Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

PayDayOk letter

Date: Thu, 03/16/2006 - 13:23

Submitted by polly
on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 13:23

Posts: 1709 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 37


[quote]
As of today February 10, 2006 I do not authorize you to withdraw any funds from checking account number ########.

Your company is guilty of breaking The State of Michigan criminal usury laws.

CRIMINAL USURY (EXCERPT)
Act 259 of 1968


438.41 Criminal usury; definition; penalty.
Sec. 1.
A person is guilty of criminal usury when, not being authorized or permitted by law to do so, he knowingly charges, takes or receives any money or other property as interest on the loan or forbearance of any money or other property, at a rate exceeding 25% at simple interest per annum or the equivalent rate for a longer or shorter period. Any person guilty of criminal usury may be imprisoned for a term not to exceed 5 years or fined not more than $10,000.00, or both.

History: 1968, Act 259, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968

CRIMINAL USURY (EXCERPT)
Act 259 of 1968


438.42 Usurious loan records; possession, penalty.
Sec. 2.
A person is guilty of possession of usurious loan records when, with knowledge of the contents thereof, he possesses any writing, paper, instrument or article used to record criminally usurious transactions prohibited by this act. Any person guilty of possession of usurious loan records may be imprisoned for a term not to exceed 1 year or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both.

History: 1968, Act 259, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968



Your claim that the contract that I signed is only governed by New Mexico law is unsubstantiated. There is specific case law that refutes your claim. Your company solicited, accepted and transacted business with a citizen of the State of Michigan, thus you are subject to the laws of this state including the usury laws.

“Dot Com repeatedly and consciously chose to process Pennsylvania residents' applications and to assign them passwords. Dot Com knew that the result of these contracts would be the transmission of electronic messages into Pennsylvania. The transmission of these files was entirely within its control. Dot Com cannot maintain that these contracts are "fortuitous" or "coincidental" within the meaning of World-Wide Volkswagen. When a defendant makes a conscious choice to conduct business with the residents of a forum state, "it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there." World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567. Dot Com was under no obligation to sell its services to Pennsylvania residents. It freely chose to do so, presumably in order to profit from those transactions. If a corporation determines that the risk of being subject to personal jurisdiction in a particular forum is too great, it can choose to sever its connection to the state. Id. If Dot Com had not wanted to be amenable to jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, the solution would have been simple--it could have chosen not to sell its services to Pennsylvania residents.” (W.D.Pa. 1997)

As I am sure you are aware that even the State of New Mexico realizes that your practices are unfair, as on February 15, you will no longer be able to conduct business in the manner that you now do.

12.2.10.8 UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES:
A. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to offer or make a small loan that is not based upon reasonable underwriting guidelines, such as the borrower's income, or when the lender knows or should know with the exercise of reasonable diligence that the loan is beyond the borrower's reasonable ability to repay according to the terms of the loan. For the purposes of this rule, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the borrower has a reasonable ability to repay the loan if the loan amount does not exceed 25% of the borrower's net monthly income.
B. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to rely solely on the loan-to-value ratio in extending a loan to a borrower.
C. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to misrepresent that a borrower meets the lender's underwriting guidelines for a particular loan or to misrepresent that particular guidelines are being used when the borrower does not meet the lender's underwriting guidelines or when such guidelines do not exist.
D. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to make a small loan without providing the consumer a reasonable period of time to repay the loan. For the purposes of this rule, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that this standard is met if the loan does not require that it be repaid in full for at least four months, provided there is no prepayment penalty if the loan is paid off sooner.
E. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to make a small loan with the knowledge that the borrower is likely to be unable to repay the loan, or to make the loan with the reasonable expectation of seizing the borrower's collateral.
F. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to falsify, or encourage any prospective borrower to falsify, the borrower's credit application for a payday or car title loan.
G. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to fail to clearly and conspicuously disclose orally and in writing a payday or car title loan's fees, charges, and payments.
H. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to engage in an act or practice in connection with the offering of a small loan, where the borrower exclusively or primarily uses the proceeds of the small loan to re-pay another small loan.
I. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to require the purchase of credit insurance or an auto club membership as a condition to the making of any small loan by a small loan lender.
J. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan application form of the licensee to be preprinted to offer or provide financing for the purchase of credit insurance or auto club memberships. Any agreement to purchase credit insurance or auto club membership shall be separate from any small loan agreement, and must provide a disclosure which is either signed or initialed by the consumer acknowledging that he/she understands that the purchase of the credit insurance or auto club membership was in no way a condition or requirement for obtaining any loan from the small loan lender.
K. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to submit a check received for payment of a small loan for deposit more than one time, or to create electronic checks for deposit and deposit such electronic checks or electronically debit the borrower's checking account after a check or electronic debit has been dishonored or returned for insufficient funds.
L. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to charge application, document preparation, credit check or any fees other than a reasonable returned check or declined debit authorization charge.
M. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan lender to require payment of interest charges for the full term of the small loan if the small loan is paid off early.
N. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for a small loan licensee to require small loan terms that provide for payments against interest only. Payments on small loans shall include both interest and principal during the term of the small loan.
O. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to allocate payments during the term of the small loan so that a balloon payment is due at the last scheduled payment of the loan, i.e., payments against the principal balance of the loan shall be equally divided during the term of the loan.
[12.2.10.8 NMAC - N, 02/15/2006]

12.2.10.9 UNCONSCIONABLE TRADE PRACTICES:
A. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to engage in an act or practice in connection with the offering of a small loan which shocks the conscience or is exceedingly unfair, harsh or callous, such as when, given the circumstances, the terms of the loan place the borrower with a substantial and unreasonable risk of loss of the collateral while the lender assumes little or no risk of loss.
B. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to engage in an act or practice in connection with the offering of a small loan where the lender intentionally makes a loan for the purpose of seizing the borrower's collateral.
C. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to engage in an act or practice in connection with the offering of a small loan that takes unreasonable advantage of the small loan lender's superior knowledge and expertise or when there is no legitimate business justification for such a small loan and the lender knows that the borrower is especially vulnerable or is facing an emergency need for the small loan.
D. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to engage in an act or practice in connection with the offering of a small loan that takes unfair advantage of the borrower's relative education,
language skills, advancing age, clear inability to handle monies, or other factors that place the borrower at an unreasonable disadvantage.
E. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to engage in an act or practice in connection with the offering of a small loan that charges interest or other credit costs that are significantly excessive in comparison to other available loans, regardless of whether the interest and cost charges of the loan are otherwise lawful under state or federal credit statutes.
F. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to offer or make a payday or car title loan and:
(1) charge more than seven dollars fifty cents ($7.50) or ten percent of the amount loaned, whichever is greater, for the first thirty-day period of the loan; this charge shall not be made on the refinancing of an existing loan or credit transaction; a loan or extension of credit shall be considered to be refinancing of an existing loan if any part of the proceeds of the subsequent loan is applied toward the payment of a prior loan with the same small loan lender;
(2) for the remaining period of the payday or car title loan, including any refinancing, to charge directly, indirectly or by any subterfuge, a small loan charge in connection with any payday or car title loan transaction at a rate in excess of four percent per month on the unpaid principal balance of the loan or extension of credit; this shall be limited to a period of 12 months from the date of maturity of the loan; in total, this cap on interest equates to an average rate of 54% per annum: ten percent for the first month, followed by four percent for the subsequent eleven months; and
(3) to charge a rate in excess of ten percent per annum after twelve months from the date of maturity of the loan;
(4) the foregoing payday and car title loan charges are limiting maximums and nothing in this rule shall be construed to prohibit a small loan lender from contracting for or receiving a lesser rate.
G. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to require borrowers to waive the right to participate in a class action or jury trial, to seek punitive damages, to require waiver or release of pre-existing claims or causes of action arising from prior transactions, or avail themselves of any other form of legal redress.
H. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to fail to provide written translation of documents in the language in which solicitation(s) have been made or in which the transaction took place, or to fail to provide written verification that a full and complete oral translation of the contract was provided to the borrower for any transaction that took place in an oral (non-written) language.
[12.2.10.9 NMAC - N, 02/15/2006]

> >I received your fax suggesting we are operating illegally in your state and
> >while we do operate well within our rights in your state I am willing to
> >settle your loan to resolve your dispute. Your current balance is $610.71
> >as a result of your most recent transaction being an increase, which you
> >chose on 1/20/06, to $500.00. I am now willing to waive all fees and
> >finance charges to settle for the principal balance of $500.00 by 3/1/06.
> >Please let me know if you will accept this offer.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thank You,
> >
> >PayDay OK Account Service Team

> I do not accept the settlement offer state below.
>
> Being that I have already paid $596.23 in interest since the 07/12/04
> inception, and that the apr of 260.72% on a $500.00 loan is what The New
> Mexico Attorney General Parrica Madrid has deemed an "unconscionable trade
> practice", and The State of Michigan has defined since 1968 as "Criminal
> Usury", I request that my account be marked "paid in full." I will owe
> PayDayOK nothing more, nor will PayDayOK owe me any refunds.
>
> Please respond.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> TITLE 12 TRADE, COMMERCE AND BANKING
> CHAPTER 2 CONSUMER PROTECTION
> PART 10 EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR SMALL LOANS
> 12.2.10.1 ISSUING AGENCY: Office of the New Mexico Attorney General.
> [12.2.10.1 NMAC - N, 02/15/2006]
>
> 12.2.10.9 UNCONSCIONABLE TRADE PRACTICES:
>
> "F. It is an unconscionable trade practice for a small loan lender to offer
> or make a payday or car title loan and:
> (1) charge more than seven dollars fifty cents ($7.50) or ten percent of the
> amount loaned, whichever is greater, for the first thirty-day period of the
> loan; this charge shall not be made on the refinancing of an existing loan
> or credit transaction; a loan or extension of credit shall be considered to
> be refinancing of an existing loan if any part of the proceeds of the
> subsequent loan is applied toward the payment of a prior loan with the same
> small loan lender;
> (2) for the remaining period of the payday or car title loan, including any
> refinancing, to charge directly, indirectly or by any subterfuge, a small
> loan charge in connection with any payday or car title loan transaction at a
> rate in excess of four percent per month on the unpaid principal balance of
> the loan or extension of credit; this shall be limited to a period of 12
> months from the date of maturity of the loan; in total, this cap on interest
> equates to an average rate of 54% per annum: ten percent for the first
> month, followed by four percent for the subsequent eleven months; and
> (3) to charge a rate in excess of ten percent per annum after twelve months
> from the date of maturity of the loan;
> (4) the foregoing payday and car title loan charges are limiting maximums
> and nothing in this rule shall be construed to prohibit a small loan lender
> from contracting for or receiving a lesser rate."

You have paid a total to date of $583.09 and increased your loan to $500.00 as
recent as 1/20/06, agreeing to the terms at that time. In a goodwill gesture we
will forgive the debt you owe Payday Ok considering the funds received to date
sufficient to close the loan.


Thank You,

PayDay OK Account Service Team
[/quote]

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/


I agree, JJ! This gal is one fire :-) I never knew about usury laws before, Polly is check into this for my state for me. I do a letter that is similar to this but I use information from the division of financial instititutions that is in regards to the check cashing act, it states a lender must be licensed in order to do business with an ohio consumer, if not that it is not allowed or illegal as I state, and some of these lenders state it does not pertain to them but store front lenders. This is just not true in most states.


lrhall41

Submitted by Cow & Chicken on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 13:55

( Posts: 3571 | Credits: )


In each state there are some agencies that regulate the licensing, bonding or registration of a company and determine that the company is doing business lawfully. It is encouraged to check with such agencies like the Department of Financial and Professional Regulations and know the licensing of a company.


lrhall41

Submitted by david on Thu, 03/16/2006 - 14:15

( Posts: 1229 | Credits: )


Polly is doing a great job and will be a great help in the forums :) Twokid, check with your state's department or division of financial institutions to see if they regulate payday loans in your state. You can probably access this information on the internet as well as find out if a company is actually licensed to loan money in your state. This is what I have been doing for the few months and it has worked in my favor.


lrhall41

Submitted by Cow & Chicken on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 03:19

( Posts: 3571 | Credits: )


I've done it. I live in Mass, and have payday loans with: Magnum Funding ($500), Sonic Payday ($1000), AmericaCash Advance ($1000), Mr. Cash ($300), Apple Payday ($650) and Payday Connection ($850).

I had payed off some of the loans before the holidays, but quickly got behind the eight ball and went back to the "old faithful" method. I realize now what a mistake I've made.

I am now in at a point that my entire paycheck is going to the interest on these loans. At Magnum, I actually was due to pay them off this payday, but it was returned and now they've extended it, including fees, until 4/15 for two debits of $245.

Is there anything I can do here? I don't know how to get out of this. I have an infant at home and am scared. Has anyone been in this situation? Is there any recourse for someone who has made such a horrible mistake? Is bankruptcy an option?

Someone, please give me sound advice! I am desperate to know what I can do!


lrhall41

Submitted by scaredsillybydebt on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 08:55

( Posts: 9 | Credits: )


scared,

Just stop paying them. You can't do it. Find out what the laws are in Mass. Find out if these companies are licensed in the states that they operate, and write letters.

Don't let them bully you. You need to provide for your baby. trust me...I've been there.


lrhall41

Submitted by polly on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 08:59

( Posts: 1709 | Credits: )


Scared to follow up with what Polly says, before your next payments are due, talk with your bank and change your account numbers (close existing checking and open new one. Once you have protected your paycheck then you can decide how to deal with the calls that will follow. I recommend that you sned each and everyone of your lenders a letter stating your circumstances and that you would like to make payment arrangements. Do not offer any money at first, wait and see who is willing to work with you. the strategy I used was to payoff the most willing to work with me first and then take care of the rest one at time. It took me 18 months to payof nearly 5K. I was fairly lucky in that I had a decent income at the time and it increased as time went on. However I still ahd to stick to a budget. The key is to only agree to pay what you can afford. Most lenders trty and get their money back as fast as possible, and will generaly try and get you to pay more that you can afford. don't cave in.. stay strong.. ignore threats of criminal action.. they can't do that...

Also, here a a few numbers I have found where you might be able to get some free legal assistance

Massachusetts Bar Dial-a-Lawyer
617-338-0571

Legal Advocacy and Resource Center
1-800-342-LAWS

Western MA Volunteer Lawyers Service
1-800-639-1209

Most importanly scared, remember your not alone, alot of us have been down this road and we will all do our best to help you.

take care


lrhall41

Submitted by jj on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 09:19

( Posts: 1057 | Credits: )


I am trying to really understand the law and my options .. can anyone interpret what this means to me --
Although 14 states prohibit payday loans, only three have strong laws.
Fourteen states (AK, CT, GA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NJ, NY, NC, PA, RI, VT, WV) prohibit payday loans through small loan interest rate caps, usury laws, or specific prohibitions on check cashing.14 However, of these, only Georgia, Maryland and Massachusetts have statutes that prevent local companies from partnering with out-of-state banks to evade the prohibition on payday lending. Recent Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) regulations don't solve the problem of local companies that partner with out-of-state banks.

Does this mean Mass does has strong laws against payday lending


lrhall41

Submitted by scaredsillybydebt on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 09:39

( Posts: 9 | Credits: )


So I asked this question in another thread, but maybe it's more appropriate here, but can someone help explain the laws and who has to abide by them? I have a creditor coming after me stating I still owe $390 in fees for a $300 loan. I got the loan in June, paid off the principal in October. I even paid $330 in fees between June and October. Now they are calling me and telling me I still owe $390. They refuse to give me a breakdown of the fees also. So I used this thread to do some research. I live in KY and the law is only $15 per $100. They were charging me $30 per $100. So I sent them a letter stating the KY laws in which where I live. They just called me and left a message stating they don't have to follow KY laws, please someone help. Do these laws apply to internet loans also? Are there restrictions? Their co is in Missouri, which Missouri laws states that accumulated interest and fees cannot exceed 75% of the original amount. Any help would be appreciated before I call these scoundrals back. And I did pay the principal off back in October. Only til now are they claiming I still owe an additional $390 (this is just fees). Such crooks!


lrhall41

Submitted by on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 09:41

( Posts: | Credits: )


scared, from what i read, Mass has laws that prevent payday loans in Mass, in that payday lenders cannot profitably operate in state. It does not however appaer to provide alot of regulation against internet payday loans.

Mindys, If your state's payday loan law is applicable to payday lenders operating over the internet and alot of them are, then if they are not licensed and/or following the regs in your state they they may be violating state laws. Your situation is kind of two fold, 1) you have a contract between you and the lender wich is subject to contract law and 2) you have a wuestion whether or not teh internet payday lender can legally loan to residents of your state without or with a license. what state is mentioned in your contract as the jurisdictional state?


lrhall41

Submitted by jj on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 10:05

( Posts: 1057 | Credits: )


I was under the impression that payday lenders charged a Fee in lieu of interest,so that they could get away with these high rates.If the payday lender is licensed in the state that they are operating in then they can loan to anyone.I believe this is the loophole they use to get away with what would be in any other case illegal.


lrhall41

Submitted by twokidtwocat on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 10:42

( Posts: 602 | Credits: )


So what if I just don't call her back? What do you think would be their next steps? I'm assuming send me to a CA which would be my advantage b/c then the CA would have to validate my debt. I can't get the original creditor to validate my debt. I have tried numerous times and they just keep giving me the run around. I can't pay an additional $390 to a loan that I paid off back in October. That's absolutely crazy!


lrhall41

Submitted by on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 11:24

( Posts: | Credits: )


I live in Maryland - but I took my payday loans out on line - Paydayok,Magnum,Payday2go,Apple, - I have been paying for months - I too have fallen on hardtimes - my paycheck was garnished - and I don't have a lot of money left- I wrote letters but they still want the money - by the next pay period - I just don't have it - can I just stop paying can you tell me who to contact in maryland like the letter that I have read above for Michigan


lrhall41

Submitted by on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 12:27

( Posts: | Credits: )


Okay, some clarification on internet payday lenders. Trust me I've learned a lot of the last few months with dealing with them. Number one, Mindy, do you have proof that you paid this loan off? Something like a bank statement showing the entire withdrawal? This would be a benefit in your favor. They will probably threaten to send you to collections or some other trumped up charge. Don't listen to them. I would check on this first and then file a complaint with your state's attorney general's office as well as the state in which the lender is located in. Secondly, anyone can find payday loan laws in your state by checking with your bank commissioner, consumer protection office, or division of financial instititutions. In the state of Ohio, a lender must be licensed with the Ohio Divsion of Financial Institutions in order to loan money to any Ohio consumer. If you live in Ohio, check the divisions website and search for the check cashing loan act. This will be a great asset to you, trust me on this. Twokid, can I ask what state you live in? I have all the laws of the payday lenders printed out and saved on my desktop at home. I can share the info with you to help you out some more. Folks, I got Sonic Payday to cave, I can help you out :-) And so can Polly :-)


lrhall41

Submitted by Cow & Chicken on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 12:31

( Posts: 3571 | Credits: )


I looked up the Virginia law (6.1-445), and it states that a company must be licensed in Virginia to loan to someone living in Virginia.
Quote:

"?? 6.1-445. License requirement.

A. No person shall engage in the business of making payday loans to any consumer residing in the Commonwealth, whether or not the person has a location in the Commonwealth, except in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and without having first obtained a license under this chapter from the Commission.

B. No person shall engage in the business of arranging or brokering payday loans for any consumer residing in the Commonwealth, whether or not the person has a location in the Commonwealth.

(2002, c. 897; 2005, c. 571.) "


I sent letters to One Click, United and Quikpayday based on this.


lrhall41

Submitted by set4sail on Fri, 03/17/2006 - 16:37

( Posts: 412 | Credits: )


Twokid,

Sorry I didn't get to you sooner. GECC turned me over to Simm's right before they received the first payment from T &C. I sent them a letter asking for their license information in Ohio. I also followed up with several e-mails with GECC which I have records of. I quoted the section of the law in my state and they told me they were checking on it. They now consider the loan handled through Simm's and there is nothing more they can do for me at this point. They have to be licensed in both of our states to loan money. They are conducting illegal business practices in both of our states. And now I receive this letter from Simm's. I'm going to do some more research but now I want to take GECC down. They have twisted my words around and now won't even talk to me. I put them up there with Sonic. I'm going to do some research this weekend on the ftc website about what kind of tactics CA's can actually use.


lrhall41

Submitted by Cow & Chicken on Sat, 03/18/2006 - 16:08

( Posts: 3571 | Credits: )


That's great!!! You scared the crap out of them!

*Advice*

Hold on to that "paid in full" documentation for at least ten years. These agencies have a habit of forgiving your debt, then selling it to a debt aquisition firm without the new owner being aware that it has been paid. I have seen cases where six-seven years after a loan was paid, another agency is trying to collect. Keep all of your documentation in a file!


lrhall41

Submitted by beatlemyn02 on Sat, 03/18/2006 - 22:52

( Posts: 79 | Credits: )


regarding pay day loans and if the company has to be licensed in your state or not. I am in tn and wondering about moneytree.bz.
Thanks


lrhall41

Submitted by on Sat, 03/25/2006 - 09:08

( Posts: | Credits: )


Okay, I found the Texas information.

But, does this mean I cannot use your letter for PayDayOk if I'm in Texas. It's hard to understand the verbage but it sounds like as long as it's less than $18/100 they're okay. They charge $12.

I also have a payday loan outstanding with PayDayOne which I'm convinced is the same company.

Would your letter work for me?

Thanks so much!


lrhall41

Submitted by margaretw on Tue, 07/25/2006 - 11:48

( Posts: | Credits: )


Exactly why we're happy with cashloancity.com and not some site that tries to change the truth in lending laws


lrhall41

Submitted by on Wed, 10/17/2007 - 14:42

( Posts: | Credits: )