IVORY DORSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CITIZENS & SOUTHERN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendant on both the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Truth in Lending Act claims.
Plaintiff sued defendant for violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Truth in Lending Act. An initial panel affirmed the judgment on th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equal Credit Opportunity Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a summary judgment for defendant, Citizens & Southern Financial Corporation (Citizens), in a case presenting claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d) and the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639 (repealed 1980, effective Oct. 1, 1982). On June 7, 1982 the original panel opinion, Dorsey v. Citizens & Southern Financial Corp., 678 F. 2d 137 (11th Cir.1982), affirmed the lower court’s holding with respect to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim. The panel concluded that the Truth in Lending issue was controlled by the panel decision in Sage v. Freedom Mortgage Company, 675 F. 2d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 1982). On that claim it reversed summary judgment in favor of Citizens and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of Dorsey.
Citizens’ petition for rehearing contained information which made Judge Hill aware for the first time that he is disqualified in this case. Accordingly, Judges Vance and Hatchett acting as a quorum of the court entered an order on September 13, 1982 vacating and withdrawing the panel opinion, 678 F. 2d at 140. Because of the intervening vacation of the panel opinion in Sage and its pending consideration by the en banc court, this case has been held under advisement since that time.
Sitting en banc the court has now reversed its prior holding in Sage, 704 F. 2d 1519 (11th Cir.1983), slip op. 3051, and its opinion dictates that the summary judgment in this case in favor of Citizens be affirmed.1
After independent reconsideration of the question, we now reinstate that portion of our original panel opinion affirming the district court’s judgment on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim. Following the en banc opinion in Sage we now also affirm the district court’s judgment on the Truth in Lending claim. The judgment of the district court is, therefore, in all respects
AFFIRMED.
. Judge Hatchett joined Judge Clark’s dissent in Sage and adheres to the views therein expressed. However, the majority decision in Sage is binding on this panel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roque Alexander Barat v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 127 F.4th 833 (11th Cir. 2025)…her § 1691 provides an independent cause of action, though we have previously entertained such a claim. See Dorsey v. Citizens & S. Fin. Corp., 678 F.2d 137, 138–39 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam), withdrawn, 678 F.2d 137, reinstated in part on reh’g, 706 F.2d 1203. We assume without deciding the question here that Barat can state a claim for insufficient notice under § 1691(d) without also alleging discrimination. [fn 2]: As Barat explains in his complaint and the attached exhibits, the identity thief used B…
Authorities Cited
- Sage v. Freedom Mortg. Co., 704 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Sage v. Freedom Mortg. Co., 675 F.2d 1208 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Ivory Dorsey v. Citizens & S. Fin. Corp., 678 F.2d 137 (11th Cir. 1982)