Curtis v. Propel Prop. Tax Funding LLC (P)

Upon interlocutory review, the plaintiff has standing to bring claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act because the harm that he alleges – being require to pre-authorize EFTs as a condition of a credit transaction – is a substantive statutory violation that subjects him to the very risks that the EFT Act, a consumer protection statute, was designed to protect against.

In addition, the parties’ “tax payment agreement” is subject to the EFT Act and the Truth in Lending Act because it is represents a consumer credit transaction. The agreement is a credit transaction because it provides for third-party financing of a tax obligation. It is a consumer transaction because, as financing of a real property tax debt, it is a voluntary transaction that the plaintiff entered into for personal or household purposes.

Affirmed. Judge Keenan wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Curtis v. Propel Prop. Tax Funding LLC (P), No. 17-2114, Feb. 6, 2019. 4th Cir. (Duncan) from EDVA at Richmond (Gibney).

Categories: 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Opinions, Published

Tags: , ,

%d bloggers like this: