Tag Archives: Loan

Planning Partners Int’l, LLC v. QED, Inc., 2013CO43 (July 1, 2013)

“I’ve lived with this case since I’ve been here in January, and I am very much aware of the protracted convoluted history this cases possesses [sic]” – The Trial Court. Plaintiff (PPI) entered into an Agreement to provide services to Defendant (QED). PPI later loaned money to QED pursuant to a promissory note. The Note required QED to pay reasonable costs and fees that PPI might incur “in connection with the enforcement of” the promissory note. PPI later sued for breach of the note and QED counterclaimed for breach of the Agreement. They both win. The trial court awarded fees to PPI, but did not apportion them. The court of appeals held it should have. The Court disagreed, rejecting a rule requiring proportional diminishment of fees when the defendant recovers on a counterclaim. Rather, trial courts may apportion fees, but if the contract does not require apportionment, it need not do so.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SC961.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9012&courtid=2

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Contracts

Oasis Legal Finance, LLC, et. al., and Funding Holding, Inc., d/b/a LawCash v. John W. Suthers, as Attorney General; and Laura E. Udis, as the Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 2013COA82 (May 23, 2013)

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride. Here, Plaintiffs pay tort plaintiffs while their cases are pending. Repayment depends on the net amount recovered (if any); and if recovery exceeds net proceeds, the debt is increased based on time. The Administrator of the Colorado Uniform Consumer Credit Code, CRS 5-1-101 to 13-103 (UCCC), found the agreements were unlawful “loans.” Plaintiffs disagreed and sued. The court of appeals, like the trial court, found for Administrator. Under the UCCC, a “loan” is a debt created by the lender’s payment, or agreement to pay, money to a consumer. A “debt” is either fixed (a specific sum due) or contingent (not presently fixed but may become fixed in the future). A debt is not, however, an unconditional promise to pay. Here, Plaintiffs’ payments were contingent debts and thus loans.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2013/12CA1130-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8958&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Administrative, Contracts, Government