Click to return to BOL home page
Banker Store eCard Exchange Vendor Connect Career Connect Learning Connect Bankers Information Network
 

Support for BOL is provided by:

MAIN CONTENT 
Compliance

    Agency Road Maps

    Alphabet Soup

    Compliance Tools

    FACTA/FCRA

    OFAC

Lending

    FACTA/FCRA

    Lending Tools

    SCRA

Marketing

Operations

    Check 21

    Operations Tools

    SAR Resrch Guide

Security

    AML/BSA

    Bank Robbery

    Counterfeits

    ID Fraud/Phishing

    Security Tools

Technology/eBanking

    Info Security


SPECIAL AREAS 
BOL Archives

BOL Blogs

Briefing Archive

Calendar

Court Watch
Em@il Education

Examiner's Corner

Executive Briefing

Infovault

Launch Pad

Site Map

Site Orientation

Top Stories


~ ~ ~
SERVICES 
CrimeDex

Em@il Education

ID Verification

Record Retention


~ ~ ~
SHOP 

Banker Store

Bankers Info Ntwk
Vendor Connect

CONNECT 

Career Connect

Learning Connect

Vendor Connect

Guru Central

INTERACT 

Ask a Guru
Bankers Threads

Contact Us

Give Us Feedback


TOOLS 

60 Second Solutions

Alphabet Soup

Banker Tools

BOL Forms

FUN 

BOL Recipes

eCard Exchange

LEARN MORE 

About Advertising
About Our Sponsors
About Us



Print Friendly! Email This Article! Discuss NOW!


Shopping Dealer Paper under the FCRA
By BOL Guru John S. Burnett


Two suburban Chicago automobile dealers did what they had routinely done for years when they "shopped" two potential deals with area lenders. As it happened, both of the potential loans were offered to First Midwest Bancorp, Inc., which did what it had routinely done for years -- requested credit reports. First Midwest declined to purchase the loans, apparently based on what they read in those reports. The two applicants later decided to try to turn on its head the routine practice of shopping indirect dealer paper by claiming First Midwest violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by requesting consumers' credit reports without the consumers' knowledge or explicit consent.

In George Stergiopoulos & Ivelisse Castro v. First Midwest Bancorp, Inc., decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on October 25, 2005, plaintiffs Stergiopoulos and Castro separately signed contracts with the two dealers. One signed a "purchase contract" and a financing application with GMAC; the other signed an installment contract naming a credit union as assignee and an application with Nissan's captive finance arm, NMAC. Neither credit application or contract mentioned that other third-party lenders might be "shopped" for these deals.

The plaintiffs alleged that when First Midwest requested their credit reports and subsequently declined to purchase the retail installment contracts, it not only violated the FCRA, but also weakened their credit ratings. First Midwest, of course, argued that the plaintiffs' credit ratings had not been harmed by the inquiries, and that the requests were, in fact, permitted by the FCRA.

In a clear and concise opinion, Circuit Judge Wood writes, "While it may be a better practice for car dealers explicitly to inform their customers that unknown third-party lenders might request the customers' credit reports, we are not convinced that a failure to do so violates the FCRA as it is now written."

The decision of the lower court in favor of First Midwest was affirmed.

First published on BankersOnline.com 10/26/05



Privacy Policy    Disclaimer   Recommend This Site !   Contact Us


BankersOnline is a free service made possible by the generous support of our advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers and sponsors are not responsible for site content. Please help us keep BankersOnline FREE to all banking professionals. Support our advertisers and sponsors by clicking through to learn more about their products and services.