In Morse v. USAA Federal Sav. Bank, 2012 WL 6020090 (D.Nev. 2012), Judge Dawson addressed a common credit reporting issue arising out of a dispute between former spouses over a credit card account. The Plaintiff, the ex-wife, was an authorized user of a USAA Federal Savings Bank credit card initially issued to her former husband. Morse was divorced on March 24, 2011. When USAA reported the account to the national credit reporting agencies, it indicated that Morse was a joint account holder on the credit card. Plaintiff disputed the Account to the CRAs, stating that she had only been an authorized user of the credit card, and that she was not a joint cardholder and therefore not personally liable for the account. TransUnion apparently investigated the claim and deleted the credit card record. Experian and Equifax also investigated the claim by requesting that USAA verify Morse’s status on the account. After its own investigation, USAA reported back that the information in the credit report was accurate. Plaintiff sued. Also, the Court noted by way of footnote that it was undisputed that the account in question was not in arrears, was being paid every month, and there was no adverse impact resulting from the information reflected on Plaintiff’s credit report. The District Court found no FCRA liability – either for its re-investigation or its failure to report the Account as disputed under Gorman — because the Plaintiff had demonstrated no inaccuracy.
Section “1681s–2 works in two phases.” Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir.2012). First, furnishers must “provide the CRAs accurate information about their consumers.” Id. Second, if a CRA discovers that the consumer information is disputed, the “CRA will then notify the original furnisher and provide it with ‘all relevant information regarding the dispute.’ “ Id. (citing § 1681i(a)(1)-(3)). ¶ . . .Federal Reserve Board Regulation B requires that when a credit card has been issued to a married individual, the creditor must report the account in the name of both spouses, as long as each spouse “is permitted to use or is contractually liable on the account.” 12 C.F.R. § 202.10(a). This regulation has been interpreted to mean that “[i]n designating accounts and reporting credit information, a creditor need not distinguish between accounts on which the spouse is an authorized user and accounts on which the spouse is a contractually liable party.” 12 C.F.R. Part 202, Supp. I, Section 202.10(3) (Official Staff Interpretations of Regulation B). ¶ Here, Plaintiff asserts that by reporting her as a “joint obligor,” Defendant made an inaccurate report. In Nevada, debts incurred during marriage are pre-sumed to be community debts, for which each spouse is liable. Dubler v. Moret, 2009 WL 3711883 (Nev.2009). This remains true even after a decree of divorce assigns debt to one spouse. Bower v. Harrah’s Laughlin, Inc., 215 P.3d 709, 723. Further, the FCRA, guided by Regulation B, does not require Defendant to distinguish between an authorized user and a joint account holder. ¶ It is undisputed that Morse was an authorised user on the USAA account, and that she was married to the person to whom the card was issued. Because Plaintiff was an authorized user, and because the debt acquired during the marriage was community debt, Defendant was entitled to report to the CRAs that she was jointly obligated on the account, as set forth in Regulation B. Plaintiff’s divorce does not alter the status of the debt as community property, regardless of the assignment of the debt in the divorce decree. Accordingly, Defendant did not violate the FCRA by reporting that Morse was “joint obligor” on the account. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted as it pertains to this claim. ¶ The Amended Complaint does not claim that Defendant did not properly investigate the claim, but it does allege that Defendant breached its duties by failing to indicate to the CRAs that Plaintiff disputed the reported credit card debt. This contention has no merit because the credit report, attached to the Amended Complaint, accurately reflects that the account was previously in a dispute, but that it was resolved when Plaintiff confirmed that she was an authorized user on the account. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to plead any facts showing actual damages, which are a required element of failure to give notice of dispute claim. See Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1163 (9th Cir.2009). Finally, Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant improperly verified the debt fails because the report was accurate.