## Facts

- Susanne H. Ramadan bought a used Hyundai and financed the purchase through a retail installment contract (RIC) provided on a form supplied by Hyundai Motor Finance Co. (Hyundai) and immediately assigned to Hyundai.
- Ramadan also purchased an extended warranty in connection with the transaction.
- She alleged the dealer failed to disclose the true cost of the extended warranty and an undisclosed “finder’s fee,” allegedly violating the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
- When the RIC was assigned, other transaction documents were transmitted to Hyundai; Ramadan alleged these materials revealed the true warranty cost and the finder’s fee.
- Ramadan sought to hold Hyundai liable as an assignee under TILA’s assignee-liability provision.

## Issues

1. Whether an assignee may be liable under TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1641(a), for alleged dealer non-disclosures that are not evident from the face of the disclosure statement.
2. Whether “apparent on the face of the disclosure statement” permits reliance on other transmitted transaction documents to establish assignee liability.
3. Whether regulatory-required contract language expands an assignee’s liability beyond the limits set by § 1641(a).

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court held Ramadan failed to state a TILA claim against Hyundai because the alleged violations were not “apparent on the face” of the disclosure statement as required by § 1641(a).
- The court rejected the argument that assignee liability could be established by using additional transmitted documents to infer undisclosed dealer-side charges.
- The court concluded that mandated contract language did not enlarge assignee liability beyond § 1641(a)’s limitations.

## Legal Principles

- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(a), an assignee is liable for TILA violations only when the violation is apparent on the face of the disclosure statement (or otherwise facially ascertainable from the assigned TILA-required materials in the limited manner the statute contemplates).
- “Apparent on the face” does not require assignees to investigate, reconstruct, or infer hidden charges from disparate documents; it targets obvious facial defects such as internal inconsistencies or clear computational errors.
- Standardized or regulator-required contract language does not convert an assignee into a guarantor of undisclosed originating-dealer misconduct inconsistent with the statute’s allocation of responsibility.

## Conclusion

The court held that TILA’s assignee-liability provision imposes liability only for facially evident disclosure violations in the assigned documents; because the alleged undisclosed warranty upcharge and finder’s fee were not facially apparent, the assignee could not be held liable and dismissal was affirmed.


Ramadan v. Chase Manhattan Corp., 229 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2000)