## Facts

- Mary A. Spearman bought a used 1997 Chrysler Sebring from Tom Wood Pontiac-GMC, Inc. and financed the purchase through the dealership using a retail installment contract.
- The contract included a “Truth in Lending Disclosures” section that Spearman conceded contained all disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
- The salesman presented the contract in quadruplicate, sealed across the top, without labels identifying which copy belonged to the buyer.
- Spearman reviewed and signed the contract; the salesman then tore off one copy along a perforation and gave it to her.
- Spearman testified she did not realize before signing that one copy was intended for her to keep and that she would have been uncomfortable detaching a copy herself before signing.
- The salesman said he would attempt to obtain a better financing rate and could rewrite the contract if successful.
- Spearman sued alleging TILA and Regulation Z violations because disclosures were not provided “in a form that the consumer may keep” and not provided “prior to consummation.”
- The district court granted summary judgment for Tom Wood on a record consisting of Spearman’s deposition; Spearman appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether providing the TILA disclosures within an unlabeled quadruplicate contract violated the requirement that disclosures be “in a form that the consumer may keep.”
2. Whether disclosures embedded in the contract shown to the consumer before signing were provided “prior to consummation” when the consumer received a detached copy only at signing or immediately after.
3. Whether the alleged form or timing deficiencies supported actual or statutory damages under TILA.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Tom Wood.
- The court held Tom Wood complied with TILA and Regulation Z because Spearman received the required disclosures in writing and was presented the contract for review before she became contractually obligated.
- The court held TILA did not require Tom Wood to label a “consumer copy,” instruct Spearman that a copy was hers to keep, or facilitate comparison shopping.
- The court held Spearman failed to show entitlement to actual damages and could not recover statutory damages on the asserted disclosure-method theory on this record.

## Legal Principles

- TILA and Regulation Z are satisfied when required disclosures are provided in writing in a form the consumer can retain; the creditor need not label the consumer’s copy or give special instructions about keeping it.
- “Consummation” occurs when the consumer becomes contractually obligated under applicable state law; disclosures are timely if presented in the document available for review before signing.
- TILA’s disclosure regime does not impose a duty on creditors to ensure consumers shop for credit or obtain alternative rates, beyond providing accurate, timely written disclosures.
- Actual damages require proof of causation and loss; technical objections to the manner of providing disclosures, without evidence of pecuniary harm, do not establish actual damages, and do not necessarily trigger statutory damages where required terms were not omitted or misstated.

## Conclusion

The court held that presenting a contract containing complete TILA disclosures for the consumer’s review before signing, and providing a copy at signing, met TILA’s “keep” and “prior to consummation” requirements, and Spearman failed to prove recoverable damages.


Spearman v. Tom Wood Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 312 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2002)