Civil Procedure II, Pages 790–794

Plant v. Blazer Financial Services

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1979


Plaintiff executed a note in favor of defendant for $2,520 in monthly payments, but then did did not make any payments on the note. Plaintiff sued defendant under the Truth-in-Lending Act for not making disclosures required thereby. Defendant counterclaimed for the note's unpaid balance.

Procedural History:

Trial court awarded plaintiff $944.76 on his claim and $700 in attorney's fees. However, this was offset against the judgment for defendant on the on the counterclaim. Plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff's Argument:

Trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim.


Did the trial court have jurisdiction to hear defendant's counterclaim?


  • LexisNexis IconWestLaw LogoGoogle Scholar LogoPage 791, Paragraph 2

    A permissive counterclaim must have an independent jurisdictional basis, while it is generally accepted that a compulsory counterclaim falls within the ancillary jurisdiction of the federal courts even if it would ordinarily be a matter for state court consideration.

  • LexisNexis IconWestLaw LogoGoogle Scholar LogoPage 791, Paragraph 4

    Rule 13(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that a counterclaim is compulsory if it "arises out of the transaction or occurrence" that is the subject matter of plaintiff's claim.

  • A claim and counterclaim arise from the same transaction when there is a logical relation between them.


    • LexisNexis IconWestLaw LogoGoogle Scholar LogoPage 791, Bottom

      The logical relation test is a loose standard which permits "a broad realistic interpretation in the interest of avoiding a multiplicity of suits." "The hallmark of this approach is its flexibility."

    • LexisNexis IconWestLaw LogoGoogle Scholar LogoPage 791, Bottom

      [A] "logical relationship" [exists] when the counterclaim arises from the same "aggregate of operative facts" in that the same operative facts serves as the basis of both claims or the aggregate core of facts upon which the claim rests activates additional legal rights, otherwise dormant, in the defendant.


    This is the majority rule.


Applying the logical relationship test suggests that this case is compulsory because a single aggregate of operative facts—the loan transaction—gave rise to both claims.

However, allowing lenders to counterclaim for unpaid debt would undermine the purpose of the Truth-in-Lending Act. Requiring federal courts to concern themselves with factual questions unrelated to the act would also frustrate its purpose. It would also increase the number of debt counterclaims and therefore the federal judiciary workload. Some courts have found that the logical relationship between these too unrelated, as one is a violation of a federal law preventing lender nondisclosure while the other is merely a default on a private duty.

Ultimately though, the goal of the judicial economy is best furthered by a single presentation of facts. Each claim would inevitably deal with the circumstances under which the loan was given. In addition, the compulsory counterclaim rule is intended to provide complete relief to defendants who are involuntarily brought into federal court. Such a defendant then would not know that his own claims are being taken into account, and the debtor may have already spent the money recovered by the time the defendant obtains a separate judgment against him, rendering him unable to recover at all. A determination that the debt was invalid may also have a material effect on the truth-in-lending claim.

Parties should receive equal treatment. Truth-in-lending claims were allowed to be brought in both state and federal courts with the intention that they be handled with debt cases.


Defendant's counterclaim was a compulsory counterclaim, and therefore the trial court's jurisdiction over it was proper. Affirmed, although the attorney's fees should not have been offset.