Rachel Berghaus (defendant) applied for a mortgage-secured loan from Decision One Mortgage Co., LLC (Decision One). Before Berghaus signed the loan note, Decision One explained the note's terms to her, and gave her a government-approved disclosure statement. Both the disclosure statement and the note made it clear that, under the loan's adjustable-rate feature, Berghaus's initial 7.49 percent interest rate could go as high as 13.49 percent. Decision One assigned the note to U.S. Bank (plaintiff). A few years later, Berghaus' interest rate climbed to 12.625 percent, and she stopped making payments on the loan. The bank initiated a foreclosure action. The essence of Berghaus's defense was that Decision One's explanation misrepresented the actual terms of the note, in violation of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. Berghaus was time-barred from suing Decision One as the loan originator, but she filed a counterclaim against U.S. Bank as the loan note's assignee. The trial court ruled that TILA's safe-harbor provision sheltered U.S. Bank from liability. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment, and Berghaus appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.