Stieger v. Chevy Chase Savings Bank, F.S.B.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
666 A.2d 479 (1995)
- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
Stieger (plaintiff) gave Garrett limited authority to use his credit card to rent a car and a hotel room for a business trip. Stieger called the hotel and car rental company to find out what type of authorization Garrett needed to use his card, and both companies told Stieger that he had to write a letter to authorize the charges. Stieger stated that he wrote to both companies, but he was unable to produce a copy of the letter to the hotel. Garrett made several more charges on the card than those that Stieger authorized. Because Stieger’s signature had worn off the back of the card, Garrett signed the card as “P. Stieger” before she used it. On 13 of 15 charges, Garrett signed the charge slip “P. Stieger.” On the other two, she signed her own name. Stieger discovered the unauthorized charges and obtained a judgment against Garrett for $3,200, of which $750 was collected. Garrett disappeared, and Stieger sued Chevy Chase Savings Bank, F.S.B. (defendant), who issued the card, for refusing to dismiss the unauthorized charges. Under the Truth in Lending Act, a cardholder had liability for a maximum of $50 for charges made by unauthorized users. The court ruled in favor of the bank for 13 of the unauthorized charges but ruled in Stieger’s favor for the two charges Garrett signed in her own name. Stieger appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pryor, J.)
Dissent (Ruiz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.