Payday lending law violated constitution
National News
A 1999 state law allowing so-called payday lenders to charge high fees for short-term loans violates the state constitution, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a 6-0 decision, the court said the fees permitted under the 1999 Check Cashers Act were really triple-digit interest rates. The state constitution limits interest rates on loans to 17 percent.
"Because that fee is in reality an amount owed to the lender in return for the use of borrowed money, we must conclude that the fees authorized clearly constitute interest," Justice Paul Danielson wrote.
Through a payday loan in Arkansas, a customer writing a check for $400, for example, typically would receive $350. The lender would keep the check for about two weeks before cashing it.
The customer could buy back the check for $350 during that two-week period, but otherwise would pay the full $400 when the company cashed his check. The $50 charge on a $350 loan for 14 days equates to 371 percent, well above Arkansas' usury limit.
Attorney Todd Turner, who represented the plaintiffs who challenged the Check Cashers Act, said the ruling means it will be impossible for payday lenders to operate in the state.
"It's great for all the Arkansas residents who have been paying 600 percent for these loans," Turner said.
Tom Hardin, attorney for the Arkansas Financial Services Association that sought to preserve the law, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Even before Thursday's ruling, the number of payday lenders in the state has dwindled in response to threats of lawsuits from Attorney General Dustin McDaniel. An advocacy group said in a report last month that the number of payday lenders operating in the state has dropped from 237 in March to just 33.
In its 6-0 decision, the court overturned a Pulaski County judge who last year ruled that the 1999 act was constitutional.
Related listings
-
Hall & Oates sue in NY over `Maneater' recording
National News 11/05/2008Daryl Hall and John Oates have filed a lawsuit saying their music publisher failed to protect their rights to their 1982 hit "Maneater."The pop duo's lawsuit says they learned in April 2007 that an unidentified singer-songwriter had used "Maneater" i...
-
Court to decide on convict's right to test DNA
National News 11/03/2008The Supreme Court will decide whether, years after his conviction, a defendant has a constitutional right to test genetic evidence found at the crime scene.The justices, in an order Monday, accepted the appeal of prosecutors in Alaska. They asked the...
-
Navy Refuses to Release McCain Car Crash Records
National News 10/20/2008Journalists say the U.S. Navy refuses to release documents about a 1964auto accident in which then-Lt. John McCain was involved, and injured,along with another man, outside the main gate of the Norfolk Navy Base.The Navy allegedly located the documen...
Forte Law Group is a trusted resource to protect your child’s needs.
Based on the culmination of ongoing state, municipal and board of education budget cuts, coupled with school districts having to do more with less resources, the current climate within schools often dictates that you may require a special education attorney to achieve the best results when advocating for your child’s right to a free appropriate public education. Coupled with increasing class sizes, your child may slip through the cracks within the school system itself and not be receiving an appropriate education with measurable goals and objectives.
A Connecticut Special Education Attorney Knows the Law
Often is the situation that there already exists a high level of frustration and contention between the family and school when special education and related services are not being appropriately delivered. Many times, the relationship between family and school results in an adversarial environment that is not conducive towards a team approach for the benefit of your child’s needs.