Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Avenue & Co. (2002)

Tenn. 2013) (quoting Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Avenue & Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 765, 772 (E.D.

The court in Burnstein v. Sales Fifth Avenue & Company, 208 F.Supp.2d 765, 774 (E.D.Mich.2002), stated that "a request for clarification may itself constitute a 'billing error' that triggers the procedural framework for resolving billing disputes.” This Court agrees with this conclusion only if the request is for the purpose of clarifying a "reflection ... of an extension of credit” on a billing statement. 15 U.S.C. § 1666 (b)(2). 19 .

The statute “establishes only the procedural framework for dispute resolution, and does not concern itself with the substantive outcome of this process.” Conti, 2024 WL 4986701 , at *6 (quoting Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Ave. & Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 765, 775 (E.D.

Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Ave. & Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 765, 775 (E.D.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1666 (b)(4), a “billing error” includes “[t]he creditor’s failure to reflect properly on a statement a payment made by the obligor, or a credit issued to the obligor.” Regulation Z provides “that the requisite written notice from the consumer must, to the extent possible, indicate the consumers belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error.” Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Ave. & Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d …

Significantly, the FCBA “establishes only the procedural framework for dispute resolution[] and does not concern itself with the substantive outcome of this process.” Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Ave. & Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 765, 775 (E.D.

Ohio Feb. 12, 2009) (“A violation of § 1666(a) occurs 31 days after a creditor receives a notice of a claimed billing error and fails to respond properly to that notice or 11 91 days after notice if the creditor fails to resolve the billing dispute.”) (citing Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Ave. & Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 765, 776 (E.D.

The FCBA and its implementing regulations (Regulation Z), 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.1 et seq., “set forth the procedures to be followed when a creditor receives notice from a consumer of an alleged billing error in the consumer’s credit card account.” Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Avenue & Co., 208 F.Supp.2d 765, 772 (E.D.Mich.2002), aff'd 85 Fed.Appx. 430 (6th Cir.2003).

Plaintiff argues that the Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666 et seq. (“FCBA”), 5 and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226.1 et seq., “contemplate that a consumer may not possess all of the information necessary to precisely identify the extent of a claimed billing error,” and that a “request for clarification may itself constitute a billing error that triggers the procedural framework for resolving billing disputes.” [Doc. 48 at 7 (citing Burnstein…

Further, the TILA implementing regulation (“Regulation Z”), 12 C.F.R. § 226.13 (b), defines a consumer’s written notice of billing error as one that “To the extent possible, indicates the consumer’s belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error.” Both the statute and regulation contemplate that a consumer may not possess all of the information necessary to precisely identify the extent of a claimed billing erro…

See Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Ave. & Co., 208 F.Supp.2d 765 (E.D.Mich.2002).

See Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Ave. & Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 765, 775 (E.D.

A creditor has ninety days from the date of notice to investigate the claim and take 6 appropriate action, which would require action by March 12, 2019. 15 U.S.C. § 1666 (a)(B); see 7 Burnstein v. Saks Fifth Ave. & Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 765, 776 (E.D.

See generally, Burnstein v. Saks, 208 F.Supp.2d 765 (E.D.Mich.2002) (discussing the possibility of damages under TILA for severe emotional distress); see also, Casella v. Equifax Credit Information Servs., 56 F.3d 469 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that suffering and stress could be proper issues for actual damages prompted by violations of the analogous Fair Credit Reporting Act, although in that case plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proving causation).