InfoBytes Blog
Court grants summary judgment in payday lender suit
On August 23, a Municipal Court in Ohio granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a case involving payday lending. According to the order, the plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the defendant, in April 2019, executed a Line of Credit and Security Agreement with a lender in the amount of $1,101, and agreed to repay amounts advanced within a 30-day billing cycle pursuant to certain fees and a 24.99 percent interest rate. The complaint further alleged that defendant failed to make timely payment, and thereafter plaintiff, as assignee of the lender, sought to enforce the agreement. In her answer, the defendant denied entering any such agreement and characterized the transaction as “a $500 loan,” asserting that this case “involves an illegal scheme by [the short-term cash lender, the mortgage lender, and the plaintiff] to issue and collect illegal payday loans under a scheme to attempt to evade compliance with new state lending laws. The plaintiff asserted counterclaims for violations of the Short-Term Loan Act, the Mortgage Loan Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and for civil conspiracy.
On motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued that she was entitled to judgment on “Plaintiff's complaint because the parties’ April 2019 agreement ‘is void because it was made in violation of Ohio lending and consumer laws.’” The defendant presented two arguments: (i) the lender is not licensed under the Short-Term Loan Act to issue a loan less than $1000; and (ii) the lender is “prohibited from engaging in acts or practices to evade the prohibition against Mortgage Loan Act registrants issuing loans for $1,000 or less or that have a duration of one year or less.”
In granting summary judgment for the defendant, the court found that the underlying transaction was an “open-end loan under the plain language” of the Mortgage Loan Act, and that it was not a loan for $1,000 or less or one with a duration of one year or less under the Mortgage Loan Act, but that by using the security agreement framework, the lender engaged in an act or practice to evade the Mortgage Loan Act’s prohibition. The court found that the evidence showed defendant went to the lender for a simple loan under $1,000 and was provided on that day a check for $501. The court found further that, “it would appear [the lender] gave Defendant what she was seeking, namely a short-term loan … but without complying with any of the myriad restrictions applicable to such loans under the Short-Term Loan Act.” The court held that the security agreement framework did not stand because the “legally convoluted” structure did not benefit the parties in any meaningful way, and “the only explanation the Court can discern as to why that structure was used is that it was a stratagem for eluding the restrictions of the Short-Term Loan Act that would have otherwise applied to the parties’ transaction.”