The Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff had failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the TILA because her proposed reading of the notice disclosing the number and due dates of payments due under that transaction is not objectively reasonable. Further, because the disclosure to the Plaintiff of her right to cancel the 2007 credit transaction contained all of the information required by the TILA, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1635(a)-(b), and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)-(b), (d), the disclosure complied with the TILA.
The grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff she did not suggest that she was confused as to whether she could cancel the 2007 credit transaction without cost, nor did she put forth any evidence explaining how or suggesting that an average borrower faced with both the notice of right to cancel and the fee notice would be confused as to whether she could cancel the 2007 credit transaction without cost.
For a copy of the opinion, please see: