More help for NY borrowers
Date: Mon, 02/04/2013 - 11:28
Check out the case of North American Bank v. Schulman, 198 Misc.2d 516 (Westchester Cty, 1984). Link is here: http://tinyurl.com/apc4a2c
Schulman, a NY resident, signed a loan with an Israeli bank. Interest rate was in excess of what was allowed under NY law.
The court held that even though the loan agreement said that Israeli law would apply and that the proper forum for any litigation was in Tel Aviv, NY law would apply and that NY courts could hear the case.
The court's explanation was that preventing usury is a matter of fundamental public policy in NY state and since Schulman was a NY resident, the public policy of the state overrides the provisions of the contract.
There are some differences between this case from 1984 and internet payday lending today, but the overriding principal of the case - that preventing usury is a matter of public policy in NY and that parties can't contract around that policy -- would apply to payday lending - in the borrower's favor.
because
knowingly taking a loan and then closing an account and not paying it back makes you worse than the lenders.you see just about everybody who comes here seeking advice,reassurance,and knowledge are not aware of the illegality of the loans.big difference there.so give up the moral highground.again it makes you worse than the lenders.
I know that this forum says
I know that this forum says to payback the principal amount as this is morally right. However, my question is, are these illegal lenders maintaining moral standards? They just bleed you. Why should we think about ethics and morals when they don't?
Do you really believe that
Do you really believe that the US would have extradited one of her own even if the loan met the usury requirements of NYS? I really do not think so.
Moreover, judges loath choice of law clause in credit card/loan contracts and that point will be thrown out even before it gets made.
This forum basically tells people with payday loan problems to take the higher moral stand and repay the principal, albeit at their own convenience. We know pretty well that the loan contract is null and void and there is no legally binding requirement to repay the lender. Not paying at all is more or less analogues to stealing in retrospect.
The "experts" around here are
The "experts" around here are really edgy about someone coming in with information that they don't have.
Steve Barris, case in point.
The issue was never extradition. The issue was that the borrower didn't want Israeli law to apply to the contract and the NYS court agreed.
And your statement: "Moreover, judges loath (sic) choice of law clause in credit card/loan contracts and that point will be thrown out even before it gets made" is a complete generalization, and basically untrue.
Judges may not honor choice of law clauses, but this case explains exactly WHY judges won't. But you're happier arguing and making broad statements without backup.
My point remains - if you are a NY borrower and one of these payday lenders insists that you owe crazy amounts of interest because you agreed to having Delaware law or tribal law or the law of some foreign jurisdiction apply, there is case law that you can use to refute them. Most won't have any idea what to do with this.