Printable Format16a-5-203. (UCCC) Civil liability for violation of disclosure provisions. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a creditor who fails to disclose information to a person entitled to the information under the provisions of K.S.A. 16a-1-101 et seq., and amendments thereto, or under rules and regulations adopted by the administrator is liable to that person in an amount equal to the sum of:
(a) Twice the amount of the finance charge in connection with the transaction, but the liability pursuant to this paragraph shall be not less than $200 or more than $2,000; and
(b) in the case of a successful action to enforce the liability under paragraph (a), the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.
(2) A creditor has no liability under this section if within 15 days after discovering an error, and prior to the institution of an action under this section or the receipt of written notice of the error, the creditor notifies the person concerned of the error and makes whatever adjustments in the appropriate account are necessary to assure that the person will not be required to pay a credit service charge or loan finance charge in excess of the amount or percentage rate actually disclosed.
(3) A creditor may not be held liable in any action brought under this section for a violation of the provisions of K.S.A. 16a-1-101 et seq., and amendments thereto, if the creditor shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid the error.
(4) Any action which may be brought under this section against the original creditor in any credit transaction involving a security interest in land may be maintained against any subsequent assignee of the original creditor where the assignee, its subsidiaries, or affiliates were in a continuing business relationship with the original creditor either at the time the credit was extended or at the time of the assignment, unless the assignment was involuntary or the assignee shows by a preponderance of evidence that it did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the original creditor was engaged in violations of this act and that it maintained procedures reasonably adapted to apprise it of the existence of the violations.
(5) No action pursuant to this section may be brought more than one year after the date of the occurrence of the violation.
(6) The liability of the creditor under this section is in lieu of and not in addition to the creditor's liability under the federal truth in lending act.
History: L. 1973, ch. 85, § 91; L. 1981, ch. 93, § 15; L. 1988, ch. 85, § 10; L. 1999, ch. 107, § 26; L. 2024, ch. 6, § 102; January 1, 2025.
KANSAS COMMENT, 2010
1. This section is derived from TILA 15 U.S.C. § 1640. It is intended to allow fulfillment of the demand of that statute that under state law classes of credit transactions be subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed by the TILA and that adequate provision for enforcement exist if the state wishes to apply for an exemption from the TILA with respect to federal truth in lending. Subsections (1) through (5), consequently, are modeled on the federal provisions. Subsection (6) precludes double liability if a creditor is sued both under this section and under the TILA.
2. The disclosure requirements of the TILA are incorporated into the U3C pursuant to K.S.A. 16a-3-206 and 16a-6-117 and K.A.R. 75-6-26.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"The New Kansas Consumer Legislation," Barkley Clark, 42 J.B.A.K. 147, 200 (1973).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Consumer Law," John C. Maloney, 27 K.L.R. 197, 199, 200 (1979).
"Recovery of Attorney Fees in Kansas," Mark A. Furney, 18 W.L.J. 535, 557 (1979).
"History & Overview of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code," Ryan E. Hodge, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXVI, No. 3, 8 (2003).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Question of compliance herewith raised; summary judgment not warranted where record reflected genuine issues of fact, even though requested by both parties. Henrickson v. Drotts, 219 Kan. 435, 439, 440, 548 P.2d 465 (1976).
2. Failure to include the term unpaid balance constitutes a violation of truth in lending. Ed Marling Stores, Inc. v. Miracle, 6 Kan. App. 2d 175, 176, 185, 627 P.2d 352 (1981).
3. Disclosures made by plaintiff did not meet the requirements of the federal truth in lending act; affirmed. Forbes Credit Union v. Mewhinney, 7 Kan. App. 2d 165, 171, 638 P.2d 383 (1982).
4. Cited; failure to provide private remedies in Kansas Uniform Trade Practices Act (K.S.A. 0-2401 et seq.) implies no private remedy intended. Earth Scientists v. United States Fidelity Ex Guar., 619 F. Supp. 1465, 1471 (1985).
5. Debtor alleged truth in lending violations; no findings stated in judgment against debtor; record fails to support reversal thereon. Topeka Datsun Motor Co. v. Stratton, 12 Kan. App. 2d 95, 108, 109, 736 P.2d 82 (1987).