Gennuso v. Commercial Bank Trust Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Valencia v. Anderson Bros. Ford

    617 F.2d 1278 (7th Cir. 1980)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that lender's counterclaims on a private loan contract were permissive to borrower's federal claim involving the same loan

    It is true, as defendants contend, that the Gennuso defendant conceded the assignment was a security interest for purposes of the Act. See Gennuso v. Commercial Bank Trust Co., 425 F. Supp. 461, 467 n. 11 (W.D.Pa. 1976). However, the district court in Gennuso did not rely solely on this concession in finding that the installment contract created a security interest in the unearned premiums; the court specifically held that a security interest had been created and relied on the concession only for extra support.

  2. Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc.

    577 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1978)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that the proper perspective in analyzing TILA disclosures is that of "ordinary laypersons engaged in consumer credit transactions"

    As the special master stated, "If the security interest was important enough for defendant to acquire, it was important enough to disclose." In a decision closely on point, Gennuso v. Commercial Bank Trust Co., 566 F.2d 437 (3rd Cir. 1977), rev'g 425 F. Supp. 461 (W.D.Pa. 1976), the Third Circuit recently held that a clause containing an assignment of "any return of unearned premiums"`create[s] a security interest in the proceeds and unearned premiums of the insurance policy covering the automobile." 566 F.2d at 440 n. 2.

  3. Anderson Bros. Ford v. Valencia

    452 U.S. 205 (1981)   Cited 223 times
    Holding that "the Board's interpretation of its own regulation" should generally "be accepted by the courts"

    "Many cases have resulted from the complex security interest disclosure requirements under the law. An illustrative case is Gennuso v. Commercial Bank and Trust Co., 455 F. Supp. 461 (W.D. Pa. 1976); 566 F.2d 437, (3rd Cir. 1977), which required the creditor's right in property insurance proceeds and unearned property insurance premiums, to be disclosed as a `security interest.' Although as presently written the law does not require that result, S. 108 should prevent such ludicrous interpretations by requiring merely a positive indication if a security interest is being taken in the property purchased and if it is in property not being purchased in the transaction, simply a general listing of the type of property without a listing of incidental related interests." 125 Cong. Rec. 9160 (1979).

  4. Lincoln Bank v. Salvaterra

    106 Misc. 2d 51 (N.Y. City Ct. 1980)   Cited 3 times

    We construe this language to mean that "in meaningful sequence" applies only to items that have an arithmetical relationship, rather than just an informational relationship. (Conrad v Beneficial Fin. Co. of N.Y., 57 A.D.2d 91, 95; Barksdale v Peoples Fin. Corp. of Alpharetta, 393 F. Supp. 112, revd on other grounds 543 F.2d 568; Gennuso v Commercial Bank Trust Co., 425 F. Supp. 461, revd on other grounds 566 F.2d 437.) Therefore, as we find the clauses in question to not be of an arithmetical nature, defendant's arguments may not stand.