Dietz v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
41 A.3d 882
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Chase foreclosed on the Dietzes' mortgage for alleged delinquency between May 29 and September 15, 2009.
- Chase reported the delinquency to major credit reporting agencies, allegedly harming the Dietzes' credit and increasing charges.
- The Dietzes were not delinquent; Chase later acknowledged timely payments and notified agencies of the error.
- July 19, 2010, the Dietzes sued for common law negligence and defamation; Chase answered and asserted FCRA preemption defenses.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Dietzes’ claims were preempted by 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F).
- On appeal, the Dietzes contend that 1681h(e) preemption applies and that not all claims are preempted; the court affirms adopting a statutory preemption approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempt common-law claims against furnishers? | Dietzes rely on Sites/Islam to limit preemption; argue not all common-law claims are barred. | Chase argues full/partial preemption under 1681t(b)(1)(F) precludes state tort claims. | Yes; statutory preemption applies and precludes Dietzes' common-law claims. |
| Does 1681h(e) carve out a common-law defect for malice-based claims and affect preemption analysis? | Dietzes rely on malice exception to preserve defamation/negligence claims. | Chase argues 1681h(e) either applies per Sites or is superseded by 1681t(b)(1)(F) when applicable. | 1681h(e) does not save the Dietzes' claims here; preemption applies under the statutory approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sites v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 646 F. Supp. 2d 699 (M.D. Pa. 2009) (1681h(e) false information exception; malice required to avoid preemption; furnisher liability distinct)
- Islam v. Option One Mortgage Corp., 432 F. Supp. 2d 181 (D. Mass. 2006) (treatment of 1681t(b)(1)(F) vs 1681h(e); reconciliation of preemption provisions)
- Manno v. American Gen. Fin. Co., 439 F. Supp. 2d 418 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (statutory preemption approach; favoring preemption of state statutory claims and harmonization)
- Shannon v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 764 F. Supp. 2d 714 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (willfulness/malice requirement; preemption of common-law torts unless under FCRA statutes)
- Jaramillo v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 356 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (early view on preemption; distinction between statutory and tort claims)