In July 1990, the Bartholomew Circuit Court in Columbus, Indiana, rendered a deficiency judgment against Jeff Henson in the amount of $4,075.54. The Clerk of the Court incorrectly recorded the judgment in the Judgment Docket, stating that a money judgment in that amount had been entered against both Jeff Henson and his brother Greg Henson.
Trans Union Corp. and CSC Credit Services, both credit-reporting agencies, listed the information on Greg Henson's credit report. Greg and his wife, Mary, filed suit against both companies, arguing that the companies had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by including this erroneous judgment in his account.
The agencies argued that the information that they had reported was accurate and that a judgment had been entered against Greg. Under Indiana law, the actual judgment entered by the court is the official act that renders the judgment legally binding; the entry of the judgment on the Judgment Docket is merely an administrative task undertaken by the Clerk.
While Greg alleged that he had contacted Trans Union twice in writing regarding the error and that no correction had been made, he did not allege that he had contacted CSC. Trans Union argued that it had no duty to investigate beyond the Judgment Docket to verify the accuracy of the reported information.
How should the court resolve this dispute?