## Facts

- Mary J. Mincks held a Citibank credit card for personal use; her husband, Chuck Mincks, was an authorized user.
- Chuck charged $7,600 on the card to buy 4,000 postcards from Purchase Plus Buyers Group (PPBG) for a home business.
- PPBG never delivered the postcards.
- Chuck attempted for months to obtain substitute goods or a refund; PPBG went out of business in September 2000.
- Chuck sought a credit/chargeback from Citibank; Citibank refused because it did not receive written notice of the dispute within 60 days of the statement reflecting the charge.
- The Minckses continued using the card and made additional purchases and payments, but stopped paying in February 2002.
- When payments stopped, the remaining balance consisted solely of the PPBG charge plus related interest and fees.
- Citibank sued Mary for breach of contract to collect the balance; after a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Mary.

## Issues

1. Whether the cardholder could assert the merchant’s nondelivery of goods as a defense against the card issuer in the issuer’s action to collect the credit-card balance.
2. Whether the 60-day notice requirement in TILA’s billing-error procedures barred the cardholder from asserting nondelivery as a defense in the later collection action.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Mary.
- The court held that TILA’s claims-and-defenses provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1666i, permitted Mary to assert nondelivery of merchandise as a defense to Citibank’s collection claim.
- The court held that Citibank’s reliance on the 60-day notice rule in 15 U.S.C. § 1666 did not preclude the § 1666i defense in a collection suit.
- Applying the bench-trial standard of review, the court concluded the judgment was supported by the evidence and could be affirmed on any legally correct theory supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1666i, a credit-card holder may assert against the card issuer certain claims and defenses arising from the underlying merchant transaction, including nondelivery, when the issuer seeks to collect the balance, if statutory conditions are satisfied.
- The 60-day notice requirement in 15 U.S.C. § 1666 governs the issuer’s duties in billing-error dispute procedures and does not automatically extinguish transaction-based defenses preserved by § 1666i in subsequent litigation.
- In an appeal from a bench trial, the judgment is affirmed unless it lacks substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law; the appellate court defers to credibility determinations and may affirm on any reasonable legal theory supported by the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense judgment for the cardholder, holding that nondelivery by the merchant could be asserted against the issuer under TILA § 1666i in a collection action, and that the issuer could not use § 1666’s 60-day billing-error notice rule to bar that defense.


Citibank (S.D.), N.A. v. Mincks, 135 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)