Phillip Francis Luke Hughes, on Behalf of the Estate of Jane K. Hughes, et al. v. Bank of America National Association

Congress enacted the Truth in Lending Act of 1968 (“TILA”), in part, to ensure that financial institutions issue meaningful disclosures to consumers as to the terms of credit usage to protect the consumer from unfair and inaccurate credit billing and practices. 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a). For several years, Bank of America fraudulently charged Petitioners and similarly situated consumers for optional mortgage insurance coverage that was expressly declined. Bank of America discreetly incorporated the unauthorized charges as nondescript line-items on monthly financial statements. The optional mortgage insurance premium charges were for a service neither disclosed on a finance charge nor agreed to in writing by the consumers as required by TILA. Consumers remained unaware of the fraudulent nature of the charges until receiving a notice from Bank of America of its intent to discontinue the mortgage insurance plan. The question presented is as follows: Whether a financial institution that violates TILA by fraudulently charging consumers for a declined product, by including the charge as a surreptitious line-item on a monthly financial statement, necessarily places a consumer on sufficient notice of the violation such that the consumer is barred from relief as a matter of law by the one-year statute of limitations and precluded from relying upon the doctrine of equitable tolling to bring a claim.