Cash Advance USA

I took out the following address given in the BBB.

Cash Advance USA
1207 N Buchanan Blvd Ste B
Durham, NC 27701

Cash Advance USA
4546 Capital Blvd
Raleigh, NC 27604

Do you have a loan with them? If yes, do you have any signed paperwork? Their letterhead should have the address.

Well I tried to contact two of the PDL internet companies asking them for an address where T & C could contact them. One never responded and the other gave me what looks like a bogus address.

Balakumar Periyasamy
43997 RiverPoint Drive
Leesburg, VA 20176 usa

Now I decided to take advise from the information I received from the forum and send them a letter. I don't know what the outcome will be, worst case I pay them thru T & C but thought I would take a shot

Quote:

That's an interesting letter and I know that a lot of PDL's back down when they get one like this.

Hypothetically, though - if a lender did decide to press the issue, how would you use Worldwide to establish that Texas law applies? I don't see how it could do so, at least taken by itself, but am open to being convinced otherwise. Are you aware of any cases where a court held that the borrower's state laws apply to out-of-state lenders?

I ask these questions because my own research leads me to a different conclusion. As I said before though, this is a hypothetical question only. I am NOT questioning the effectiveness of your letter as a practical tool. I am simply going through an intellectual exercise and trying to figure out how the argument works when put under scrutiny

Let me explain my own research and conclusions. (See below.) However, I do honestly hope you will raise something I haven't thought about before in response.

Worldwide Volkswagen was a personal injury case, rather than a contract action. The opinion never says whether Oklahoma has authority to apply its laws, simply because this was not an issue presented to it. Since the case didn't deal with a contract, questions about the validity of choice of law clauses the authority of states to apply their laws to businesses outside their borders were not put before the judge. The Worldwide Court simply had to decide whether a company outside of Oklahoma could be compelled to appear in an Oklahoma courtroom to answer for alleged defects in a car it built caused death and injury to an Oklahoma resident.

Alternatively, it could have ruled that the plaintiff had to sue in the company's "home" jurisdiction. As you correctly state, the Court applied minimum contacts analysis, which dates back to the 1945 International Shoe decision, and found the company could be sued in Oklahoma.

There is a great deal of difference between contract cases and personal injury actions, especially where conflicts-of-law issues arise. It isn't automatic that just because a court sits in a state, that state's laws apply in a contract case. First, there may be a a choice-of-law clause in the contract. If so, the Court has to determine its validity and in loan transactions, as in all contracts, the residence of the parties is only one factor among many. For this, I refer to sections 187 and 188 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law. (A few states still operate under the first restatement. That version also had multiple factors but elevated the place where the contract is made above all other considerations. The second is based on the comparative weight of all factors.)

I suppose one could argue that Texas law would render A choice-of-law clause invalid, but to reach that conclusion the judge would have to decide whether the Texas legislature has the power to regulate a business in another state.

In my mind, this is where Worldwide's impact ends. The standard for determining legislative jurisdiction in interstate commerce is much higher than that for forum selection in private disputes. The Commerce and Due Process clauses provide a lot of protection to out-of-state businesses. In recent years, federal courts have struck down state laws intended to regulate internet wine sales (Granholm v. Heald), tax collection (Quill v. North Dakota), real estate (Stroman v. Antt) and even kiddie **** (Psinet v. Chapman) where these affected interstate commerce. A similar case involving payday loans is now before a federal court in Kansas. (Quik Payday v. Stork)

I know a lot of AG web sites say all payday loans made to their constituents are subject to their state's laws. In addition, many state laws claim to apply to any lender that loans to their residents. can't find any legal authority where this has been upheld. Conversely, I've come across a lot of cases (like those above) that make me question whether those statutes are constitutional.

Circumstantial evidence indicates that the states themselves are very unsure of whether they can enforce their statutes across their borders. While some states (like California and Massachussetts) have been aggressively sending out C&D's to lenders, they have shied away from trying to enforce them in Court. Even if they did so and won a judgment from their home courts, they would still need to bring a separate action to enforce that judgment in the lender's state. Other states (like Minnesota, Louisiana and Pennsylvania) concede that they do not have any authority over out-of-state lenders (even under their own state's laws).

Generally, the AG's seem to stick to the easy cases, i.e., suits against storefront companies that claim to be offering rebates on phone cards and internet access rather than loans. I've only been able to find two cases where a state AG has actually sued an out-of-state lender for loans made over the internet. One was Colorado's suit against Quik Payday, but this was settled with no admission of liability. The only other action I am aware of is New York's case against County Bank and a couple of its former servicers. This is still pending.

[color=Red]****Adult term removed - Jason[/color]

You put so much of good info here, Marcia. If you have logged in as a member, you would have earned so many points by now that could have been redeemed into cash. You just have to put an email address in the community sign up page and log in as a member with a password. Your info is safe here. Trust me. At the end, I respect any decision you take.

Re-reading what I wrote, I think I was a little too dismissive of the opposing viewpoint. I think an argument can be made for it. I simply don't see Worldwide or even Zippo (which applied Worldwide to interactive websites) being an effective linchpin for it. But if I've learned anything, it's that I can always learn more.

I definitely should have mentioned in my little essay that just because I can't find any decisions that say states CAN regulate payday lenders from other states, I also haven't found any that say they CAN'T. So my "case" against such regulation is far from airtight. I just think it's stronger than that in favor of the states having this power.

BTW - Even if I am right this would only apply to lenders that are actually licensed in their home states to make the loans. (And many online lenders are not licensed.) Logically, if a loan isn't legal SOMEWHERE, it can't be legal ANYWHERE.

To be honest I found this letter on the forum and just edited this letter to add my information. I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure you are correct in the information you provided. Since I sent the letter one of the PDL's responded. From my point of view it was worth a try..Thanks

Definitely worth a try and it probably will get you some good results. Most pdl's aren't lawyers either and aren't going to hire one to handle a single loan case once you've shown that you're gonna fight back.

It's just that there's a huge debate right now in e-commerce generally (not just in pdl's) about where does a transaction take place and whose laws apply. Congress has sidestepped its responsibility where the internet is concerned, except for certain issues like SPAM, so it's all about conflicts-of-laws between the states. (A few years ago bills were introduced that would have made the law of the vendor's state the controlling law, but they never got out of committee.)

Anyway, I was just trying to get your (or anyone else's, for that matter) viewpoint on the overall legal issue. At a practical level, there is no doubt your approach is correct. If a pdl realizes you aren't going to lay down and die for it, they generally will deal - or at least back off on the high pressure collections.

Marcia,

I really enjoy reading your messages. The fact that some of these lenders conduct their business from London or Nevada or other states, does not necessarily exempt them from state laws, for example, Georgia laws state it is illegal for any internet payday lenders to make loans to Georgia residents. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently held that a non-Georgia company that transacted business with a Georgia resdient solely by way of the internet was subject to the jurisdiction of the Georgia counts. Aero Toy Store, LLC vs Grieves, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 626 (May 23, 2006) Also the AG of Colorado obtained a $2M settlement from an online lender aftert proving the lender's activities in CO were in violation of CO law.