Page 3  

Keeping that separateness in mind, North Dakota Century Code § 28-21-08, pertaining to property subject to levy and the manner of levy,

All goods, chattels, money, and other property, both real and personal, or any interest therein, of the judgment debtor not exempt by law, and all property and rights of the property seized and held under attachment in the action are subject to execution. Shares and interests in any corporation or company, and debts and credits, and all other property, both real and personal, and any interest in real and personal property, and all other property not capable of manual delivery, may be taken on execution and sold as provided in this chapter. The levy under an execution must be as follows:

3. Upon money, judgments, drafts, promissory notes, or other papers of like character, by serving a copy of the execution and levy to the person who has custody of such property, except as may be provided for in chapter 32-09.1.

This section specifically requires that the sheriff serve a copy of the execution and levy on the "person who has custody of such property." If, for example, the account is maintained in Minot, it would appear that the Minot facility has custody of the account. On the other hand, a facility at another location would not have actual custody of the account and the execution would be unsatisfied by a levy at that location.

This situation also raises another question: should the levied on facility disclose to the sheriff that the account is actually maintained in another location? Again, keeping in mind the separateness of a branch from the main office, it would appear that branches are precluded from disclosing this information to a sheriff under its duty of confidentiality, as set out in North Dakota Century Code ch. 6-08.1.

As set out in section 6-08.1-01(2), customer suggests that in order for the levy to be effective the sheriff must levy on the actual entity that maintains the account. This section provides, in pertinent part,

information includes "any information derived from ["any original or any copy of any records held by a financial institution pertaining to the customer's relationship with the financial institution"]." There is an exception to this rule whereby a financial institution may disclose information to law enforcement pursuant to a search warrant or subpoena duces tecum. N.D.Cent.Code § 6-08.1-02(9). However, a sheriff's levy on execution is neither of these. Thus, the appropriate course of conduct appears to be for the institution to report back to the sheriff that the debtor does not maintain an account at that particular branch.

This analysis would appear to be accurate whether the bank had one branch or forty branches. In those cases where a creditor knows that the debtor holds an account at a bank but does not know which facility, it would be the creditor's responsibility to follow up with post-judgment interrogatories or other discovery to find out at which branch the account is maintained.

This, of course, may be a headache for the creditor and possibly the financial institution. However, it is an issue that is untested by the courts and proceeding in this manner appears to be a safer route.

There are no North Dakota state laws governing when a financial institution can legitimately request a customer's or potential customer's credit report. However, there is federal law on point. Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq governs consumer reporting agencies.

Looking at this sequence of statutes, one thing stands out. It appears that the liability stems from improperly releasing consumer reports, not from making an improper request. For example, one could request a credit report for the sole purpose of harassment. If the report is issued, the reporting agency is liable for an improper release. However, the requesting party is not liable for wrongful uses of a credit report, if the report is used in that manner. It should also be noted that a requesting party may be liable for any misrepresentations made during the request.

Regardless, section 1681b(a) allows consumer reporting agencies to furnish reports in the following situations:

1. Pursuant to a validly issued court subpoena

2. Pursuant to the written instructions of the consumer, or

3. To a person which the agency has reason to believe
- intends to use the info in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer and involving credit extensions or review or collection of an account; or
- otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a transaction initiated by the consumer or to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the account terms.

It appears that the key words, as far as we are concerned, are "credit transaction." Unfortunately, this term is not defined anywhere in this sequence of statutes. However, a loan would obviously constitute a credit transaction. Accordingly, a bank should be able to legitimately request (and an agency can release) a report at the time the application is made or at any point the account is being reviewed. Although whether a checking/savings account constitutes a credit transaction is less clear, requesting a credit report in connection with opening or reviewing deposit accounts would give the institution a legitimate business need for the report. It should also be noted that the best way to obtain a credit report in any instance is with the customer's consent. This would remove the need to define terms such as "credit transaction" and "legitimate business need." As is noted above, there does not appear to be any liability for a wrongful request, as long as there are no misrepresentations. Thus, another option is to simply make a candid request and let the credit agency worry about a violation.