and defensive use of the ECOA in this case is therefore impermissible. Although the ECOA allows courts to grant equitable and declaratory relief, courts interpreting that provision have concluded that the language does not grant courts the power to invalidate underlying obligations. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 857 F.Supp. 447, 453 (E.D.Pa.1994) (“ECOA’s statutory scheme does not contemplate the invalidation of a guaranty as a remedy for an ECOA violation ... ”); Riggs Nat’l Bank of Washington, D.C. v. Webster, 832 F.Supp. 147, 151 & n. 5 (D.Md.1993) (finding that statute of limitations applies and rejecting argument that claim is in the nature of a recoupment defense); Riggs Nat’l Bank of Washington, D.C. v. Linch, 829 F.Supp. 163, 169 (E.D.Va. 1993) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 36 F.3d 370 (4th Cir.1994); CMF
holding that an ecoa violation is not properly asserted as an affirmative defense to liability and should instead take the form of a compulsory counterclaim holding even though an affirmative action for damages is barred the debtor may assert an ecoa violation defensively in the nature of recoupment holding the recoupment doctrine could allow a spouse to assert an ecoa affirmative defense against a creditor even after the statute of limitations had run holding that ecoa violation cannot be asserted as affirmative defense holding defendant was entitled to assert an ecoa violation as an affirmative defense to avoid only her liability because to do otherwise would be to enforce conduct that is forbidden by the ecoa