Anastasiia Mukhina v. Bank of England (Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court: CV-23-900951).

Rel: April 4, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025

_________________________

SC-2024-0607
_________________________

Anastasiia Mukhina

v.

Bank of England

Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court
(CV-23-900951)

McCOOL, Justice.

AFFIRMED. NO OPINION.

See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P.
SC-2024-0607

Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, and

Cook, JJ., concur.

Mitchell, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.

2
SC-2024-0607

MITCHELL, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I agree with the Baldwin Circuit Court's decision to deny Anastasiia

Mukhina's fraud and fraudulent-suppression claims. But the Bank of

England failed to satisfy the Equal Credit Opportunity Act's ("ECOA")

notification requirement. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d); 12 C.F.R. § 202.9. And

that failure gives rise to an independent cause of action that, contrary to

the trial court's holding, does not require a showing of discrimination.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d); see also Jochum v. Pico Credit Corp. of

Westbank, Inc., 730 F.2d 1041, 1043 n.3 (5th Cir. 1984) (holding that,

despite the plaintiffs not "alleg[ing] any discrimination prohibited by

§ 1691(a) of the [ECOA]," they nevertheless "stated a cognizable claim

under the [ECOA] should they prove … that … [the] creditor failed to

comply with the separate and independent notification requirements of

§ 1691(d)" (emphasis added)). As a result, the trial court erred in denying

Mukhina's ECOA claim.

Mukhina requested both compensatory and punitive damages

under the ECOA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(e). And damages are, in the first

instance, a question for the fact-finder. See Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v.

Weems, 266 Ala. 415, 418, 96 So. 2d 741, 744 (1957). For that reason, I

3
SC-2024-0607

would reverse the trial court's judgment denying Mukhina's ECOA claim

and remand the case with instructions to determine whether she is

entitled to any damages.

4