James Delglyn v. Paulino Do Rego Barros, Jr.
2019AP000232
| Wis. Ct. App. | Jan 22, 2020Background
- In January–April 2018 James Delglyn (pro se) sent multiple Notices of Dispute to Equifax disputing several tradelines: Health Resources & Services, Pinnacle Credit Services, Department of Treasury, and a Charles Schwab inquiry.
- Equifax sent Automated Consumer Dispute Verification (ACDV) forms to the creditors and conducted reinvestigations after each dispute.
- Creditors (Health Resources & Services; Resurgent Capital Services/representing Pinnacle) verified the accounts as belonging to Delglyn; Charles Schwab reported it was not reporting to Equifax; Pinnacle was later no longer being reported and was removed.
- Equifax notified Delglyn of the reinvestigation results and provided creditor contact information; Delglyn continued to dispute the same accounts.
- Delglyn sued under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in small claims seeking substantial damages; the trial court granted Equifax summary judgment, finding Equifax used reasonable procedures and the reported information was verified as accurate.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding no genuine issue of material fact and that accurate reporting is a defense to a § 1681i claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Equifax failed to follow "reasonable procedures" under the FCRA in reinvestigating disputes | Delglyn asserted Equifax did not properly investigate disputed items | Equifax produced affidavit, ACDV forms, and letters showing it sent reinvestigation requests and relied on creditor responses | Court: Equifax followed reasonable procedures; summary judgment for Equifax |
| Whether the information on Delglyn's credit report was inaccurate | Delglyn claimed accounts were not his or unsupported by contract | Equifax showed creditors verified the accounts as Delglyn's; accurate reporting is a defense | Court: Delglyn failed to show inaccuracy; claim fails |
| Whether Equifax was required to produce contracts or source documents from creditors | Delglyn argued Equifax should have provided contract evidence | Equifax argued it need only investigate and report results; consumer should seek documents from creditors (contact info provided) | Court: Not required; Equifax not party to creditor contracts; consumer must pursue creditor for further proof |
| Whether pro se status relaxes procedural/substantive standards | Delglyn argued court applied attorney-level standards to his filings | Delglyn requested liberal construction as pro se | Court: Pro se filings are construed liberally but must comply with law; no relief where arguments lack legal support |
Key Cases Cited
- Childress v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 790 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2015) (explaining FCRA's reasonable-procedure requirement)
- Fahey v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (accurate reporting is a complete defense to a § 1681i claim)
- Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir. 1991) (accuracy defense to consumer reporting claims)
- Sarver v. Experian Info. Sols., 390 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show damages caused by inaccurate reporting)
- Crabill v. Trans Union, L.L.C., 259 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2001) (actual damages require causal relation between violation and harm)
- Kohn v. Darlington Cmty. Sch., 283 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2005) (summary judgment standard; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)