protect the poor bargainer or the ill-informed. Just as TILA does not require a creditor to disclose the cost of goods sold, it also does not require BJT to disclose the cost of providing Cornist with continuing automobile service. Cornist insists that other courts have found that TILA disclosure duties are triggered by these extended service agreement fees paid to third parties. However, the cases cited do not address the question of what it means for a payment to be made “on the consumer’s behalf.” See Jones v. Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., 212 F.3d 1356, 1360 (11th Cir.2000) (finding a TILA violation where dealer claimed that full amount of service contract was paid to General Motors, while retaining significant portion); Green v. Levis Motors, Inc., 179 F.3d 286, 289 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). These cases merely stand for the
recognizing that where insured has been paid in full insurer is the real party in interest holding that the portion of the retirementplan annuity paid for by the employer but not the portion paid for by the employee  is includable in the marital estate  holding tila violated where dealer claimed to have paid full amount to state of louisiana but retained portion holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount holding defendant may receive only the portion of his fees under 42 usc  1988 that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim