FTC rule in California

2022The commission felt the creditor was in a better position to absorb the loss or recover the cost from the guilty party—the seller.’ ” ’ ” (Lafferty, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 411 .) As mentioned at the outset, the principal point at issue is whether the limitation on recovery to “amounts paid by the debtor hereunder” means a consumer cannot recover attorney fees from the creditor-assignee. ( 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 (2022).) In California, there were no published precedents on this issue for the 40 years after the rule was issued.

2022The commission felt the creditor was in a better position to absorb the loss or recover the cost from the guilty party—the seller.’ ” ’ ” (Lafferty, supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at p. 411 .) As mentioned at the outset, the principal point at issue is whether the limitation on recovery to “amounts paid by the debtor hereunder” means a consumer cannot recover attorney fees from the creditor-assignee. ( 16 C.F.R. § 433.2 (2022).) In California, there were no published precedents on this issue for the 40 years after the rule was issued.

2018(See Beard v. Goodrich (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1031 , 1039, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 160 .) For this reason, recovery under the Holder Notice may be quite limited even on a large purchase if the purchaser has made only a small payment toward the item purchased. " '[E]ven if the buyer rejects [goods] and proves substantial damages, the maximum exposure of the creditor under the FTC rule is the amount already paid by the debtor.

2018(See Beard v. Goodrich (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1031 , 1039, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 160 .) For this reason, recovery under the Holder Notice may be quite limited even on a large purchase if the purchaser has made only a small payment toward the item purchased. " '[E]ven if the buyer rejects [goods] and proves substantial damages, the maximum exposure of the creditor under the FTC rule is the amount already paid by the debtor.

2013Ass’n v. Guerra (Tex. 1987) 733 S.W.2d 134, 135 .)” (Music Acceptance Corp., supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 627-628.) In Music Acceptance Corp., we further noted the importance of following the plain meaning of the language required by the Holder Rule as follows: “[I]t is irrelevant whether the FTC rule applies.

2013Ass’n v. Guerra (Tex. 1987) 733 S.W.2d 134, 135 .)” (Music Acceptance Corp., supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at pp. 627-628.) In Music Acceptance Corp., we further noted the importance of following the plain meaning of the language required by the Holder Rule as follows: “[I]t is irrelevant whether the FTC rule applies.

2018If, for example, the debtor buys an $8,000 car, pays $200 down and suffers $20,000 of damages as a result of breach of warranty, he [or she] can recover only $200 from the creditor and must turn to the seller for the additional $19,800.' " ( Reagans v. MountainHigh Coachworks, Inc. (2008) 117 Ohio St.3d 22 , 881 N.E.2d 245 , quoting 2 White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code (4th Ed.1995) 189, Section 17-9.) Neither the amount of the motor home realized by Wells Fargo in its sale of the repossessed defective product nor the forgiveness of the deficiency by Wells Fargo *863 constitutes payment

2013Put simply, Lofing is in the same position whether we apply the FTC rule, the Unruh Act, or the language of his particular contract.” (Music Acceptance Corp., supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 630 .) Even though our prior resolution of the meaning of the language required by the Holder Rule did not constitute the rule of decision in Music Acceptance Corp., we continue to adhere to the plain meaning of the language required by the Holder Rule.

2013Put simply, Lofing is in the same position whether we apply the FTC rule, the Unruh Act, or the language of his particular contract.” (Music Acceptance Corp., supra, 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 630 .) Even though our prior resolution of the meaning of the language required by the Holder Rule did not constitute the rule of decision in Music Acceptance Corp., we continue to adhere to the plain meaning of the language required by the Holder Rule.

1995(General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Grady, supra, 501 N.E.2d at p. 72 .) The court agreed, noting the contract included the FTC rule notice. “[B]y both contract and statute, any claims or defenses which the debtor could assert against the seller are also valid defenses against the holder of the installment agreement.

1995After reviewing the rationale behind the FTC rule, the court concluded: “[I]t is clear that not only does the Notice clause entitle the buyer to withhold the balance of the purchase price owed to the creditor when the *629 seller’s contractual duties are not fulfilled, but it gives the buyer a complete defense should the creditor sue for payment.” ( 459 So.2d at p. 492 .) The court noted the trial court had so instructed the jury, but “its failure to follow that instruction constituted error which should have been corrected by the trial court on [plaintiff’s] timely motion alleging inconsisten

1986Thus, there was an absence of any necessity of assuring future compliance’ which made the six-month sentence ‘entirely punitive.’” (Id.., at p. 377 [16 L.Ed.2d at p. 632], italics added.) In contrast, in the companion case to Cheff, Shillitani v. United States (1966) 384 U.S. 364 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 622 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 ], the United States Supreme Court found a contempt arising from refusals to answer questions before a grand jury to be civil (and thus not requiring indictment and a jury trial).

1986Thus, there was an absence of any necessity of assuring future compliance’ which made the six-month sentence ‘entirely punitive.’” (Id.., at p. 377 [16 L.Ed.2d at p. 632], italics added.) In contrast, in the companion case to Cheff, Shillitani v. United States (1966) 384 U.S. 364 [ 16 L.Ed.2d 622 , 86 S.Ct. 1531 ], the United States Supreme Court found a contempt arising from refusals to answer questions before a grand jury to be civil (and thus not requiring indictment and a jury trial).