What these predatory lenders count on is the the c
Post# of 15187
Posted On: 12/10/2015 11:53:07 AM
What these predatory lenders count on is the the company in question does not have the money to take this to court, but that's not the case with Hjoe, they not only have the money but their attorneys are also shareholders. Below is a explanation of US Usary laws and this clearly shows that this type of lending is illegal especially if Hjoe has shown good faith and attempted to pay these low life's off. Goodwill to honor a contract goes a long way
In the United States, the primary legal power to regulate usury rests with the states. Usury laws are state laws that specify the maximum legal interest rate at which loans can be made. Each U.S. state has its own statute which dictates how much interest can be charged before it is considered usurious or unlawful.
If a lender charges above the lawful interest rate, a court will not allow the lender to sue to recover the debt because the interest rate was illegal anyway. In some states (such as New York) such loans are voided ab initio.[45]
On a federal level, Congress has never attempted to federally regulate interest rates on purely private transactions, but on the basis of past U.S. Supreme Court decisions, arguably the U.S. Congress might have the power to do so under the interstate commerce clause of Article I of the Constitution. Congress opted to put a federal criminal limit on interest rates by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Statute) definitions of "unlawful debt", which make it a federal felony to lend money at an interest rate more than twice the local state usury rate and then try to collect that "unlawful debt".[46] It is a federal offense to use violence or threats to collect usurious interest (or any other sort) (Extortionate Credit Transactions statute, chapter 42, title 18, U.S. Code). Such activity is referred to as loan sharking, but that term is also applied to non-coercive usurious lending or even to the practice of making consumer loans without a license in jurisdictions that require licenses.
However, there are separate rules applied to most banks. The U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously in the 1978 Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. case that the National Banking Act of 1863 allowed nationally chartered banks to charge the legal rate of interest in their state regardless of the borrower's state of residence.[47] In 1980, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. Among the Act's provisions, it exempted federally chartered savings banks, installment plan sellers and chartered loan companies from state usury limits. Combined with the Marquette decision that applied to National Banks, this effectively overrode all state and local usury laws.[48][49] The 1968 Truth in Lending Act does not regulate rates, except for some mortgages, but requires uniform or standardized disclosure of costs and charges.[50]
In the 1996 Smiley v. Citibank case, the Supreme Court further limited states' power to regulate credit card fees and extended the reach of the Marquette decision. The court held that the word "interest" used in the 1863 banking law included fees and, therefore, states could not regulate fees.[51]
Some members of Congress have tried to create a federal usury statute that would limit the maximum allowable interest rate, but the measures have not progressed. In July 2010, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, was signed into law by President Obama. The act provides for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to regulate some credit practices but has no interest rate limit.[51]
In the United States, the primary legal power to regulate usury rests with the states. Usury laws are state laws that specify the maximum legal interest rate at which loans can be made. Each U.S. state has its own statute which dictates how much interest can be charged before it is considered usurious or unlawful.
If a lender charges above the lawful interest rate, a court will not allow the lender to sue to recover the debt because the interest rate was illegal anyway. In some states (such as New York) such loans are voided ab initio.[45]
On a federal level, Congress has never attempted to federally regulate interest rates on purely private transactions, but on the basis of past U.S. Supreme Court decisions, arguably the U.S. Congress might have the power to do so under the interstate commerce clause of Article I of the Constitution. Congress opted to put a federal criminal limit on interest rates by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Statute) definitions of "unlawful debt", which make it a federal felony to lend money at an interest rate more than twice the local state usury rate and then try to collect that "unlawful debt".[46] It is a federal offense to use violence or threats to collect usurious interest (or any other sort) (Extortionate Credit Transactions statute, chapter 42, title 18, U.S. Code). Such activity is referred to as loan sharking, but that term is also applied to non-coercive usurious lending or even to the practice of making consumer loans without a license in jurisdictions that require licenses.
However, there are separate rules applied to most banks. The U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously in the 1978 Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. case that the National Banking Act of 1863 allowed nationally chartered banks to charge the legal rate of interest in their state regardless of the borrower's state of residence.[47] In 1980, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. Among the Act's provisions, it exempted federally chartered savings banks, installment plan sellers and chartered loan companies from state usury limits. Combined with the Marquette decision that applied to National Banks, this effectively overrode all state and local usury laws.[48][49] The 1968 Truth in Lending Act does not regulate rates, except for some mortgages, but requires uniform or standardized disclosure of costs and charges.[50]
In the 1996 Smiley v. Citibank case, the Supreme Court further limited states' power to regulate credit card fees and extended the reach of the Marquette decision. The court held that the word "interest" used in the 1863 banking law included fees and, therefore, states could not regulate fees.[51]
Some members of Congress have tried to create a federal usury statute that would limit the maximum allowable interest rate, but the measures have not progressed. In July 2010, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, was signed into law by President Obama. The act provides for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to regulate some credit practices but has no interest rate limit.[51]
(0)
(0)