Tag Archives: Uniform Consumer Credit Code

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

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Administrative, Contracts, Government

State ex. rel. John Suthers, Attorney General and Laura Udis, Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code, v. Tulips Investments, LLC, d/b/a CashBanc, and David Blevins, 2012COA206 (November 21, 2012)

An elderly couple got a pay-day loan with an annual interest rate of 365%. Seriously. The Attorney General (AG) sought to investigate the loan under Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Consumer Protection Act. After the lender Tulips, a Delaware company, ignored numerous orders to provide information, including an administrative investigative subpoena, the AG obtained a court order to compel compliance. Tulips challenged the jurisdiction of a Colorado court to enforce a subpoena served out-of-state on an out-of-state entity. The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena. The court of appeals disagreed on two grounds: 1) the legislature authorized the AG to take reasonable actions to fulfill its statutory duties, and 2) an administrative subpoena is not limited like a judicial subpoena under CRCP 45. The subpoena was enforceable.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA2367-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8756&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Administrative, Government