Monday, April 14, 2008

consumer - state UTPCPL - deceptive conduct - pleading

Chiles v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. - ED Pa. - March 17, 2008

" [T]he Court recognizes that the requirements for fraud under the catchall provision are in flux in Pennsylvania state and federal courts. Several courts require a plaintiff to prove all elements of common law fraud. when asserting a claim under the catch-all provision.... Cf. Christopher, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2255, *9-10 (Plaintiff must plead all elements of common law fraud only if alleging fraud, not deceptive conduct under UTPCPL.) In Christopher, the court interpreted the inclusion of the term “deceptive” into the catch-all provision as relaxing the standard of proof such that actual fraud need not be proved. Id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet addressed this issue.

The UTPCPL must be construed liberally. See Keller v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 733 A.2d 642, 646 (Pa. Super. 1999). This Court will therefore adopt the view that in order for the addition of the terms “or deceptive” to be given effect, all elements of common law fraud need not be proven if Plaintiff alleges deceptive conduct. "

consumer - TILA - yield spread premium

Abbott v. Washington Mutual Finance Co. - ED Pa. - March 20, 2008

Amount held to be a yield spread premium, not part of a finance charge, and thus not requiring TILA disclosure.

VA benefit claims - proposed rule

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to reorganize and rewrite in plain language its regulations involving VA benefits claims. These revisions are proposed as part of VA’s rewrite and reorganization of all of its compensation and pension rules in a logical, claimant-focused, and userfriendly format. The intended effect of the proposed revisions is to assist claimants and VA personnel in locating and understanding these regulations involving VA benefits claims.

DATES: Comments must be received by VA on or before June 13, 2008.

license suspension - refusal to take breath test

Riley v. DOT - Commonwealth Court - April 14, 2008

License suspended where officer "observed the odor of alcohol." DOT proved all elements under implied consent law, 75 Pa. C.S. 1547, under which DOT must establish that the licensee: (1) was arrested for driving under the influence by a police officer who had reasonable grounds to believe that the licensee was operating or was in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle while under influence of alcohol; (2) was asked to submit to a chemical test; (3) refused to do so; and (4) was warned that refusal might result in a license suspension.