proper for financing the house itself. In this case, not only should the bank have expected repeat transactions on the home equity line of credit applied to the down payment, but there actually were multiple transactions by some of Corns' customers. 9 . See Brown v. Marquette S. & L. Ass’n, 686 F.2d 608, 612 (7th Cir.1982) (stating the TILA purpose is to "provide information to facilitate comparative credit shopping and thereby the informed use of credit by consumers.”). 10 . See Harris v. Illinois Vehicle Premium Finance Co., 2000 WL 1307513, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 12, 2000) (describing loan splitting as violative of the TILA due to the need for a single comprehensive disclosure for a single loan transaction); see also, Hemauer v. ITT Financial Services, 751 F.Supp. 1241 (W.D.Ky.1990)
holding that it was not improper for a lender to halt the proposed settlement and discounted payment of plaintiffs loan when the lender believed the loan would otherwise be paid in full holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan holding that the lender was subject to the dtpa because the borrowers purpose in obtaining the loan was the purchase of a house holding that a lender violated the tila by splitting the charges surrounding one loan into two loans executed on the same day where the consumer only sought one loan holding that consideration for guaranty of loan previously made was that guarantors friend the bank manager who issued the loan would not lose his job for making a bad loan