Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Shelia C. Walker v. College Toyota, Inc.

519 F.2d 447

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1975-07-18
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: College Toyota, Inc., appeals from an adverse judgment in the district court holding it civilly liable for a violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., and its accompanying regulations, in the case, 12 C.F.R. § 226.-8(c)(8)(ii). The facts in the case were stipulated, and neither party contests that the regulation, which requires disclosure of the “deferred payment price,” was violated. The sole question is whether the violation of that regulation subjects the creditor to civil liability. For the reasons stated by the district court, which relied on Mourning v. Family Publications Services, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 93 S.Ct. 1652, 36.L.Ed.2d 318 (1973), the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Shelia C. Walker v. College Toyota, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
WALKER v. COLLEGE TOYOTA, INC.,519 F.2d 447(4th Cir. 1975)
SHELIA C. WALKER, APPELLEE v. COLLEGE TOYOTA, INC., APPELLANT.
No. 75-1181.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued July 7, 1975.
Decided July 18, 1975.
Robert C. Wood, III, Lynchburg, Va. (Kenneth S. White, Edmunds, Williams, Robertson, Sackett, Baldwin Graves, Lynchburg, Va.), for appellant.

Charles M. L. Mangum, Lynchburg, Va., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
Before CRAVEN, BUTZNER and FIELD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] College Toyota, Inc., appeals from an adverse judgment in the district court holding it civilly liable for a violation of the Truth in Lending Act,15 U.S.C. §§ 1601et seq.,and its accompanying regulations, in the case,12 C.F.R. § 226.8(c)(8)(ii).

[2] The facts in the case were stipulated, and neither party contests that the regulation, which requires disclosure of the "deferred payment price," was violated. The sole question is whether the violation of that regulation subjects the creditor to civil liability.

[3] For the reasons stated by the district court, which relied onMourning v. Family Publications Services, Inc.,411 U.S. 356,93 S.Ct. 1652,36 L.Ed.2d 318(1973), the judgment of the district court is affirmed.Page 463