## Facts

- Stephen C. Yohay and his ex-wife, Patricia Ryan (an attorney), were engaged in a custody dispute.
- Ryan was on retainer with the City of Alexandria Employees Credit Union for collections and other legal matters.
- Ryan used, or caused an employee to use, the Credit Union’s computer access to obtain Yohay’s consumer credit report from a credit bureau with which the Credit Union had a direct computer connection and contract.
- The Credit Union’s contract limited requests to permissible purposes under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), but evidence showed loose controls over who could access the system and request reports.
- Ryan requested the report for personal reasons connected to the custody dispute and to check possible use of a previously shared credit card account, not for extending or reviewing credit.
- Yohay learned the Credit Union had obtained his report and sued under the FCRA seeking punitive damages only.
- A jury awarded Yohay $10,000 in punitive damages against the Credit Union for a willful FCRA violation; the district court also entered judgment for the Credit Union against Ryan on a third-party claim shifting liability to her.

## Issues

1. Whether obtaining a consumer report for personal, nonstatutory reasons constitutes a willful violation of the FCRA supporting punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.
2. Whether punitive damages under § 1681n are available when the plaintiff proves no actual damages and none are awarded.
3. Whether the person who instigated the impermissible request may be held liable over to the entity that obtained the report (indemnity or contribution).

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment against the Credit Union for a willful FCRA violation and upheld the $10,000 punitive damages award.
- The court held punitive damages under § 1681n may be awarded even if the plaintiff seeks no actual damages and none are proved.
- The court affirmed the judgment requiring Ryan to reimburse the Credit Union, finding she bore primary responsibility for procuring the impermissible report.

## Legal Principles

- Obtaining a consumer report without a permissible purpose under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b violates the FCRA; personal or litigation-driven reasons outside the statute are impermissible.
- “Willfulness” under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n includes reckless disregard of FCRA duties; malice or intent to harm is not required.
- Section 1681n authorizes punitive damages as a separate element of recovery that is not conditioned on proof or award of actual damages.
- A party who procures or instigates an impermissible consumer report request may be required to indemnify or contribute to the liability of the entity that obtained the report, particularly where the instigator misuses a professional relationship to access confidential information.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that procuring a consumer report for personal litigation purposes can constitute a willful FCRA violation and that punitive damages may be awarded under § 1681n without actual damages, while also permitting the entity held liable to recover from the attorney who initiated the wrongful request.


Yohay v. City of Alexandria Emps. Credit Union, Inc., 827 F.2d 967 (4th Cir. 1987)