15 U.S.C. § 1634
Effect of subsequent occurrence
If information disclosed in accordance with this part is subsequently rendered inaccurate as the result of any act, occurrence, or agreement subsequent to the delivery of the required disclosures, the inaccuracy resulting therefrom does not constitute a violation of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555 (1980).
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555 (1980). “See 15 U. S. C. § 1634 ; S. Rep. No. 392, 90th Cong.”
John A. Begala v. Pnc Bank, Ohio, Nat'l Ass'n, 163 F.3d 948 (6th Cir. 1999). “15 U.S.C. § 1634 (emphasis added). The regulations further clarify the narrow circumstances under which subsequent disclosures are required, as follows: (e) Effect of subsequent events.”
Fam v. Bank of Am. NA (USA), 236 F. Supp. 3d 397 (D.D.C. 2017). “The plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1634 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.”
Tripp v. Charlie Falk's Auto Wholesale Inc., 290 F. App'x 622 (4th Cir. 2008). “Moreover, even If the information disclosed under TILA is “subsequently rendered inaccurate as the result of any act, occurrence, or agreement subsequent to the 15 delivery of the required disclosures, the inaccuracy resulting therefrom does not constitute a violation.”
Agostine v. Sidcon Corp., 69 F.R.D. 437 (E.D. Pa. 1975). “See 15 U.S.C. § 1634 ; 12 C.F.R. § 226.6 (g).”
Alberta Taylor Tom Taylor v. Dom. Remodeling, Inc., Green Tree Fin. Corp., Mississippi, 97 F.3d 96 (5th Cir. 1996). “The trial court found that because Green Tree violated the disclosure requirements of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1634 , the Taylors had three years within which to exercise their right to rescind the transaction.”
Donald L. Bone v. Hibernia Bank & Michael Shields, 493 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1974). “15 U.S.C. § 1634 (1970). Otherwise, subsequent events such as late payment charges, Christmas deferrals or prepayment of the obligation, would each require a reeomputation of the annual percentage rate.”
Robert G. McCoy Linda E. McCoy & James A. McCoy v. The Franklin Sav. Ass'n & Mortg. Mgmt. Co., 636 F.2d 172 (7th Cir. 1980). “Thus 15 U.S.C. § 1634 provides: “If information disclosed in accordance with this part is subsequently rendered inaccurate as the result of any act, occurrence or agreement subsequent to the delivery of the required disclosures, the inaccuracy resulting therefrom does not…”
Sandra J. Douglas, for Herself & as Rep. of a Class v. Beneficial Fin. Co. Of Anchorage, 469 F.2d 453 (9th Cir. 1972). “15 U.S.C. § 1634 ; 12 C.F.R. § 226.6 (g).”
Sheppard v. GMAC Mortg. Corp. (In Re Sheppard), 299 B.R. 753 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003). “¶ 10-12, 16-18. Generally events subsequent to a consumer loan transaction do not affect the validity of the initial disclosures or require the creditor to make further disclosures.”
St. Germain v. Bank of Hawaii, 413 F. Supp. 587 (D. Haw. 1976). “Another provision of the Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1634 , not cited by either plaintiff or defendant, was also the subject of a subsection of Regulation Z.”
Patton v. Jeff Wyler Eastgate, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 907 (S.D. Ohio 2007). “It cited a provision of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1634 , which provides as follows: If information disclosed in accordance with this part is subsequently rendered inaccurate as the result of any act, occurrence, or agreement subsequent to the delivery of the required disclosures, 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.