The defendants’ very very very first argument against Georgia’s attempted legislation ended up being that the Payday

The defendants’ very very very first argument against Georgia’s attempted legislation ended up being that the Payday

Supreme Court of Georgia Rules Against Payday Lenders

On October 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued an opinion that is lengthy against payday loan providers in 2 instances consolidated on appeal. The 2 instances (Western Sky Financial, LLC v. State of Georgia, No. S16A1011 and State of Georgia v. Western Sky Financial, LLC, No. S16X1012) included state legislation of tribal affiliated, out-of-state payday lenders who offered loans to Georgia residents telephonically and on the internet. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered a true wide range of dilemmas including if the state could sue loan providers involved in interstate business underneath the state’s Payday Lending Act (OCGA 16-17-1 through 16-17-10); whether agreements created in another state had been at the mercy of that legislation; and whether tribal sovereignty precluded the law’s enforcement.

Lending Act excluded loans made through interstate business. Western Sky Fin. LLC v. State of Georgia, —S.E.2d —, 2016 WL 6407256, at *2 (Ga. Oct. 31, 2016). Even though Court consented that a subpart of this statute expressly claimed that “Payday financing involves fairly tiny loans and will not encompass loans that include interstate business” (id. (quoting OCGA d that is 16-17-1(), it figured this subpart had been simply a choosing of reality rather than a limitation regarding the reach for the legislation. Id. payday loans virginia It determined that if this subpart had been a limitation, compared to the Payday Lending Act would “be virtually meaningless” because basically all loans include interstate business. Id.

In addition they argued that the statute had been inapplicable as the loan agreements had been finished in Southern Dakota. The Court rejected the argument that because the act that is last to make the agreement had been finished outside of Georgia, the state’s law had been inapplicable to those agreements.Continue reading