Lichtman v. Trans Union, LLC

Background

Reina Lichtman opened a Chase credit-card account in 2008. In 2010, she entered Chase’s Balance Liquidation Program, which required monthly payments for 60 months. She missed seven payments and was removed from that program in September 2012.

Lichtman entered a second payment program with Chase in October 2012. That program reduced her monthly payment, charged no annual interest, and included a provisional credit of $921.35 that would become permanent if she completed the program. The agreement said Chase could remove her from the program after specified missed payments, reapply the provisional credit, and charge interest under the cardmember agreement. It did not say that Chase could not report earlier missed payments.

Lichtman made three payments under the second program but had not made up the earlier shortfalls. Chase continued reporting the account as past due. Lichtman later missed additional payments in 2013, made up those four payments in August 2014, and completed the program in May 2015. After she disputed the credit-report information in 2018, Chase marked the account as disputed, investigated, determined that its reporting was accurate, notified her of the result, and removed the disputed notation that same day.

Lichtman originally sued Chase, Trans Union, and Equifax under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Her claims against Trans Union and Equifax were dismissed by joint stipulation. The opinion addressed Chase’s motion for summary judgment.

Claims and arguments

Lichtman claimed that Chase willfully or negligently violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by continuing to report inaccurate late-payment information and by failing to mark, or continue marking, her account as disputed. In opposing summary judgment, she also argued that Chase should have reported that the account was in a repayment program. The court declined to consider that theory because she had not raised it in her complaint or dispute letter.

Chase argued that the late-payment information was accurate and that Lichtman could not bring a private claim based on the alleged failure to mark the account as disputed. The court explained that the Act requires furnishers—entities that provide information to credit-reporting agencies—to investigate disputes received from those agencies and correct information that is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable. The court also explained that the Act does not allow a private lawsuit to enforce certain duties concerning the initial accuracy of information or the initial dispute notation.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that the late-payment entries were accurate. Lichtman had missed payments before entering the second payment program, and nothing in the card agreement, account statements, or either payment-program letter prohibited Chase from reporting those earlier missed payments. The second program changed payment terms but did not eliminate Lichtman’s prior payment failures or require Chase to treat the account as current after her first payment under that program.

The court also held that Lichtman could not prevail on her dispute-marking claims. The undisputed evidence showed that Chase did mark the account as disputed after receiving notice and conducted an investigation. To the extent Lichtman argued that Chase had to continue reporting the account as disputed after the investigation, the court concluded that she had not shown a genuine dispute that the reported information was inaccurate. The court therefore found no basis for liability from Chase’s removal of the disputed notation.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted Chase’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Chase Bank USA, N.A., terminate the motion, and close the case.