Clausen

Clausen v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Berkeley

Good Law
423 F. Supp. 985·1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14018
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 20, 1976C-74-2642 WHOCalifornia2,916 words

Opinion

Opinion

Orrick, J.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, a class of borrowers, allege that the defendants, Beneficial Finance Company of Berkeley and Beneficial Corporation, have violated the Truth in Lending Act (the Act). 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. and Reg. Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants have improperly failed to (1) adequately disclose the security interest taken to finance their loans, and (2) adequately set forth the existence of an acceleration clause in the event of a default on their loans.

The ease is presently before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment to determine liability under the Act. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, I find that the defendants have violated the Act by failing to indicate on the loan disclosure statements the type of security interest taken to finance the loans, and by failing to include on the front side of the disclosure statement a clear statement of the existence of the acceleration clause.

Defendants thus are liable on a total of eighty-eight loans to class members and to a total of one hundred twenty-eight borrowers, including the individuals who have submitted both their affidavits and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.