Collections: Liability for Charges above the Credit Limit - Part 1

     A client recently asked me to write about situations where a customer makes retail purchases for products in an amount greater than the customer’s established credit limit – specifically, if the customer later fails to pay for the product, can he be successfully sued for payment. 

     I will review this situation with four varying fact patterns in two separate issues. 

     Fact Pattern One: When the retail account was originally opened, the credit limit (stated in a letter to the customer) was set at $4,000. The credit terms in the credit application state the applicant agrees "to pay any and all sums that may become payable under this account". During the next several years the credit limit was increased to $6,000. Normally no notification is sent of the increase, but in this case a letter was sent to the customer notifying the customer of the credit limit increase. Customer makes charges up to $6,000, but fails to make full payment. Retailer sues customer for the amount owed, let us say that it is $6,000. Customer raises the defense that charges above the credit limit should not have been allowed. Customer’s attorney does not have a copy of the letter increasing the credit limit, but produces the original letter opening the account with a $4,000 credit limit. Customer’s attorney argues that the retailer was the one who set the credit limit at $4,000, and by not exercising due diligence of his business, allowed the credit limit to be exceeded. Customer’s attorney argues that his client's liability should not exceed $4,000, while the retailer argues that the liability should be $6,000. In what amount should the retailer be able to judgment against the customer?

     In an actual case in Seattle, Washington, the trial judge was ready to grant the request for a reduction in liability to $4,000. However, since the retailer had his customer file folder with him and found the letter increasing the credit limit to $6,000, the judge granted the retailer judgment in the amount of $6,000.

     Fact Pattern Two: When the retail account was originally opened, the credit limit (stated in a letter to the customer) was set at $4,000. The credit terms in the credit application state the applicant agrees "to pay any and all sums that may become payable under this account". Despite the credit limit, customer is allowed to makes charges over the $4,000 limit. Later customer fails to make full payment. Retailer sues customer for the amount owed, let us say that it is $6,000. Customer raises the defense that charges above the credit limit should not have been allowed. In what amount should the retailer be able to judgment against the customer?

     In Ingram Micro Inc. v. ABC Management Technology Solutions, LLC the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that a creditor was entitled to recover payment of an unpaid debt because the debt was within the scope of the continuing guaranty agreement. The agreement clearly included a guaranty of all debts. Further, the court reiterated a contractual principal that when an agreement is complete, clear, and unambiguous on its face, it must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms and the intent of the contracting parties. In this fact pattern, the original agreement stated that the applicant agrees “to pay any and all sums that may become payable under this account”. This agreement was intended to cover credit up to $4,000. However, the agreement is also likely to cover any and all other debts over the original credit limit if it can be shown that the intent of the contracting parties as expressed through the contractual language was to include any debts incurred after the credit application was accepted. 

     In another blog, I will address the next two fact patterns.

Foreclosure: Trustees in Foreclosure

     Trustee under a deed of trust are agents for both the lender and the borrowers. Accordingly, a trustee must act fairly and impartially. The lender must not let either the lender or the borrower influence the manner in which a trustee carries out the terms of the deed of trust, especially if this would be detrimental to either party. If any question arises as to the existence of the default or the amount in default, a trustee should seek the aid and direction of the court. The powers and duties of a trustee are governed by the deed of trust and Virginia Code Section 55-59.1 et seq. The code provides when the deed of trust does not. A trustee has no right to exercise the power of sale or to obtain possession until such time as the borrower defaults under the note or deed of trust, and, then, only for the purpose of selling the property at foreclosure or preserving the property until sale. When a default occurs, there is no change in title – the property merely becomes eligible to be sold under the powers originally conferred to the trustee by the owner. Thus, the noteholder has the right to have the property sold and the proceeds of the sale applied to the debt.

Real Estate: Homeowner Associations - Damages Caused by Common Area Tree

     Townes at Grand Oaks Townhouse Association, Inc. v. Baxter is a case from Richmond Circuit Court that illustrates the importance of carefully drafted HOA agreements. The HOA sought to recover expenses for removing a tree that fell from common area onto a homeowner’s condo. The Richmond Circuit Court held that the HOA agreement did not exempt the HOA from paying removal costs because a portion of the tree remained on the common area. The court noted that there was no Virginia authority for these facts, but stated that the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that in cases of fallen trees between adjoining properties in the absence of negligence, there is no liability for property damages on the landowner from where the tree fell. However, the HOA agreement is a contract that created the obligation for the HOA. The agreement had a provision requiring the HOA to maintain and replace trees, and another provision exempting the HOA from liability to an owner for repairing or replacing any portion of the lot or the improvements provided the homeowner has insurance as required by the agreement. The HOA relied on the first provision, but the court determined that that reliance was misplaced as it did not cover this situation. The HOA relied on the second provision because the homeowner did not have the required insurance for “the structure of each lot”, but only insurance for the inside of the home. However, the court heard evidence from the homeowner that he understood the language to only require internal insurance. The court noted three primary reasons for holding for the homeowner: 

     (1) “Removal of the tree from the lot is not a repair or replacement, but merely something necessary before the physical work of restoration of the damaged structure can begin.” 

     (2) “The exemption from liability applies when the homeowner has "fire and extended coverage insurance" with applicable coverage. Considering the varying types of insurance that the market may provide, there is no evidence that the insurance required under the contract terminology must cover trees removal. Whether such a policy would is left to speculation.” 

    (3) “The tree removal would necessarily involve removal of a portion of the tree from the common area as well as from Defendant's lot and home. I question whether, in any event, the total removal cost should be assigned to the defendant rather than some prorated amount.” 

     It is important to ensure that HOA agreements include provisions that would govern a broad spectrum of potential issues and disputes. The law firm of Lafayette, Ayers & Whitlock, PLC has experience in drafting, reviewing, and amending HOA documents, as well as, representing HOAs in court. 

Bankruptcy: Note Loan Bankruptcy Clauses

     The Fairfax County Circuit Court, in the case of Dominion Bank, NA. v. Koons, ruled that certain "bankruptcy acceleration clauses" in promissory notes are not over broad, and are, indeed, enforceable. 

     The provisions in controversy are standard to note loans. A clause in the promissory note stated: "the borrower shall be in default upon the happening of ... commencement of any proceeding in bankruptcy by or against a party." The guarantee agreement provided another common bankruptcy clause: "filing of any petition in bankruptcy or for the relief under the Bankruptcy Act by the borrower or the guarantor." 

     Creditors should utilize bankruptcy acceleration clauses to enforce cosigner obligations upon bankruptcy by the principal.