## Facts

- Robert Singer and Duranne Crain (formerly Duranne Singer) (the Singers) bought artwork from a Hawaii merchant while vacationing in Hawaii.
- The Singers used a Visa credit card issued by Chase Manhattan Bank (Chase) to pay $2,700 for the artwork.
- After the artwork was delivered to the Singers’ home in Nevada, they claimed it was damaged and returned it to the merchant.
- The Singers then agreed to purchase replacement artwork for an additional $100 charged to the same Visa account (total charged: $2,800).
- The replacement artwork allegedly never arrived.
- The Singers sent Chase written notice requesting a full credit on their account under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) because they claimed they never received what they paid for.
- Chase initially credited the account for the full amount, but later recharged the account for the same $2,800.
- The Singers filed a Nevada district court action for declaratory judgment alleging that no sums were owed to Chase.
- The Singers moved for summary judgment, arguing Chase was liable for the merchant’s nonperformance under 15 U.S.C. § 1666i.
- At the summary judgment hearing, Chase made an oral motion to dismiss; the Singers did not oppose it.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that § 1666i did not apply because the Singers lived more than 100 miles from the place of the initial transaction in Hawaii.
- The district court also awarded Chase attorney’s fees and costs, and the Singers appealed both the dismissal and the fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the Singers could proceed against the card issuer under 15 U.S.C. § 1666i when the “place of the initial transaction” was Hawaii and the cardholders’ address was in Nevada, more than 100 miles away, and whether the court should create a policy-based exception to the statute’s 100-mile limitation.
2. Whether the district court properly awarded Chase attorney’s fees and costs after dismissing the Singers’ action.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the Singers’ complaint because § 1666i’s conditions were not met, including the requirement that the place of the initial transaction be in the same state as the cardholder’s address or within 100 miles of that address.
- The court held that the “place of the initial transaction” was where the merchant honored the credit card (Hawaii), not where the goods were delivered (Nevada).
- The court declined to create a policy-based exemption to the statute’s 100-mile rule.
- The court reversed the award of attorney’s fees and remanded with instructions to vacate the fee award because there was no valid basis for fee shifting on this record (including under Nevada’s fee statute or TILA).

## Legal Principles

- Under 15 U.S.C. § 1666i, a card issuer is subject to certain non-tort claims and defenses arising from a credit-card transaction only if the statute’s conditions are satisfied, including the $50 minimum and the same-state/within-100-miles requirement in § 1666i(b)(3).
- For § 1666i(b)(3), the “place of the initial transaction” is the location where the credit card is accepted in the sale, not the place of delivery or the cardholder’s home state.
- Courts apply § 1666i’s geographic limitation as written and do not create exceptions based solely on changes in consumer credit practices.
- Attorney’s fees in Nevada are not recoverable absent statutory, rule-based, or contractual authorization; obtaining dismissal without a money judgment does not, by itself, justify fees under NRS 18.010(2)(a) on these facts.
- TILA’s fee provision does not automatically authorize attorney’s fees to a card issuer merely because the consumer’s TILA-based claim fails.

## Conclusion

Singer v. Chase Manhattan Bank held that TILA’s cardholder-claims provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1666i, did not apply because the initial credit-card transaction occurred in Hawaii, more than 100 miles from the Singers’ Nevada address, so dismissal of the declaratory judgment action was proper; however, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the attorney’s fee award because Chase lacked an adequate legal basis for fee shifting.


Singer v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 890 P.2d 1305 (1995)