ARTICLE
2 September 2018

California Supreme Court Rules That Loans Not Subject To Usury Cap May Still Be Unconscionable

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday, August 18, that an interest rate on a consumer loan in California could be deemed illegally high even if the loan is not subject to the state's usury law.
United States Finance and Banking
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)

The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday, August 18, that an interest rate on a consumer loan in California could be deemed illegally high even if the loan is not subject to the state's usury law.

Consumer loans of $2,500 or more in California that are made by licensed California Finance Lenders are not subject to the state's usury law. However, the California Finance Law includes a provision which states that a loan found to be unconscionable is deemed to be in violation of the Finance Law. Nonbank lender CashCall Inc. had a primary product which was an unsecured $2,600 loan payable over a 42-month period, and carrying an annual percentage rate of either 96% or 135%. Plaintiffs filed an action against CashCall claiming that these loans violated California's unfair competition law because they were unconscionable. CashCall raised a number of defenses, including that a licensed California Finance Lender can charge any rate it wants on consumer loans of $2,500 or more, and that these loans cannot be unconscionable.

A unanimous state Supreme Court rejected CashCall's arguments. While the court did not specifically find that any of CashCall's loans were unconscionable, it held that under California law, an interest rate on consumer loans of $2,500 or more can render the loans unconscionable under the California Financial Code. The case was remanded back to federal court for a determination as to whether CashCall's loans are unconscionable. The court stated that it recognizes how daunting it can be to pinpoint the precise threshold separating a merely burdensome interest rate from an unconscionable one, "but that is no reason to ignore the clear statutory embrace here of a familiar principle – that courts have a responsibility to guard against consumer loan provisions with unduly oppressive terms."

The court's ruling will have little impact on banks, which are not subject to the California Finance Law, but could have a major impact on nonbank lenders by leading to a significant expansion in litigation. Regardless of what decision is eventually rendered with respect to CashCall's loans, nonbank lenders might consider whether they need to review the interest rates they are charging and how they enter into contracts with borrowers in California, particularly with respect to unsecured loans. The impact could be significant, as The Los Angeles Times has reported that last year alone, state-licensed lenders in California made more than 350,000 consumer loans with annual percentage rates of 100% or higher.

Concern had been expressed by various trade groups that a decision in favor of the plaintiffs could cause the market for extremely high interest rate loans in California to dry up. In fact, according to media reports, it appears that one consumer lender has already ceased making such loans in California.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More