Notes of Decisions
Richardson v. Capital One, N.A., 839 F. Supp. 2d 197 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 7× “He then brought this pro se action alleging that the Bank had violated 15 U.S.C. § 1615 by using a method of calculating interest called the Rule of 78s and, in so doing, failed to refund Richardson excess interest he was properly owed when he refinanced.”
Vallies v. Sky Bank, 591 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2009).
“There is also no inconsistency between the detrimental reliance requirement and other TILA provisions that govern the refund of prohibited prepayment penalties, 15 U.S.C. § 1615 , provide a borrower a right to rescind certain credit transactions until all required material…”
In re McMurray, 218 B.R. 867 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1615 (a)(1). Paragraph (3) of that subsection makes clear that this obligation applies "with respect to any prepayment of a consumer credit transaction described in paragraph (1) without regard to the manner or the reason for prepayment, including — (A) any…”
Davis v. Pac. Capital Bank, NA, 550 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “HAWKINS, Circuit Judge: Must a creditor who imposes a flat finance charge that does not vary with the term of a Refund Anticipation Loan refund a portion of the charge as “unearned interest” under 15 U.S.C. § 1615 when the loan *916 is repaid earlier than anticipated in the loan…”
Richardson v. Capital One, N.A., 544 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the District Court properly dismissed Richardson’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1615 because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Linwood v. Anderson, No. 1:20-cv-01347 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 10, 2021).
· cites it 4× “In the affidavit attached to her complaint, in addition to restating the claims listed above, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have not provided her with the refund she is owed from the consumer credit transaction under 15 U.”
Thomas v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 1:23-cv-00206, 2024 WL 478068 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 12, 2024).
· cites it 4× “8, 2024) (where bank did not accept plaintiff’s attempt to pay off his credit card account balance by mailing a payment coupon on which he had written that payment of his entire balance should be made “on demand,” and plaintiff subsequently asserted claims against the bank that…”
Slocum v. Zen Realty, No. 5:23-cv-00550, 2024 WL 666329 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2024).
· cites it 3× “Plaintiff repeats these references in opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, along with the assertion that 15 U.S.C. § 1615 requires unearned interest “shall be charged back to the consumer.”
Arnold v. Santander Consum. USA, No. 3:24-cv-01125, 2025 WL 1358546 (D. Conn. May 9, 2025).
· cites it 3× “The Court must also dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1615 . Citing this provision of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), Plaintiff “demands the return of the unearned interest to the principal.”
Hernandez v. Capital One, No. 5:24-cv-01244 (W.D. Okla. May 27, 2025).
· cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 1615 (a)(1). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint lacks allegations that he prepaid in full the financed amount.”
Davis v. Pac. Capital Bank, No. 07-56236 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2008).
· cites it 2× “OPINION HAWKINS, Circuit Judge: Must a creditor who imposes a flat finance charge that does not vary with the term of a Refund Anticipation Loan refund a portion of the charge as “unearned interest” under 15 U.S.C. §1615 when the loan is repaid earlier than anticipated in the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.