1. The purpose of the regulations (12 CFR § 226.1 (a) (2) et seq.) is, as there stated "to assure that every customer who has need for consumer credit is given
(a) It is contended that the promissory note is void because the 19 prominently boxed statements preceding the language of the note and which give the "terminology required by this part” happen not to have the words "ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE” headlined in letters as large as those used for the headlined "FINANCE CHARGE”, although equally as large or larger than the other headlined boxes. In the box under this headline the statement "12%” is written in large legible writing completely filling the box. There has certainly been a good faith effort to fit all the information required into prominently headlined boxes and it is difficult to see, given obvious physical space requirements, how the format used could have been improved upon. We find no violation in this category.
(b) 12 CFR § 226.8(b) (3) requires thatas aterm of an installment payment promissory note the number, amount, and due dates or periods of payments scheduled to repay the indebtedness be disclosed. Included in the headlined information at the top of this note are statements that the indebtedness is to be repaid in 36 monthly payments of $66.71 beginning July 17,1977, and on the same day of each month thereafter until paid. This adequately meets disclosure requirements. The fact that the maker of the note requested automatic repayment through a payroll deduction plan in the amount of $33.36 to be repaid each payday (paydays being every 14 days) represents a convenience to the debtor, not an ambiguity in the requirements of note payment. A deposition relating to this method of payment concludes that the interest rate under this payroll deduction plan would be slightly less than that shown on disclosure statement.
2. It is further contended that the appellee, a federal credit union, demanded attorney fees in excess of those allowed by Code § 20-506 and in so doing committed usury in that the excess amount should be added to other amounts charged as interest and, if this is done, the resulting figure would slightly exceed the 12% per year stated annual interest rate allowable under 12 USCA § 1757 (5) (A) (vi), so that the resulting usurious interest would require the voiding of the entire interest on the note.
This contention is based on a complicated process of reasoning which ignores certain facts. It is undisputed that there is no provision for the automatic assessment of attorney fees in the promissory note in question, from which it follows that the seeking of such fees under Code § 20-506 is not a "charge” under the Truth in Lending Act. Anderson v. Sou. Discount Co., 582 F2d 883 (1). "The taint of usury does not result from payment, but from agreement, performed or unperformed.” Martin v. Johnson,
The grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff was not error.
Judgment affirmed.