Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Nigh
United States Supreme Court
543 U.S. 50, 125 S. Ct. 460, 160 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2004)
- Written by Alexis Franklin, JD
Facts
On February 4, 2000, Bradley Nigh (defendant) tried to buy a used 1997 truck from Koons Buick Pontiac GMC (plaintiff). On October 3, Nigh filed suit against Koons Buick, alleging a violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). TILA originally contained a provision in § 1640(a)(1) providing for statutory damages of twice the finance charge in connection with the transaction and imposing limits that indicated “liability under this paragraph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000.” In 1974 the statutory-damages provision was moved from § 1640(a)(1) to § 1640(a)(2)(A), and the $100/$1,000 limits were retained. Additionally, the language was changed from “under this paragraph” to “under this subparagraph.” In 1976 § 1640(a)(2)(A) was further amended to add protections to consumer leases. The section provided statutory damages: (i) twice the amount of a finance charge in connection with a transaction, or (ii) 25 percent of the total monthly payment under a consumer lease, except that liability under this subparagraph could not be less than $100 or more than $1,000. Courts held that the $100/$1,000 limits applied to all consumer-financing transactions. In 1995 Congress further amended TILA’s statutory-damages provision and added (iii) at the end of § 1640(a)(2)(A), which set a $200/$2,000 limit for statutory damages relating to a closed-end transaction secured by real property. In 1997 the Seventh Circuit said that addition of this clause did not change the statutory-damage limits in (i) or (ii). Under § 1603(3), TILA did not apply if the total amount financed exceeded $25,000, unless the security interest was real property or personal property used as a dwelling. Nigh sought recovery of twice the finance charge, equivalent to $24,192.80, but Koons Buick argued that he was limited to $1,000 in statutory damages. The district court awarded Nigh $24,192.80. A divided Fourth Circuit affirmed. Koons appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.