chase Bank must clearly disclose it can raise the annual percentage rates for cardholders based on credit risk.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an Oregon couple who claimed that Chase violated the Truth in Lending Act, reversing a lower court that had dismissed their complaint.
Cheryl and Walter Barrer filed a class-action lawsuit against the bank after it nearly tripled the annual percentage rate — or APR — on their credit card from about 9 percent to more than 24 percent in April 2005.
The couple claimed that Chase violated the act by failing to disclose the criteria it used to raise the rate, including the risk factors involved.
The court noted that Chase cited general reasons that included outstanding loans it deemed “too high” and too many recently opened credit accounts.
The judges, however, sided with Chase on the general principle “that it must be able to adjust the price of credit according to how risky it is to lend to a given cardholder.”
The court also said the bank’s failure to disclose that adverse credit information was the reason for raising the couple’s APR and “that Chase would look up their credit history to acquire that information” was not enough to violate the act.
But the opinion by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said Chase had a duty to “clearly and conspicuously” disclose that it could change interest rates “for any reason at all.”
Such disclosures, he added, must be made in a way “that a reasonable cardholder would notice and understand.”
The 2-1 opinion issued last month said Chase’s change-in-terms provision came “five dense pages after the disclosure of the APR” and “is buried too deeply in the fine print.”
Judge Susan Graber was even more critical of the bank in a dissenting opinion that concurred with the majority in part.
Graber said allowing the bank to change the rate for any reason so long as it clearly disclosed that it reserved that right could lead to “bizarre and unexpected” results.
She said under the majority reasoning, Chase could change the rate if it had “adequately disclosed it had a pre-existing plan to raise the Barrers’ APR to 50 percent if they dye their hair red.”
The court noted it took the couple three months to pay off their balance at the higher rate.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an Oregon couple who claimed that Chase violated the Truth in Lending Act, reversing a lower court that had dismissed their complaint.
Cheryl and Walter Barrer filed a class-action lawsuit against the bank after it nearly tripled the annual percentage rate — or APR — on their credit card from about 9 percent to more than 24 percent in April 2005.
The couple claimed that Chase violated the act by failing to disclose the criteria it used to raise the rate, including the risk factors involved.
The court noted that Chase cited general reasons that included outstanding loans it deemed “too high” and too many recently opened credit accounts.
The judges, however, sided with Chase on the general principle “that it must be able to adjust the price of credit according to how risky it is to lend to a given cardholder.”
The court also said the bank’s failure to disclose that adverse credit information was the reason for raising the couple’s APR and “that Chase would look up their credit history to acquire that information” was not enough to violate the act.
But the opinion by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said Chase had a duty to “clearly and conspicuously” disclose that it could change interest rates “for any reason at all.”
Such disclosures, he added, must be made in a way “that a reasonable cardholder would notice and understand.”
The 2-1 opinion issued last month said Chase’s change-in-terms provision came “five dense pages after the disclosure of the APR” and “is buried too deeply in the fine print.”
Judge Susan Graber was even more critical of the bank in a dissenting opinion that concurred with the majority in part.
Graber said allowing the bank to change the rate for any reason so long as it clearly disclosed that it reserved that right could lead to “bizarre and unexpected” results.
She said under the majority reasoning, Chase could change the rate if it had “adequately disclosed it had a pre-existing plan to raise the Barrers’ APR to 50 percent if they dye their hair red.”
The court noted it took the couple three months to pay off their balance at the higher rate.
The comments below are from users of theworldlink.com and do not necessarily represent the views of The World or Lee Enterprises. Participation Guidelines
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Note: There is a maximum of 200 words per comment. If you wish to post more, please visit our forum.
Not already registered?
The World welcomes your comments about stories, and we encourage a robust dialogue on this site. All comments must meet reasonable standards of decency and civility.
Please follow these basic rules:
- No defamatory comments about individuals or businesses.
- No deliberately false information.
- No obscenity or racially offensive language.
- No harassment, verbal abuse, threats or personal attacks.
- No information that invades another person's privacy.
- No business solicitations or charitable solicitations.
Comments that violate these standards will not be posted. Users with repeated violations may be banned from future posting.Comments will be approved throughout the day during business hours. After hours and weekend comments may not appear until the following business day. It may take a couple of hours before comments are approved.
The World generally does not edit comments, but we reserve the right to edit any comment that does not meet our standards.
Close Guidelines