A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by a defendant in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, over a bank account that was opened a half-century ago, finding that key factual disputes about account ownership and reporting accuracy must be decided by a jury rather than resolved at the summary judgment stage.
The background: The case centers on a bank account originally opened in the 1970s by the plaintiff’s father and stepmother. The plaintiff was added as power of attorney to the account back in 2007. Decades later, following a bank acquisition and account restructuring, overdraft activity and a related line of credit were reported to the credit bureaus.
- After both original accountholders passed away, the defendant continued reporting the line of credit in a manner the plaintiff claimed wrongly attributed responsibility to him.
- Years later, while refinancing his home, the plaintiff discovered negative credit reporting tied to the account. He disputed the tradeline multiple times through the credit reporting agencies and later directly with the defendant, arguing that the account belonged to his deceased parents and that he never agreed to be responsible for the line of credit.
- The defendant maintained that its reporting was accurate and that its investigations into the disputes complied with the FCRA, prompting the motion for summary judgment.
The ruling: Judge Marilyn J. Horan of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding both the accuracy of the credit reporting and the reasonableness of the defendant’s investigation. Judge Horan emphasized that while the plaintiff signed a signature card related to the checking account, the record lacked clear documentation showing that he expressly agreed to assume responsibility for the associated line of credit.
- The ruling also noted that correspondence about the line of credit was addressed only to the plaintiff’s parents, which further supported the existence of factual disputes.
- However, Judge Horan did grant summary judgment on the issue of willfulness, finding insufficient evidence that the defendant acted knowingly or recklessly.
- The judge explained that although a jury could find the investigations unreasonable, the record did not support a conclusion that the conduct rose to the level of willful noncompliance under the FCRA.
