## Facts

- A credit card account was issued in Lee B. Dennegar’s name around February 2001, and statements were mailed to his residence.
- Dennegar lived with Mark Knutson, who had no independent income; household expenses were paid from Dennegar’s funds.
- Dennegar permitted Knutson to manage household finances and office functions, including handling and opening mail at his discretion.
- Dennegar allowed Knutson to prepare checks for household expenses, sign Dennegar’s name to checks, and otherwise act for him in financial matters.
- The account showed substantial charges consistent with household expenditures and payments made during 2002.
- After Knutson’s death in 2003, the account went into default with an unpaid balance of about $14,752.93.
- New Century Financial Services, Inc., as assignee of the account, sued Dennegar and obtained a bench-trial judgment for the full balance.
- Dennegar denied applying for or using the card and argued that any charges were unauthorized and barred by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).

## Issues

1. Whether Dennegar could be held liable for the credit-card debt when he denied opening or using the account but had broadly delegated financial control to Knutson.
2. Whether TILA’s limits on liability for “unauthorized use” precluded holding Dennegar responsible for the charges.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for New Century.
- The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that either (a) Dennegar entered the credit relationship himself, or (b) Knutson acted with authority (actual, implied, or ratified) sufficient to bind Dennegar.
- TILA did not limit liability because the card use was not “unauthorized use” within the statute’s meaning when undertaken within the scope of authority Dennegar conferred.
- The appellate court deferred to trial-level credibility determinations and factual findings supported by substantial credible evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A principal who grants broad authority to another to manage financial affairs may be bound by that person’s credit transactions undertaken within the scope of the granted authority.
- Implied actual authority may be inferred from a course of conduct, including permission to handle mail, pay bills, and sign the principal’s name in ordinary financial administration.
- Ratification may be inferred where account statements are received at the principal’s address and payments are made without timely objection.
- TILA’s protections for “unauthorized use” do not apply when the card use occurs with actual, implied, or apparent authority attributable to the cardholder.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a debt-buyer’s judgment on a credit-card account because the cardholder’s broad delegation of financial control to a housemate supported a finding of authorized (or ratified) use, placing the debt outside TILA’s “unauthorized use” limits.


New Century Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Dennegar, 394 N.J. Super. 595, 928 A.2d 48 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)