a. Have these firms violated TILA?
b. Note that if Bonfiglio had borrowed money from a bank to pay the law firm, the bank would have had to comply with TILA. Why should the bank have to comply and not the law firm?
1. IN RE Pittman v. All right. All right Mortgage Company extended a loan to James Pittman. The loan documents contained a statement of the amount financed, finance charge, annual percentage rate, and total of payments. The terms "annual percentage rate" and "finance charge" appeared in the same type and in boxes identical to the ones in which the "amount financed" and "total of payments" were presented.
2. Mars v. Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc and First National Bank of South Carolina. When Mars purchased a car from Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, the defendant used the term "amount financed" instead of the required term "unpaid balance."
3. Bonfiglio v. Nugent. After his divorce, a court ordered Bonfiglio to pay his wife's legal fees, which were $6,385.00. Bonfiglio told the court that he could not afford a lump sum payment and asked to pay in installments instead. The court agreed that Bonfiglio could pay monthly installments of $250.00, without interest. As a result, the firm had to wait more than two years to receive all that Bonfiglio owed it. Bonfiglio wrote a letter to his ex wife's lawyer, expressing his thanks for the "extension of credit." Twenty days later, he filed suit against the law firm for violating TILA.