*1 have at the valuation of arrived ordinary purposes for business property and Loretta Geter ANDERSON why a witness testi- we know no reason Anderson, Appellants, opinions to his should fying under oath as way.” in not arrive at valuation the same COMPANY, DISCOUNT SOUTHERN testimony “clearly to be admis- We held Appellee. sible.” No. 77-1587. case, in condemna In this as most cases, the award Appeals, of what tion amount Court United States (cid:127) to widely from witness should be varied Fourth Circuit. for landowner If the witness witness. 3, 1978. Argued April liberal, govern have too may seemed Sept. Decided equally as conserva ment’s witnesses were objections rele With respect tive. testimony expert

vancy, unless the of an subject as to the witness is irrelevant real hand, true the land at which is the loss of owner, merely it should be excluded not arrived conclu

because witness has at his compensation under a theory sion adopted by the other side for an perfectly permissible court. his an opinion witness at expert to arrive intelli award in a “that man of way at gence would have arrived a valuation ordinary pur property business side And the other poses.” the fact agree theory does may not with mean that the should not consider jury hand, govern In at evidence. the case general conformed ment’s witnesses have before and after rule which we mentioned, landowner’s witness while the valuing to the general conformed rule damage sepa to the part taken and residue adding figures his idea rately, up those award. think that as to evidence gone jury have both theories should jury its then should have made award.

Accordingly, judgment the district vacated, the case remanded court is new for a trial. REMANDED. VACATED AND *2 Stephens, Winston-Salem,

Herman L. N. Walker, C. (Stephens, Peed & Winston-Sa- lem, C., brief), N. appellants. for Pitt, Jr., Winston-Salem, Walter W. N. C. (Deal, Minor, & Winston-Salem, Hutchins C., brief), N. appellee. HAYNSWORTH, Before Chief Judge, LAY,* and WINTER and Circuit Judges. HAYNSWORTH, Judge: Chief is an action Mr. Mrs. Ander- son against Compa- Southern Discount ny they in which assert that the Truth-in- Lending Act was violated respects. in three Summary judgment was entered for the defendant and we affirm.

In the note provision there was a the Andersons pay would reasonable attorneys’ that, fees in the event after de fault, lawyer engaged was to institute legal proceedings for the collection of the fees, note. The potential attorneys’ the An dersons say, “charge” are a which is the price of credit to them and that disclo sure of the actual amount of Andersons’ fees, ceiling upon them, or of a should be made. Their upon reliance is 226.8(b)(4) of Regulation The Federal Reserve Board has had occa sion to interpret section of Z consistently and has it require read the attorneys’ disclosure of fees if automatically imposed in the event of default.1 * Lay, Judge 23, 1970, Donald P. United Circuit States 1. FRB Letters June March Circuit, Eighth sitting by designation. (No. 290), Guide, CCH Consumer Par. Credit 30,404, 30,528. listed specified must be of attor accessions” Here, imposition was no there incorporat- automatically ice-making default. machine upon items. An fees neys’ free to an accession Company refrigerator would be Discount ed Southern work extension delinquencies, security agreement out but waive and included agreements, agreement hardly seek payment be an player a new record or resort repossession of the collateral range kitchen or the din- “addition” to the *3 help repossession. Only to lawful self in its ing refrigera- table. Even if a second room legal proceed to resort to if Southern chose acquired, the tor were we cannot read note ings actually for collection of the and the phrase “additions and accessions” to purpose that would engaged lawyer a including refrigerator as the existing attorneys’ chargeable fees the reasonable meaning We think the obvious and second. to the Andersons.2 phrase of the only proper interpretation the accessions, articles is that it covers II. to physically and attached acquired later refrigera aby The note was secured one of the listed articles. machine, tor, range, a washing a kitchen a pieces television set and a number of of III. furniture, of which was list household each complain pro Finally, the Andersons agreement also ed and identified. The provision that there is that in “all in the note a security vided for a interest addi per three the chattels. accrues at the rate of tions and accessions” to listed interest unpaid principal a the bal per is to constitute violation of cent month on said of 1631(a) 1639(a) up and the Truth-in- ance to three hundred dollars and one of §§ 225.6(a) 226.8(b)(5) Lending per per and and cent month on Act and one-half §§ exceeding unpaid principal of balance three dollars. hundred

The Uniform Code limits a Commercial after-acquired security interest in consumer Corporation, v. In Mason General Finance to ten goods acquired days those within (4th 1976), we did a 542 F.2d 1226 Cir. find gave after the lender value. U.C.C. 9- the information violation of statute when 204(4)(b).3 The Andersons contend a “contract rate” and about so-called accessions” covers phrase “all additions and rate” disclosure re- percentage “annual goods after-acquired all household generally law included in the quired by federal Truth-in-Lending Act was vio and that the separation statement without disclosure ten-day of the limit.4 lated nondisclosure required by the federal of the disclosures co-mingled dis- thought such statute. “additions and” tends Use of the words confusing, but we do not have such closure ambiguity, creation of toward the Here, here. the disclosure state- case recognized, but read judge clearly ment, agreement about the collateral instrument and of a in the context promissory note are all on same in items of house- specified secured interest state- furniture, long piece paper, but disclosure broadly we it as hold cannot read separated clearly distinctly ment and is including after-acquired all furniture and note. The disclosure promissory The from the furnishings. household “additions impo- 25- 3. Enacted in North Carolina as N.C.G.S. If the had 2. note called for automatic fees, they 9-204(4)(b). sition so that delinquency charge within the amount to a suggest meaning we See, Corpora- do g. Finance e. Pollock v. General be fixed in 1971); that the amount of such fees should tion, (5th Tinsman Cir. 535 F.2d point The Company, advance in a dollar sum. 531 F.2d Finance Moline Beneficial us, probably would be detrimental before but it 1971). (7th Cir. legal potential if interest borrowers be fixed in an amount fees were necessary legal advance when extent service is unknown. WINTER, Judge, concurring in all of the Circuit statement contains part: dissenting by the required to be disclosed Truth-in- Act, Lending providing borrowers with majority with the Although agree opin- I they all need for “com of the information attorneys’ fees regard ion with and also parison shopping.”5 contains no other after-acquired property, with regard to from different information derived methods Regula- think that violation of there was might computation make the Z in in the tion the statement information in the disclosure con monthly note about the interest rate and is that the fusing. complaint The terms of that we on this issue. should reverse same as the the note are not the terms of analysis of this majority opinion’s The However, we disclosure statement. issue rests on the conclusion “the dis- necessity. out of find that differ distinctly closure statement charge and the per- The finance annual separated promissory note” and from the *4 centage in the federal rate disclosed disclo- that terms clearly “the note and its are and computed sure upon statement are the as- from distinctly separated the disclosure sumption that all of payments principal and statement and the it information contains.” dates, on interest will be made the due of characterization the loan document That, course, neither sooner nor later. of is in question, respectfully suggest, is not not the real world. Borrowers are statement, some- accurate. The disclosure the tardy times sometimes anticipatory. promissory and note the security agreement and provides here Accordingly, single paper. the note all on a of the sheet There is heading no computation to the disclosure as of interest actual date the statement headings promisso- of such. payment. Additionally, each the There are for the borrow- ry security agreement, note and the but the right ers given prepayment were the heading for the promissory note is in the principal penalty. without as style headings same size and the of the was Necessarily, the note east in terms of and, moreover, security agreement there is it pro- rates of interest. Had contained no on the the page back document another interest, vision for it would have been in- subheading provisions” “general in the complete. incorporated it the hypo- Had heading same size the style “promis- and upon computation thetical which the infor- sory note.” mation in the disclosure statement is de- document, Admittedly, design rived, it have probably would been in viola- though pellucid, might be overlooked if and, least, tion of at state law unfair to the that only shortcoming. were its But that is prepays obligations. borrower who his not the ease. The promissory so-called note course, Of the note and its terms are confusing, placement and its makes the distinctly separated from the design document’s flaws serious defect. disclosure information it Chief among problems with the note is Z, 226.6(b)(c); See contains. Regulation phrased that it is not such that it would be 226.6(b) (c). C.F.R. valid, legally obligation enforceable undated, standing It is it alone. does not and, identify parties, more importantly, IV. it principal does not state the amount of the court prop- conclude that note. For all of information it makes this erly found no violation of Truth-in- reference to the statement which disclosure Lending Act. precedes facing page it of the single on the AFFIRMED. document, viz.: Mourning Family Service, 356, 364, Publications U.S. 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 318 (1973). conspicuous heading in- a clear and by . . . un- For received value pay dicating that the statements made dersigned promises Borrower with the Lender at are inconsistent named thereafter above order Financed, of the Federal shown, requirements Amount disclosure the address above, Lending Act. Principal Amount of Note stated Truth date of from the with interest thereon information majority recognizes, the As the (3%) percent per Loan the rate of three at concerning rates contained in interest princi- unpaid month to be stated note section had promissory not in excess pal $300.00 balance contract under there to be a valid order for (1V2%) per percent one-half one and so, being because inter- state law. That unpaid such any month remainder of terminology used in the est rate permitted by and in principal balance as percentage the annual note differs from Con- with the North Carolina accordance by terminology rate mandated sumer Finance Act. 226.6(c) two sections requires § Furthermore, immediately the paragraphs segregated. plainly That conspicuously be of interest rates following the statement Also, the loan docu- not done here. prepayment, South- discuss the effect of 226.6(c) portion of runs afoul of that ment right upon ern’s of acceleration default and provides: obligation the borrower’s option, or ad- lessor’s At the creditor’s required this fees. All of information explanations may ditional under be disclosed be supplied with disclosure Thus, stated, disclosure and note are the part, this but none shall *5 utilized, sections of the loan document to mislead or placed or so as depends in- segregated, note section or or contra- the customer lessee confuse and it- in the disclosure section obscure, formation dict, or detract attention from federal disclosure terms. The self contains this required by part the loan doc- legal question is thus whether be disclosed. ument, written, I Regulation violates cross-referencing the disclo- By impliedly think that it does. note, I think the sure statement and Z, 226.6(c), pro- might C.F.R. loan in this case reason- document vides that when state law disclo- requires ably appreciating from prevent borrower different from those decreed per- sures terms relationship between the annual by Regulation the creditor must: rate, requires federal law centage which disclosed, monthly interest rates of (1) Make such inconsistent disclosures 1V2%set forth in paper apart on a from the disclo- 3% and separate of confusion part, precisely that sort pursuant sures made this note. Regulation Z seeks to eliminate. (2) disclosures Make such inconsistent on which disclo- the same Corporation, Finance In Mason General made; part this are required by sures (4 1976), held “that to 1226 Cir. we 542 F.2d provided: lingo equal billing on lending accord state by this accord with (i) lending All disclosures contract does not above part appear separately and and violates congressional purpose disclosures, other Act Z.” 542 F.2d at the instant document this think loan (ii) required by Disclosures and, therefore, that Ma- just case conspicu- clear does are identified requires reversal. heading indicating ous son law, compliance with Federal made in ap-

(iii) All inconsistent disclosures conspicu- pear and below a separately line, identified ous demarcation and are