holding, in truth-in-lending case, a state debt-collection counterclaim was compulsory because “the obvious interrelationship of the claims and rights of the parties, coupled with the common factual basis of the claims, demonstrates a logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim”
How later courts described this case
- holding, in truth-in-lending case, a state debt-collection counterclaim was compulsory because “the obvious interrelationship of the claims and rights of the parties, coupled with the common factual basis of the claims, demonstrates a logical relationship between the claim and counterclaim”
- concluding that action on underlying debt was compulsory counterclaim to TILA action
- finding that a counterclaim on the debt evidenced by a note which is the subject of a truth-in-lending action, is compulsory
- holding that where a TILA claim was the main cause of action, an action on the underlying debt was a compulsory counterclaim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VANCE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
The majority opinion contains a fair statement of the issue whether defendant’s counterclaim is compulsory or permissive. I do not agree, however, that the pertinent portion of our opinion in Spartan Grain & Mill Co. v. Ayers, 581 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1978), is dictum. In any case I am of the view that it correctly held such counterclaims to be permissive. I therefore dissent from the majority’s contrary holding.
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.