Barrer v. Chase Bank USA

566 F.3d 883 (2009)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Barrer v. Chase Bank USA

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
566 F.3d 883 (2009)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD


Walter and Cheryl Barrer (plaintiffs) held a credit card with Chase Bank USA (defendant). In 2004, the Barrers signed the Cardmember Agreement (the agreement) that set forth the terms of their relationship with Chase. The Barrers had a preferred annual percentage rate (APR) of 8.99 percent under the agreement. In a section entitled “Finance Charges,” the agreement provided a mathematical formula for calculating preferred and nonpreferred APRs. The agreement included that Chase might increase the APR on the account balance in the event of default. The agreement specified events that constituted default, such as failure to pay a minimum payment on time. A different section of the agreement, buried in fine print 10 pages into the agreement and entitled “Changes to the Agreement,” provided that Chase was able to change the agreement at any time and could modify any provision, including APRs and fees. The agreement also included that Chase could periodically review the other party’s credit history by obtaining information from credit bureaus and others. In 2005, Chase mailed a Change in Terms Notice (the notice) to the Barrers. The notice purported to amend the terms of the agreement and increased their APR from 8.99 percent to 24.24 percent nonpreferred or default rate. The Barrers contacted Chase to find out why their APR had changed. Chase informed the Barrers that their APR was raised because their outstanding credit loans on revolving accounts were too high and they had too many recently opened installment or revolving accounts. The Barrers filed a class-action lawsuit in district court on their behalf and behalf of all Chase credit-card customers similarly situated and harmed. The Barrers alleged that Chase violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and TILA’s Regulation Z because Chase did not fully disclose that they may raise a preferred APR to a nonpreferred APR based upon information in a customer’s credit report. Chase filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court granted Chase’s motion and dismissed the case. The Barrers appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (O’Scannlain, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership