Smiley v. Gary Crossley Ford, Inc., No. 16-2171 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit alleging that GCF violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the annual percentage rate (APR) and finance charge in his Retail Installment and Security Contract. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law where the Summary of Understanding was not completely integrated; the district court thus did not err in admitting parol evidence; and there was sufficient evidence to support GCF's affirmative defense of waiver. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial where there was no record of what objections plaintiff would have raised had the district court turned on "white noise" during the initial portion of the trial, nor was he prejudiced; even if the district court erred by not sustaining plaintiff's objection to GCF's counsel's statement during closing argument, the statement was not such a magnitude that a new trial was warranted; the court rejected plaintiff's claims of error as to the discretionary evidentiary rulings; and there was no error in the district court's response to a jury question.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Truth in Lending Act. The settlement document from the parties' state court action was not completely integrated and the district court did not err in admitting parol evidence at trial; the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the parties' state court settlement agreement settled and waived plaintiff's TILA claim in this action; the district court's inability to turn on "white noise" during bench conferences did not prejudice plaintiff and did not require a new trial; even if defendant's counsel's statement during closing argument regarding whether plaintiff misrepresented whether he was represented by counsel during the state court proceedings was erroneous, the statement did not require a new trial; challenges to discretionary evidentiary rulings rejected; the court's response to a jury question advising the jury that it was the jury's role to determine what the parties agreed to in the state court mediation was not erroneous.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.