Wright v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19621
10th Cir.2015Background
- In May 2009 the IRS filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) that named “Attorneys Title Insurance Agency of [Aspen]” and listed Gary A. Wright’s name; the Pitkin County Recorder indexed the lien under Wright individually.
- Wright paid the underlying employment taxes by check dated May 8, 2009; the IRS released the lien in December 2010 but did not withdraw it.
- LexisNexis collected the Recorder’s public-record listing and supplied Experian and TransUnion, which reported the lien on Wright’s consumer credit files.
- Wright discovered the listing in 2011 and disputed it in 2012, asserting the lien applied only to the company (ATA) and had been paid; he supplied the NFTL, his correspondence, and the IRS release.
- The CRAs forwarded the dispute to their contractors (LexisNexis, Intelenet), which verified the public-record entry and updated Wright’s reports to show the lien as released/paid but did not remove the lien as a personal lien.
- Wright sued under the FCRA (§§1681e(b), 1681i) and Colorado statutory counterparts alleging unreasonable procedures in reporting and reinvestigating; the district court granted summary judgment for the CRAs and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRAs failed to follow reasonable procedures in originally reporting the tax lien (15 U.S.C. §1681e(b)) | Wright: CRAs should have used procedures (e.g., tax-law-trained reviewers) to determine the lien did not apply to him individually | CRAs: they reasonably relied on public Recorder data via certified vendor (LexisNexis); the NFTL was not facially inaccurate or inconsistent with their records | Held: CRAs used reasonable procedures; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the CRAs conducted a reasonable reinvestigation after Wright’s dispute (15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)) | Wright: reinvestigation was inadequate — CRAs should have examined NFTL closely, contacted IRS, or otherwise removed the personal-lien entry | CRAs: contractors reviewed the provided documents, concluded the NFTL named Wright and only verification source (IRS) was unavailable; CRAs updated status to released/paid and told Wright he could contact furnisher or add a statement | Held: reinvestigation was reasonable; CRAs fulfilled §1681i duties; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether CRAs were required to resolve the legal validity of the NFTL (i.e., determine whether lien legitimately applied to Wright personally) | Wright: CRAs should have adjudicated or verified the lien’s legal validity and removed it if not applicable | CRAs: FCRA does not require CRAs to resolve legal disputes about underlying debts; consumers should pursue furnishers (IRS) or courts | Held: CRAs have no duty to resolve legal validity; Wright must pursue IRS or litigation |
| Whether ambiguity in the NFTL triggered deletion under §1681i(a)(5) when reinvestigation could not verify the lien | Wright (in concurrence): if reinvestigation leaves the personal-lien status unverifiable, §1681i(a)(5) requires deletion | CRAs: argued no preservation/waiver and that verification was possible from public record and contractor checks | Held: Majority did not reach/decline to decide deletion under §1681i(a)(5); concurrence argued reversal was warranted and §1681i(a)(5) should apply if verification impossible |
Key Cases Cited
- Lundstrom v. Romero, 616 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688 (3d Cir. 2010) (CRA must investigate facial inconsistencies; reinvestigation requires more than cursory review)
- Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 1997) (discusses differences between initial accuracy obligations and reinvestigation duties)
- Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1994) (CRA not liable for reporting inaccurate court records absent prior notice of inaccuracy)
- Childress v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 790 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2015) (unreasonable to require CRAs to resolve ambiguous bankruptcy/record withdrawals via legal analysis)
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (CRAs not required to adjudicate legal validity of underlying debts in reinvestigation)
- DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2008) (reinvestigation need not resolve legal disputes about underlying obligations)
- Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1986) (if verification would be possible only through a biased source, CRA should delete unverified information)