Facts:Plaintiff debtor executed a note in favor of defendant creditor. No payments were made on the note. Plaintiff commenced a civil action against defendant under the Truth in Lending Act for failure to make disclosures required by the act. Defendant counterclaimed on the note for the unpaid balance. Based on defendant's failure to disclose a limitation on an after-acquired security interest, the trial court held the disclosure inadequate and awarded plaintiff the statutory penalty and attorney's fees. The trial court found for defendant on the counterclaim. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the consideration of the state counterclaim in federal court. The court affirmed the judgment as to the validity of the counterclaim.

Varying the Facts of the Plant v Blazer case:

(A) Assume that the P had two loans with the D that were executed 6 years apart. P sues D. The P's TILA claim concerns the 1^stloan BUT the D asserts a counterclaim in its answer for P's failure to pay the 2^ndIs the counterclaim compulsory?

(B) Assume that there are still 2 loan transactions b/w P and D. P is still bringing a TILA claim on the 1^stloan which was the primary loan and D asserts a counterclaim regarding the second loan. However, the second loan is a home equity line of credit. The primary loan and the home equity line were createdat the same time and allowed P to buy her home.Is the counterclaim compulsory?

(C) Assume that rather than a TILA claim, P alleges that D violated Title VII. In its answer D includes a counterclaim for failure to pay a loan.Is the counterclaim compulsory?