01-16-2009, 08:18 AM
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
Credits: 0 [Check]
Sub: MTE FINANCIAL
Does anyone know if MTE FINANCIAL is legal in the US. I know they have multiple lending names. Does anyone know which names they operate under.
ALSO
If a company is not legai in the US what exactly does that mean. What payback are they entitled to if by paying interest you have already paid more then what the total laon was.

THANKS TO ANYONE WHO CAN HELP ME.
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:27 AM
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
Credits: 0 [Check]
Sub:
MTE and its affiliates are the worst and not legal. If a company is not a legal lender morally all you need to pay back is the ampunt of the principle borrowed.
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:28 AM
puddlejmpr's Avatar
puddlejmpr puddlejmpr is offline

Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,637
Credits: 4,796
Sub:
No they are not legal. They hold no license in the US. They are located on tribal land so they claim they don't have to follow laws.

They go under tons of different names. You should do a search for MTE and it will bring up tons of different posts.
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:28 AM
dawnlango7's Avatar
dawnlango7 dawnlango7 is offline

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Waterbury, CT
Posts: 1,164
Credits: 4,288
Sub:
Hi guest,

Here is some info I found on MTE, as stated above they are illegal.
Quote:
MTE Financial is a payday loan company. Its full name is MTE Financial Refi Debt and is commonly known as MTE Financial Services.

Customers are getting more-and-more annoyed by every passing day due to MTE's different malpractices. Some of the most common types of complaints against them include:
MTE Financial has debited customer's account without authorizing it and never contact them later.
They have debited a single account for multiple numbers of times either through its own name or through different company names, again without authorization.
MTE possesses different alias names and websites.
MTE Financial Services come with different alias names which are enough to baffle you. Some of these names are:
Rio Resources
ameriloan
TendollarPayday
United Cash Loans
1000 Payday Cash
Payday-Loan-Online-1000
500 Fast Cash
One Click Cash
Actually, all the above listed names including MTE Financial are the DBA (Doing Business As) names of Rio Resources. Thus they are all essentially the same company with different names.

Not only this, some more surprises are yet to come. They function through different websites. Some of them are:
http://www.mtefinancial.com
http://www.oneclickcash.com
http://www.cashadvancenetwork.com
http://www.paydayloanOvernight.com
http://www.quickest-payday-loan.com
http://www.emergency-cash-loans.com
You can contact MTE Financial Services and enquire at:

Mailing Address:
515 G S.E., Miami,
Oklahama 74355

Phone866) 213-0268 / 866-859-6129
866-465-5054 (Live Help)

Fax: (866) 539-7503 / 866-668-0535

Contact details of MTE's other aliases are given below:
Quickest-Cash-Advance.com
MTE Financial Services
Phone Number: 866-702-0267
Fax Number: 866-246-0157
500FastCash
515 G SE, Miami,
Oklahama 74354

__________________
<a href="http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/dawnlango7/index.html">
http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com.../hof-badge.jpg</a>
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:29 AM
Cool_Abyss's Avatar
Cool_Abyss Cool_Abyss is offline

Moderator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,883
Credits: 15,681
Sub:
Guest is correct MTE is highly illegal and will debit your account unauthorized. Please place a freeze on your account and contact MTE financial department. Let them know you are only going to pay principal Money Order ONLY!
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

-Aristotle-
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:31 AM
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
Credits: 0 [Check]
Sub:
And if i have already paid the principle back through finance charges will that be considered the principle paid in full?
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:32 AM
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
Credits: 0 [Check]
Sub:
Thank you very much for the info on MTE..That was very interesting and helpful.
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:35 AM
Cool_Abyss's Avatar
Cool_Abyss Cool_Abyss is offline

Moderator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,883
Credits: 15,681
Sub:
ILLEGAL payday loan means no finance charges. Whatever you paid SHOULD be applied to your princapal. They put monies in your account by soliciting you Illegaly, so all they get is what they deposited. I dealt with them in the past. Paid them principal and that was it!
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

-Aristotle-
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:43 AM
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
Credits: 0 [Check]
Sub:
Just as an FYI...

This decision was made in December 2008 regarding MTE. I don't necessarily agree with all of thier practices or know where things are headed, but the findings were interesting. Mods may want to look into liability of advising posters of fighting MTE.

Quote:
Wednesday, December 17, 2008



Page 1



Loan Companies Owned by Tribes Have Sovereign Immunity—C.A.



By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer



Payday loan companies owned and operated by Indian tribes for tribal purposes have sovereign immunity and are not subject to legal actions to enforce state laws regulating the business of lending, the Court of Appeal for this district has ruled.

Div. Seven Monday granted a writ of mandate sought by five companies asserting tribal immunity in an action brought by the California Department of Corporations. The panel overturned an injunction and sent the case back to the trial court for a determination of whether the relationship between the tribes and the companies satisfies the requirements for immunity.

The department sued in June of last year, charging that Ameriloan, US Fast Cash, United Cash Loans, Preferred Cash and One Click Cash had ignored its “cease and desist” orders and were violating the Deferred Deposit Transaction Law by lending without state licenses and charging excessive fees, among other ways.

Internet-Based Business

The companies are engaged in a largely Internet-based business of lending money short-term to borrowers who pay back the loans by authorizing repayment from their checking accounts on specific dates, typically on the next payday. The business is controversial because the loans carry huge charges, without regard to the number of days for which the money is borrowed, and has been regulated to the point at which it is virtually outlawed in some states.

In response to service of the complaint on the companies, The Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Nation appeared specially in the action and moved to quash for lack of jurisdiction. The tribes asserted that the five defendants were operated by tribal corporations pursuant to tribal resolutions, that the proceeds of the businesses were used for tribal government and social welfare purposes, and that the lenders were arms of the tribes and shared the tribes’ immunity from being sued in the absence of express congressional authorization or waiver.

Retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph R. Kalin, sitting on assignment, denied the motions and granted a preliminary injunction barring the companies from engaging in the allegedly unlawful practices set forth in the complaint. He ruled that the tribes are not immune from liability for off-reservation commercial activities and that the state’s power to enforce its laws under the Tenth Amendment takes precedence over their claims of immunity.

He also ruled that the tribes had waived any immunity, the Miami because the tribal corporation operating the businesses was created by a resolution authorizing it to “sue and be sued,” and both tribes because arbitration clauses were included in their standard loan agreements.

Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss, however, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the trial judge erred in several respects.

Tribal sovereign immunity, Perluss said, will apply to off-reservation commercial conduct if the predicates for such immunity are met. He distinguished cases holding that states may regulate tribal commercial activities occurring on nontribal lands.

Those cases, the presiding justice explained, concerned preemption, not sovereign immunity. The U.S. Supreme Court, Perluss noted, has recognized that “[t]here is a difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws and the means available to enforce them.”

Tenth Amendment

Nor, Perluss said, will the Tenth Amendment override the tribes’ immunity from actions to enforce lending laws. Such actions, he said, are distinguishable from those of the type discussed by the Supreme Court in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Superior Court (2006) 40 Cal.4th 239.

In Agua Caliente, the state high court said the state had a right to enforce campaign contribution reporting laws in administrative proceedings against Indian tribes. The court said the case involved “unique circumstances” and that the peoples’ right to a republican form of government, as well as the reservation of rights by the states under the Tenth Amendment, allow the state to insist that tribes obey the same regulations as other donors.

That ruling is limited to the unique field of campaign reform and does not, Perluss wrote, permit “a broad abrogation of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.”

Perluss acknowledged that the expansion of tribal commercial enterprises may call into question the justification for the broad application of sovereign immunity. But such policy judgments are left to Congress and not to the state courts, he declared.

He went on to note that the “sue and be sued” clause in the Miami resolution was specifically limited “to the extent of the specific terms of the applicable contract or obligation,” and that the arbitration clauses in the loan agreements were similarly limited to specific transactions and were not broad waivers of sovereign immunity that would permit a consumer protection action by the state.

The presiding justice did, however, take note of the department’s argument, based on evidence it claimed to have discovered after the injunction was issued, that the loan companies were actually independent of the tribes but were involved in a “rent-a-tribe” scheme created solely to avoid complying with the lending laws.

Such evidence, Perluss said, should properly be considered by the trial judge in order to determine whether the companies are truly arms of the tribe. Past Court of Appeal decisions, he noted, have established criteria for resolving that issue, “including whether the tribe and the entities are closely linked in governing structure and characteristics and whether federal policies intended to promote Indian tribal autonomy are furthered by extension of immunity to the business entity.”

The case is Ameriloan v. Superior Court (People), 08 S.O.S. 6711.



Copyright 2008, Metropolitan News Company

Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 08:52 AM
Cool_Abyss's Avatar
Cool_Abyss Cool_Abyss is offline

Moderator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,883
Credits: 15,681
Sub:
As far as I am aware their is no law that passed on this as of yet. MTE is still ILLEGAL in my state.
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

-Aristotle-
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 09:02 AM
puddlejmpr's Avatar
puddlejmpr puddlejmpr is offline

Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,637
Credits: 4,796
Sub:
To me also, they are still illegal. When I contacted the state last year, they were trying to work things out with MTE and how to handle them. The state told me to fight them. I did, and I settled with them for just the prin. of the loan.
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 09:03 AM
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
Credits: 0 [Check]
Sub:
This is the first real test of the Sovereign Immunity for Native American PDL's. As you can read, the courts have upheld thier immunity at this point and typically in the court system, they rule based on precident. As I stated, I don't know where this goes, but it may change the direction that that owners of this site allow posters to make about MTE.

It was just an FYI, right, wrong or indifferent...
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 09:04 AM
Cool_Abyss's Avatar
Cool_Abyss Cool_Abyss is offline

Moderator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,883
Credits: 15,681
Sub:
Im sure they will inform posters.

Getting back to the OC. He needs to pay principal and be done with them.
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

-Aristotle-
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 09:08 AM
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
Credits: 0 [Check]
Sub:
puddlejmpr,

You were advised correctly last year. Now, they have a court ruling in thier backpocket to fall back on. This is nowhere near being over and as an owner, I am not happy about it. What it does is it opens the door for them to "legally" offer internet loans in areas that others cannot like Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa, New York, NJ, ect, because they have sovereign immunity.

Look for more fights in the near future....
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 09:11 AM
Cool_Abyss's Avatar
Cool_Abyss Cool_Abyss is offline

Moderator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,883
Credits: 15,681
Sub:
We will, thanks for the info!!
__________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

-Aristotle-
Quick reply to this message
 
01-16-2009, 01:23 PM
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
Credits: 0 [Check]
Sub:
from what i understand is if they come off of the tribal land to take legal action against you then they waive all Immunity
Quick reply to this message
 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >


Quick Reply
Name:
Message:
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
Options
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:54 AM.





 
About Us | Contact Us | Affiliate | Sitemap | Espanol | RSS Feeds| Terms of Services