Garrett v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73801 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2012) (Zatkoff, J.)
Facts: Plaintiff sold real property in 2005, executing a quit claim deed as part of the sale. Plaintiff later received several letters from the Municipal Services Bureau ("MSB") of the City of Detroit demanding payment for several unpaid tickets issued by the City in 2007 and 2009. Plaintiff learned in 2011 that two adverse tradelines related to the tickets were on his credit reports. Plaintiff sent Experian a dispute explaining that he had not owned the property since 2005. Plaintiff included a copy of the quit claim deed from 2005 and correspondence from the MSB to Plaintiff reflecting the dates of issuance of the tickets in 2007 and 2009. None of the correspondence identified a property address related to the tickets. Experian sent Plaintiff correspondence in response to Plaintiff's dispute indicating that it could not delete the MSB tradelines based on the documents submitted with his dispute, and that it would verify the information with the MSB. Experian sent ACDVs to the MSB. The MSB verified one of the tradelines and directed Experian to delete the other. Experian deleted the second tradeline at the direction of the MSB about a month later. The Court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the sole remaining issue of whether Experian willfully violated the FCRA.
* Reasonable Reinvestigation/Willfulness: Plaintiff argued that Experian should have accepted the quit claim deed he provided as proof that he did not own the property that was ticketed in 2007 and 2009. The Court rejected this argument because none of the documents from the MSB that Plaintiff submitted to Experian included a property address to which any particular ticket pertained. Thus, even if Experian had accepted the quit claim deed as evidence that Plaintiff did not own the property in 2007 or 2009, the quit claim deed did not constitute evidence that the MSB tickets pertained to the property Plaintiff sold in 2005. Plaintiff also argued that Experian could have conducted an online search and/or title search on the real property to discover the MSB tradelines should not have been on his consumer report. The Court rejected this argument as well, stating that an online search confirming Plaintiff did not own the property he sold in 2005 would not show whether the MSB tradeline should be on his consumer report. The Court also determined that none of the documents submitted by Plaintiff in response to Experian's motion for summary judgment showed that the MSB tradeline corresponded to the property Plaintiff sold in 2005 or did not correspond to Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff argued that Experian had no intention of conducting any reinvestigation because its representative stated that the only documents it would accept as proof the tradelines were erroneous were a letter from the furnisher and a court order. The Court found this argument misguided and factually erroneous. The Court noted that many courts have held the practice of using ACDVs in the reinvestigation process reasonable as a matter of law. Further, that a CRA's duty to go beyond the original source of the information is usually only triggered when there is evidence a consumer has alerted the CRA that the original source is unreliable, or the CRA knows or should have known the original source is unreliable. The Court found that Experian's reviewing the information in and attached to Plaintiff's dispute, and inclusion of certain information from Plaintiff's dispute in the ACDVs it sent to MSB, constituted conducting a reasonable reinvestigation. The Court determined that Experian could not have committed a willful violation of its duty to reinvestigate because its practice of sending ACDVs to the original source is reasonable.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
