Harold C. Reithman v. Isobel Berry, et al.

The issue presented in this case is a novel one for this

court: whether the defendant lawyers are "creditors" under

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C.S 1691

et seq., and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C.

S 1601 et seq., who were therefore obliged to follow the

requirements of those statutes in their dealings with their

clients, the plaintiffs in this case. The District Court

decided they were not covered by those statutes. Plaintiffs
Harold C. Riethman and his wife Vicki A. Hagel appeal the

District Court’s order granting summary judgment and

dismissing their suit against their former attorneys, Isobel

Berry and David Culp and the law firm Berry & Culp

(collectively, Berry & Culp). The District Court had

jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. SS 1691e(f), 1640(e) and 28

U.S.C. S 1331. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. S 1291.

I.

Riethman and Hagel filed suit, claiming that Berry &

Culp’s fee agreement failed to comply with various

requirements of the ECOA and the TILA. The District Court

concluded the ECOA and the TILA did not apply to the

Riethman/Hagel fee agreement with Berry & Culp because
neither the firm nor the attorneys are creditors as defined

in those statutes.

Riethman had previously retained Berry & Culp in

divorce litigation. He then retained the firm in connection

with an ensuing child custody battle with his former wife.

The initial fee agreement between Riethman and counsel

dated February 20, 1995 (the 1995 agreement) provided for

billing on a monthly basis. In 1998, the parties modified

their 1995 agreement at Riethman’s request to permit

Riethman to make smaller progress payments instead of

paying the full amount due each month (the 1998

agreement). Although Vicki Hagel, Riethman’s new wife,

had not been a party to the 1995 agreement, she signed the

1998 agreement. During the custody trial, a fee dispute

between Berry & Culp and Riethman and Hagel culminated

in Berry & Culp withdrawing as counsel. Riethman and

Hagel then initiated this suit.

II.

The issue before us is limited to the District Court’s

dismissal of the ECOA and TILA claims.1 Riethman and

Hagel primarily argue that the District Court erred as a

matter of law by failing to conclude that Berry & Culp are

"creditors." This court exercises plenary review over a

district court’s grant of summary judgment. Deane v.

Pocono Med. Ctr., 142 F.3d 138, 142 n.3 (3d Cir. 1998).

Summary judgment was appropriate if "the record, when

viewed in the light most favorable to [Riethman and Hagel],

shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and

that [Berry & Culp were] entitled to summary judgment as

a matter of law." Id.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the judgment of

the District Court.

Unavailable

Unavailable

None