Brenda Wilson v. Credithrift of America, Inc., No. 3, a Corporation, Patricia Straight v. Associates Financial Services of Oregon, Inc., a Corporation

These are two actions by borrowers against lenders for damages under § 130(a) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (a). We must decide whether the respective lenders violated the Act by failing sufficiently to identify the type of security interest they retained as required by Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.8 (b)(5). The parties in each case stipulate that their loan agreement is a consumer credit transaction subject to the Act and Regulation Z. The district court held that the description in the Wilson case was insufficient; the sufficiency of the description in the Straight case was upheld. We hold that the description was sufficient in both cases.

In the Wilson case, the disclosure statement contained a box which was checked to designate the following language: “[yjour debt, if incurred, will be secured by a chattel mortgage (security agreement, which also secures other or future indebtedness).” Another box, describing security by a real estate deed of trust, was not checked. The parties agree that an elaborate description of the interest was unnecessary, see Hutchings v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Oregon, 646 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir. 1981); Bone v. Hibernia Bank, 493…