The Richmond Circuit Court, in the case of
Chevy Chase Savings Bank v. Strong, ruled that a husband who was only an
“authorized user” on a bank credit card issued to his wife was not liable to
the bank for a $5,024 cash advance check he wrote on the credit card; only the
wife was liable.
In
Virginia Code §11-31, Virginia
has codified the rule that use by an authorized agent of a cardholder shall be
the equivalent of use by the cardholder.
That rule, however, does not address the question of the liability of
the agent. The court reasoned that while
it does not appear that any Virginia Court has addressed the issue, the
language used in the statute and case law from other jurisdictions led the
Court to believe that the issue was governed by agency law.
The
Court stated that it was well established in Virginia that when an agent contracts for a
disclosed principal, credit is extended to the principal, and the benefits of
the contract are accepted by the principal, there is no personal liability on
the agent. In this case, the bank was
well aware that the principal was the wife.
It extended credit to her based on her application for a card. They were aware that no contract was ever made
with husband individually and, therefore, they knew that he was simply an
authorized agent.
The
Court found that there was no indication in this case that husband exceeded his
authority in executing the check against the account, or that he agreed to be
personally liable for any debt incurred on his wife’s account. Accordingly, the court ruled that the
liability for the debts belonged only to wife.
The court ruled that the husband was not liable for any portion of the
outstanding balance, including the amount of the check that he personally
wrote.
The
lesson from Strong - do not confuse guarantors with authorized users.
No comments:
Post a Comment