Dillard v. Thomasville Auto Sales, LLC, 221 F. Supp. 3d 677

On May 8, 2015, Betty Jo Dillard bought and financed a 1999 Oldsmobile from Thomasville Auto Sales and received a TILA disclosure form showing APR 29%, amount financed $3,416.47, finance charge $918.56, and a payment schedule grid.
Dillard’s copy printed slightly misaligned: numbers and dates sat on the rule lines between the “Weekly Beginning” and “Monthly Beginning” rows, creating an ambiguity she says could be read to require 19 weekly payments followed by a monthly payment.
Dillard sued under TILA, alleging the disclosure failed to adequately disclose payment due dates.
Thomasville moved for judgment on the pleadings and for Rule 11 sanctions, arguing the disclosure was clear and the claim frivolous (and asserting a pre-suit $7,500 settlement demand by plaintiff’s counsel).
The district court considered the attached TILA form as integral to the complaint, applied the reasonable-consumer objective standard, and found Dillard’s interpretation implausible because it produced an absurd APR and contradicted other disclosed figures.
Court granted judgment on the pleadings for Thomasville (dismissed with prejudice) and denied sanctions under Rule 11, finding counsel had at least a weak factual and legal basis for filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TILA disclosure adequately disclosed number, amount, and due dates of payments	The misalignment makes the schedule plausibly read as 19 weekly payments beginning a month after closing, then a final monthly payment	The only plausible reading is monthly payments (first 19 monthly, 20th monthly) consistent with APR and totals; form is clear	Judgment on the pleadings for defendant — disclosure complied with TILA
Whether case warrants Rule 11 sanctions	N/A (Dillard denies improper purpose)	Claim frivolous and brought to extort settlement; reliance on Larrabee and bona fide error defense	Sanctions denied — counsel conducted a reasonable prefiling inquiry and claim was not frivolous

Mars v. Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 713 F.2d 65 (4th Cir. 1983) (endorsing strict compliance with TILA disclosures)
American Mortg. Network, Inc. v. Shelton, 486 F.3d 815 (4th Cir. 2007) (TILA should be reasonably construed and equitably applied)
Watkins v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 663 F.3d 232 (4th Cir. 2011) (reiterating reasonable-construction approach to TILA)
Larrabee v. Bank of Am., N.A., 714 F. Supp. 2d 562 (E.D. Va. 2010) (dismissing similar TILA claim where alternate reading produced absurd APR)
Handy v. Anchor Mortg. Corp., 464 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2006) (if a reasonable consumer could interpret a disclosure in more than one way, lender has not complied with TILA)
Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 468 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2006) (unpublished opinions are not precedential)