time the loans were made. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the plaintiffs’ claims under TILA, reasoning that “[t]he release fees were not charged during the transaction in which credit was extended, but as an incident to the formal extinguishment of the Lenders’ liens after the debts had been repaid.” Adamson, 861 F.2d at 63. With regard to the facsimile fee in this case, the “official staff commentary” for TILA states that “a fee for courier service charged by a settlement agent to send a document to the title company or some other party is not a finance charge, provided that the creditor has not required the use of a courier or retained the charge.” 60 Fed.Reg. 16771, 16777 (April 3,1995); see also Cowen v. Bank United of Texas, FSB, 70 F.3d 937, 943 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Fees for a courier service must be disclosed
holding that a courier fee charged at settlement did not violate tila holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that written settlement with fee holder which stated that it was subject to claims for appointment if any did not require fee holder to compensate tenant for its leasehold interest and trade fixtures although these were included in the offer since tenant had not joined in the settlement and had not had the opportunity to advocate its own interests holding that a dismissal of a defendant who did not agree to settlement is not a favorable termination if dismissal of that defendant was a condition of settlement holding that a deduction of a tribunal user fee from a settlement award is not a taking