The debtor, Steven Gordon, filed this adversary proceeding against Hendricks-Patton Company, Inc. ("Hendricks-Patton") alleging a violation associated with the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. В§ 1638. Gordon asserts a claim against Hendricks-Patton beneath the TILA based on the creditor's failure to disclose the percentage that is annual on a retail product product sales agreement the parties performed as soon as the debtor purchased furniture from Hendricks-Patton in October of 2006.
At the hearing, Hendricks-Patton failed to reject that the agreement did not range from the apr.
On 23, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the parties' respective cross-motions for summary judgment january. Instead, Hendricks-Patton argued that the failure to disclose wasn't deliberate and lead from a bona fide mistake despite procedures which were in position built to avoid errors that are such. Gordon argued that the bona fide error defense will not use.
The Court needed the events to submit briefs regarding the bona fide error defense and offered Hendricks-Patton until mid-February to register its brief and Gordon before the end of February to react. After requesting a one continuance for filing its brief, Hendricks-Patton submitted same on February 22, 2008 week. Gordon missed their due date for filing an answer brief, but afterwards requested more hours to achieve this. The Court entered a supplemental order requiring Hendricks-Patton to file an amended affidavit to explain in detail the procedures, if any, in place designed to prevent errors such as the one that occurred in this case after receiving Gordon's brief. Continue reading MEMORANDUM OPINION.The Eleventh Circuit explained and reversed the following