Ford Motor Credit Co. et al. v. Milhollin et al.
444 U.S. 555 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts must give a high degree of deference to the Federal Reserve Board staff's interpretation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. TILA does not require that an acceleration clause be disclosed on the face of a credit agreement unless the creditor's rebate policy for acceleration differs from its policy for voluntary prepayment.
Facts:
- Several individuals (respondents) purchased automobiles from various dealers.
- They financed their purchases using standard retail installment contracts that were subsequently assigned to Ford Motor Credit Co. (FMCC).
- The front page of each contract disclosed that if the buyer prepaid the loan, they would receive a rebate of the unearned portion of the finance charge.
- The front page did not mention a clause located elsewhere in the contract which gave FMCC the right to accelerate the entire remaining debt and demand immediate full payment if the buyer defaulted on an installment.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents filed four separate lawsuits against Ford Motor Credit Co. (FMCC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging violations of TILA.
- In two of the suits, the District Court held that TILA required facial disclosure of the acceleration clauses and ruled for the respondents.
- All four cases were consolidated on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's finding that a TILA violation occurred, but on the narrower ground that creditors must disclose whether a rebate of unearned interest will be made upon acceleration.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) require that the existence of a creditor's right to accelerate payment always be disclosed on the face of a credit agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. The Truth in Lending Act does not mandate a general rule requiring the disclosure of acceleration clauses on the face of credit agreements. The Court reasoned that neither the statute's reference to 'default, delinquency, or similar charges' nor the regulation's prepayment rebate disclosure provision expressly requires disclosure of an acceleration clause. The term 'charge' refers to a specific monetary sum, which acceleration is not. Furthermore, the prepayment rebate disclosure is only implicated if the creditor's rebate policy upon acceleration differs from its policy on voluntary prepayment. Given this ambiguity, the Court found it necessary to defer to the interpretation of the Federal Reserve Board and its staff, who are charged with administering the complex TILA scheme. The Court held that unless the agency's interpretation is demonstrably irrational, it should be considered dispositive, as Congress intended to promote uniform administrative resolution of such technical issues over piecemeal litigation.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion to defer to the Federal Reserve Board's interpretation, this opinion expresses concern that the Board's focus on a creditor's 'policy' rather than its contractual 'rights' might not be the soundest application of the statute. Consumers likely believe the disclosures describe their legal obligations, not merely a creditor's current practice which could change. A better rule might be to require disclosure when the creditor's contractual right to retain charges upon acceleration differs from its rights upon prepayment. However, since the Board's current interpretation is reasonable, deference is appropriate, as an agency's construction does not need to be the only reasonable one for a court to uphold it.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens the principle of judicial deference to administrative agencies, particularly in complex regulatory fields like consumer credit. By holding that Federal Reserve Board staff interpretations of TILA are dispositive unless 'demonstrably irrational,' the Supreme Court limited the judiciary's role in filling statutory gaps and prioritized uniform, expert-driven regulation over varied judicial interpretations. This decision provides creditors with a more reliable safe harbor when following agency guidance and reinforces the power of agencies to authoritatively interpret the statutes they administer. It also shapes the meaning of 'meaningful disclosure' under TILA, suggesting it is a balance between completeness and avoiding 'informational overload,' a balance best struck by the expert agency.
Unlock the full brief for Ford Motor Credit Co. et al. v. Milhollin et al.