## Facts

- Linda J. Pierce obtained a Citibank Visa account based on her own creditworthiness, separate from her husband.
- Her husband, Michael Pierce, became delinquent on a related Citibank/Citicorp account, and the creditor closed his accounts.
- On January 11, 1991, a letter addressed to Michael stated his accounts were closed and listed Linda’s account number, but did not name Linda or send her a separate notice.
- Linda continued receiving monthly statements and making payments, unaware the account had been closed or not renewed.
- Around May 15, 1991, a customer service representative told Linda by phone she could not use the card until her husband’s accounts were brought current because her account was “linked” to his.
- On July 18, 1991, Linda requested a written explanation for the nonrenewal.
- On September 11, 1991, Citibank reinstated or renewed her account.
- Linda sued under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), claiming Citibank failed to provide the written adverse-action notice required by 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d)(2), and moved for partial summary judgment on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the two-year ECOA limitations period in 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f) accrues, for a § 1691(d)(2) failure-to-notify claim, on the date of adverse action or the date the applicant discovers the violation.
2. Whether oral notice to the applicant waives or satisfies ECOA’s written adverse-action notice requirement.
3. Whether notice sent only to a spouse, referencing the applicant’s account number but not identifying the applicant or notifying her directly, satisfies § 1691(d)(2).
4. Whether undisputed facts established an ECOA violation entitling the applicant to partial summary judgment on liability.

## Decision

- The court held that for an ECOA claim based on failure to provide written notice under § 1691(d)(2), the § 1691e(f) limitations period runs from the date the applicant discovered the violation.
- The claim was timely because suit was filed within two years of Linda’s discovery that her account had been closed/treated as nonrenewed without required written notice.
- Oral notice did not waive or substitute for the statutory requirement of written notice to the applicant.
- A letter addressed to Michael that merely included Linda’s account number did not satisfy Citibank’s duty to provide Linda written notice of adverse action.
- The court granted Linda Pierce’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability for violation of § 1691(d)(2).

## Legal Principles

- ECOA requires a creditor taking an “adverse action” to provide the applicant a written statement of reasons or written notice of the right to obtain those reasons. 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d)(2).
- For § 1691(d)(2) non-notification claims, the “occurrence of the violation” for § 1691e(f) purposes is treated as the date the applicant discovers the failure to provide required written notice.
- Actual or oral notice does not satisfy, and does not waive, ECOA’s mandatory written-notice requirement.
- ECOA notice obligations run to each protected “applicant”; notice directed to another person, without written notice to the applicant, is insufficient even if the applicant’s account number is referenced.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held Citibank liable under ECOA for failing to provide Linda Pierce, an independent accountholder, written notice of adverse action as required by § 1691(d)(2), rejected oral-notice and spouse-notice theories, and applied a discovery-based accrual rule to find the claim timely.


Pierce v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 843 F. Supp. 646 (D. Or. 1994)