Frank Boggio v. USAA Federal Savings Bank
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20239
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Boggio appeals after district court granted USAA summary judgment on his FCRA §1681s-2(b) claim regarding USAA’s handling of a dispute over his status as a co-obligor on his ex-wife’s car loan.
- Car purchased May 29, 2007 by Sarah through USAA; Boggio alleges his signature was forged; loan later appeared on his credit report.
- Boggio notified CRAs and USAA of dispute in Oct 2009; USAA reported Boggio as co-obligor to CRAs.
- USAA’s investigation allegedly relied on cursory verification and failed to review underlying documents; a fraud affidavit or police report policy was involved but not determinative.
- District court granted summary judgment to USAA on reasonableness and ratification; this court reverses on reasonableness and remands; Texas law applies to ratification issues; community-property arguments discussed but not resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was USAA’s investigation reasonable under §1681s-2(b)(1)(A)? | Boggio contends the investigation was unreasonable. | Boggio argues USAA’s review was adequate given CRA notice. | Genuine dispute exists; summary judgment improper. |
| Did USAA willfully violate §1681s-2(b)(1) despite the finding of an unreasonable investigation? | Boggio argues willful conduct; reckless disregard possible. | USAA contends no willfulness shown. | Disputed facts; see remand on willfulness. |
| Does Boggio’s signing of the separation agreement constitute ratification under Texas law? | Texas law could show ratification; question for fact-finder. | No clear ratification; district court decision relied on law. | Genuine dispute of material fact; remanded for determination. |
| What law governs ratification analysis (choice of law) for the ratification issue? | Texas law should apply; outcome favorable to Boggio. | Texas law or Kentucky law could apply; district court should decide. | Texas law applies. |
| Should the district court resolve the community-property argument before further proceedings? | Community-property status could make Boggio liable; no disposition. | Argument raised too late or ancillary. | Not resolved on summary; remand for district court if pursued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (U.S. 2007) (willfulness includes reckless disregard of the law)
- Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (reasonableness of investigation depends on information provided by CRA)
- Chiang v. Verizon New Eng. Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (scope of investigation depends on CRA-disclosed information)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of investigation; omitted information can be actionable)
- Westra v. Credit Control of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 2005) (minimal review when CRA provides scant information)
- Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Va., 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008) (misleading or incomplete reporting can violate §1681s-2(b)(1)(D))
- Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 1998) (omissions can render information inaccurate under accuracy standards)
- Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (accuracy includes avoiding material omissions)
- Ng v. Texas First Nat'l Bank, 167 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (Texas ratification standards for knowledges and benefits)