Altamirano v. Copiague Funding Corp

Since the final TILA disclosure statement was capable of several conflicting interpretations, it was not “clear and conspicuous” and therefore, did not meet the strict requirements of TILA.  Specifically, where the final TILA disclosure does not enumerate that private mortgage insurance is required insurance for the loan, yet other loan documents, including additional final forms like the First Payment Letter, list the private mortgage insurance as part of the required payment, “such disclosure [is] not clear and conspicuous.”  Madel v. GMAC Mortg. Corp. (In re Madel), 2004 Bankr. LEXIS 2367, *18 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2004) (where the final TILA disclosure showed that the monthly payment was $300 higher than originally disclosed in the preliminary TILA disclosure statement, yet PMI was not specifically listed as required insurance on the final disclosure and was only enumerated in the First Payment Letter, such a disclosure was not clear and conspicuous).  Based on the various conflicting forms provided, it was not clear whether PMI was required or included.  Therefore, the finance charge was not clearly and conspicuously disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act.  Id

Altamirano v. Copiague Funding Corp., (No. 3:06cv1751 (PCD), D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2008)