Chaitoff v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-credit reporting agency’s motion for summary judgment with respect to portion of plaintiff-debtor’s claim under Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), alleging that defendant’s credit report on plaintiff was inaccurate because it had indicated that plaintiff’s mortgage was delinquent for three months in 2017. Under terms of revised payment plan, lender indicated that plaintiff’s account would be reported as delinquent for said months, where plaintiff would be paying established, but reduced mortgage payments. Thus lender could properly report to defendant than plaintiff was delinquent during said time period. However, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s summary judgment motion in portion of FRCA claim, that alleged that defendant failed to include existence of revised payment plan in credit report, after plaintiff had brought existence of said plan to defendant’s attention, since: (1) said omission of revised repayment plan was material, and thus rendered credit report inaccurate; (2) existence of said plan was factual matter within defendant’s competency to identify and correct; and (3) plaintiff gave defendant enough information about said plan to alert defendant of its existence. Also, Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s summary judgment on portion of plaintiff’s FCRA claim alleging that defendant was unreasonable in its reinvestigation of status of plaintiff’s mortgage regarding disparities that lender was telling plaintiff and defendant about status of mortgage, i.e. lender telling plaintiff that he was current under revised payment plan and telling defendant that plaintiff was delinquent on mortgage. As such, defendant had cost effective way that could have confirmed existence of revised payment plan so as to include it in credit report. Too, plaintiff had viable claim under FCRA that defendant ignored his request to add statement to credit report that reflected his understanding of repayment plan.