772 F.Supp.3d 921
N.D. Ind.2025Background
- Plaintiff Claudette Jordan cosigned an automobile loan with her boyfriend’s son (Kinnaley) for the purchase of a vehicle, both becoming jointly liable.
- The vehicle was repossessed after default, resulting in a deficiency balance. The Bank enrolled Kinnaley in a Deficiency Balance Program (DBP), established a new account number, and reported both Jordan and Kinnaley as liable for the deficiency.
- Jordan asserted she did not authorize or know of the DBP arrangement, and later discovered the new account reporting while checking her credit report.
- Over a year, Jordan submitted multiple disputes to CRAs, challenging her liability and alleging identity theft. The Bank investigated each and maintained its reporting.
- Jordan filed suit, alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations: inaccurate reporting, failure to mark the account as disputed, unreasonable investigations, and unauthorized access to her credit report. Both sides moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reporting Jordan liable for account | Bank falsely reported her as liable on a “new” account, | Account 2001 was merely a continuation of the original loan; | Bank’s reporting was accurate; no FCRA violation |
| 2001 was inaccurate under FCRA | for which she never agreed after the DBP | Jordan remained liable due to original loan terms | |
| Failure to mark account as “disputed” | Bank violated FCRA by not noting dispute after consumer | Dispute was meritless as Jordan was in fact liable; | No violation; no bona fide dispute to report |
| notifications to CRAs | only bona fide disputes must be flagged | ||
| Reasonableness of Bank’s investigation | Bank’s investigations were superficial and ignored her | Bank thoroughly matched IDs, reviewed records, and found | Bank’s investigations were reasonable |
| claims and supporting evidence | Jordan liable after review; investigations were sufficient | ||
| Permissible purpose for credit report access | Bank unlawfully accessed her credit report in Nov. 2019 | Accessed to determine collection activity on outstanding | Access was for permissible purpose under FCRA |
| debt, permissible purpose under FCRA |
Key Cases Cited
- Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) (furnisher must not report information it knows or reasonably should know is inaccurate)
- Frazier v. Dovenmuehle Mortg., Inc., 72 F.4th 769 (7th Cir. 2023) (plaintiff must show inaccuracy and unreasonable investigation under § 1681s-2(b))
- Chiang v. Verizon New England Inc., 595 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must show actual, factual inaccuracy detectible by a reasonable investigation)
- Jackson v. Am. Loan Co., 202 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2000) (modification of loan terms does not generally constitute a refinancing)