Abstract
Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Jones held that use of a credit card by a separated spouse after cardholder notification that the use is no longer authorized is not "unauthorized use" within the meaning of the TILA because such use is clothed with apparent authority. That holding strips the TILA of its usefulness for a large class of credit users whom the statute should protect. The Utah Supreme Court majority would place an unreasonable burden on cardholders, requiring them to confiscate and surrender the misused credit card in order to terminate their liability. The holding suggested by the dissent would require only that the cardholder notify the bank of possible unauthorized use in order to render further misuse unauthorized and invoke the TILA protections. This Comment suggests that the best approach is to follow agency principles and determine whether the cardholder acted reasonably in each case. The best result in Walker Bank would require the cardholder to notify the bank and return her own cards, but would not impose the unreasonable burden of returning all of the credit cards issued on her account.
Recommended Citation
Clark, Stephen C.
(1984)
"Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Jones: NewMeaning for the Phrase "Don't LeaveHome Without It","
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1984:
No.
4, Article 6.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1984/iss4/6