Select Page

United States Of America Cash Advance Centers v. Oxendine

DECIDED: 1, 2003 august

Summary judgment. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Longer.

Troutman Sanders, William M. Droze, David M. Green, for appellants.

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Sidney R. Barrett, Jr., Isaac Byrd, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Samantha M. Rein, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

United States Of America payday advances Advance Centers, American advance loan, Inc., EZ Credit, Inc., Fast money `Til Payday, Inc., Great American advance loan, Inc., Great American Credit, Inc., Monday `Til Payday, Inc., United States Of America wage advance, Inc., United States Of America payday advances Advance Center #8, Inc., United States Of America payday advances Advance Center #9, Inc., United States Of America cash advance Center #10, Inc., United States Of America cash advance Center #11, Inc., United States Of America cash advance Center #12, Inc., United States Of America cash advance Center #13, Inc., and United States Of America cash advance Center #14, Inc. Brought a declaratory judgment action against John W. Oxedine, indiv motion for summary judgment had been issued because of the test court for Oxendine. Finding no mistake, we affirm.

In July of 2002, the Commissioner authorized a study of the loan that is”payday tasks of USA Payday Advance Centers. An administrative “show cause” order issued, and the plaintiffs were among the parties named in the order as a result of the examination. Following the hearing on October 11, 2002, the Commissioner unearthed that the plaintiffs had been in breach for the Industrial Loan Act for making loans lacking any loan that is industrial as well as in making false and misleading advertisments of loans; the Commissioner commanded them to stop and desist from making loans “except as permitted underneath the Georgia Industrial Loan Act. ” Plaintiffs had been charging you a yearly interest of 650%. On October 22, 2002, the superior court denied plaintiffs’ selling point of your order. On December 2, 2002, plaintiffs dismissed that appeal.

On December 3, 2003, plaintiffs filed this declaratory judgment action and alleged which they no further made the loans but that, as “companies” for County Bank, the loans had been now produced by County Bank through them. November 13, 2002, had been the effective date for such home based business procedure to begin with. Plaintiffs stated an exemption through the Georgia Industrial Loan work as agents when it comes to out-of-state bank. Nevertheless, such provider agreement, which was alleged into the verified pleadings, ended up being never put in proof.

During the time that the declaratory judgment action had been brought, the Commissioner hadn’t determined whether or otherwise not to open up a study into plaintiffs’ start up business arrangement with County Bank, since the Commissioner had no factual statements about the newest arrangement and loans and had taken no place in regard to the brand new procedure.

The Commissioner relocated for summary judgment from the grounds that no “actual or justiciable debate” existed pertaining to plaintiffs’ brand brand new arrangement with County Bank and therefore there was in fact no ruling sought on plaintiffs’ brand brand new arrangement because of the Commissioner pursuant to their laws allowing needs for declaratory rulings. Consequently, plaintiffs didn’t exhaust its administrative treatments just before searching for judicial action.

Under OCGA § 7-3-1 et seq., the Georgia Industrial Loan Act, loans under $3,000 or less come in the ambit associated with the Act. “a quick payday loan is that loan of quick extent, typically a couple of weeks, at an astronomical annual interest rate. ” Smith v. Steinkamp, 318 F. 3d 775, 776-777 (7th Cir. 2003). Payday advances are the present form of “salary buying” or “wage buying. ” See Gunnels v. Atlanta Bar Assoc., 191 Ga. 366, 381(3) ( 12 S.E. 2d 602) (1940); Hinton v. Mack Publishing Co., 41 Ga. App. 823, 826 ( 155 INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE 78) (1930). The costs, costs, and interest on a quick payday loan are between 15% and 30% regarding the principal for the loan that is two-week constituting a pretext for usury. Cashback Catalog selling, Inc. V. Cost, 102 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1380 (S.D. Ga. 2000); see also Greenberg v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 594 ( 499 S.E. 2d 266) (1998); White v. Check Holders, Inc., 996 S.W. 2d 496 (Ky. 1999). Considering that the Georgia Industrial Loan Act had been enacted to “define and stop usury” and also to supply a supply of regulated funds “for people who was indeed borrowing at usurious prices from loan sharks, road shylocks and wagebuyers, ” then such financial transactions come inside the jurisdiction of this Act. Consequently, the Industrial Loan Commissioner has jurisdiction over “wage-buyers. ” OCGA § 7-37-1 et seq.; 1954-56 Op. Att’y Gen. At pp. 385-386. In the event that maximum rate of interest is finished the limitation set by OCGA § 7-3-14 of 10per cent or perhaps the loan provider does not hold a commercial permit granted because of the Commissioner, then “payday loans” violate the Georgia Industrial Loan Act. See 2002, Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2002-3.

Freeman v. Decatur Loan Finance Corp., 140 Ga. App. 682, 685 ( 231 S.E. 2d 409) (1976).

So that they can circumvent state usury legislation, some payday lenders have actually contracted with federally chartered banking institutions or state chartered banks insured by the FDIC to benefit from federal banking regulations that enable such banking institutions which will make loans across state lines without reference to that state’s interest and usury rules in “rent-a-charter” or “rent-a-bank” contracts. See State of Colorado ex rel. Salazar v. ACE money Express, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1285-1286 (D. Colo. 2002); very very Long v. ACE money Exp., 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24617 (M.D. Fla. 2001); Goleta Nat’l Bank v. Lingerfelt, 211 F. Supp. 2d 711 (E.D.N.C. 2002). Whether it has took place this instance and whether it’s genuine or a mere subterfuge intended to circumvent Georgia usury regulations is not reached in this instance, considering that the plaintiffs did not exhaust administrative treatments and also to place the contract with County Bank into proof.

The judicial branch lacks jurisdiction to deal with an executive branch function until there has been an exhaustion of administrative remedies, i.e., the executive branch has no further remedy under the separation of powers under the Georgia Constitution. The particular empowerment that is legislative judicial breakdown of executive action is strictly followed. Perkins v. Dep. Of medical attention, 252 Ga. App. 35, 36-38(1) ( 555 S.E. 2d 500) (2001). The explanation is “resort into the administrative procedure will let the agency to utilize its expertise, protect the agency’s autonomy, allow a far more efficient quality, and end up in the consistent application of things inside the agency’s jurisdiction. ” Cerulean Co., Inc. V. Tiller, 271 Ga. 65, 67(1) ( 516 S.E. 2d 522) (1999). A plaintiff “is forbidden from doing by indirection that title loan susa review which it really is forbidden from doing straight, i.e., bypassing the fatigue of administrative appeals. ” (Citations omitted. ) Perkins v. Dept. Of medical attention, supra at 38.

Long-standing Georgia legislation calls for that an event aggrieved by a situation agency’s choice must raise all problems before that agency and exhaust available administrative treatments before looking for any judicial article on the agency’s choice. So long as there is certainly a powerful and available administrative remedy, a celebration is needed to pursue that treatment before searching for equitable relief in superior court.

Cerulean Co., Inc. V. Tiller, supra at p. 66. Subsequently,

An action for declaratory judgment will never be amused where in actuality the liberties of this events have previously accrued therefore the plaintiff faces no danger of using future undirected action. In which a statute provides a celebration with an easy method of review by an administrative agency, such procedure is usually a sufficient treatment at law in order to preclude the grant of equitable relief.