PAYDAY TODAY INC v. HAMILTON. Court of Appeals of Indiana

As safety for the loan, Hamilton offered Payday by having a post-dated look for $143.75. Whenever Hamilton’s check ended up being returned to Payday, Hall mailed her a page demanding the quantity of the check, along with a $20.00 returned check cost and $300.00 in lawyer charges. The page claimed that payment of those quantities had been required for Hamilton in order to avoid a lawsuit. Especially, the page reported in pertinent component:

Re: DISHONORED CHECK TO Payday Today, Inc./South Bend

Please be encouraged that this workplace is retained to represent the above lender with respect to a little loan contract No ․, dated 06/03/2004. This loan provider accepted your check as safety for a financial loan in the number of ($143.75). The contract called for the check to be cashed pursuant to your regards to the mortgage contract, in the event that you hadn’t formerly made plans to meet the mortgage. You’ve got did not make re re payment into the loan provider as agreed, and upon presentation, the banking organization on which it absolutely was drawn failed to honor your check. You have got been formerly notified by the loan provider of the returned check and now have taken no action to solve the problem.

IF YOU’D LIKE TO RESOLVE THIS QUESTION WITH OUT A LAWSUIT, this is the time to use it. To take action, you need to spend the next quantities, (1) the complete level of the check plus, (2) a $20 returned check charge, and (3) lawyer charges of $300. This re re re re re payment must certanly be by means of a cashier’s money or check purchase payable to Attorney Edward R. Hall. In the event that you don’t spend in complete the quantity due within ten times through the date with this page, we possibly may register suit instantly, where you might be accountable for the following amount under I.C. В§ 24-4.7-5 et seq.; (1) the amount of the check; (2) a twenty buck returned check cost; (3) court expenses; (4) reasonable lawyer charges; (5) other reasonable expenses of collection; (6) 3 x (3x) the amount of the verify that the facial skin number of the check had not been more than $250.00, or (7) in the event that face level of the check had been $250.00 or even more, the check quantity plus five hundred bucks ($500.00), and interest that is pre-judgment the price of 18per cent per year.

(Appellants’ App. 1 at 13; Appellant’s App. 2 at 17). (Emphasis in initial). Hall’s page further recommends Hamilton if she was found to have presented her check in a fraudulent manner that she could be liable for various damages.

Hamilton filed a problem against Payday and Hall alleging violations regarding the Indiana Uniform customer Credit Code-Small Loans (Ind.Code § 24-4.5-7 et seq.) (“SLA”) while the federal Fair Debt Collection methods Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692) (“FDCPA”). In Count We associated with issue, Hamilton alleged that Payday violated the SLA whenever

a. Hall threatened ․ to file case against Hamilton that could demand damages in overabundance what the defendants are allowed to recoup under I.C. 24-4.5-7-202, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4, and Payday caused this hazard to be manufactured, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(b).

b. Hall made misleading and misleading statements to Hamilton ․ concerning the quantity the defendants could recover for a little loan, thus breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(c), and Payday caused these statements to be produced, thus breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(c).

c. Hall represented in their letter that Hamilton, being a debtor of a tiny loan, is likely for lawyer charges compensated by the loan provider regarding the the assortment of the tiny loan, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(d), and Payday caused these representations to be manufactured, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(d).

d. Hall made deceptive and fraudulent representations in their page regarding the quantity a loan provider is eligible to recover for a tiny loan, thus breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(g), and Payday caused these representations to be produced, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(g).

(Appellant’s Appendix 2 at 100-01). Hamilton alleged in Count II that Hall violated the FDCPA. Id. at 101. She asked for declaratory judgment pursuant to Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-7-409( 4)( ag ag e) that Payday had no right to get, get, or retain any principal, interest, or any other fees through the loan. She additionally asked for statutory damages of $2000 and expenses and damages pursuant to Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-7-409(4)(e). She further asked for statutory damages of $500 pursuant to Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-7-409(4)(c) and Ind.Code В§ 24-5-0.5-4. Finally, she asked for statutory damages of $1000 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. В§ 1692k(a) and “such other and relief that is further the court deems simply and equitable.” Id.

Payday and Hall reacted by filing a remedy and three counterclaims against Hamilton for (1) defrauding a standard bank under Ind.Code В§ 35-43-5-8, (2) moving a poor check under Ind.Code В§ 26-2-7-6, and (3) breach of a agreement.

3130 Chaparral Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 - (540) 777-1318
Open Weekdays 8:30am-5:30pm

© 2021, Robert Barnes Consulting. INC..