James v. National Financial, LLC
2016 WL 966795, 132 A.3d 799, 2016 Del. Ch. LEXIS 52 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A loan agreement is unconscionable, and therefore voidable, when its terms are so extreme as to be substantively unfair and it results from a procedurally unfair bargaining process that involves exploiting an underprivileged, unsophisticated, and financially vulnerable consumer.
Facts:
- Gloria James, a low-income hotel housekeeper with a tenth-grade education and no savings, earned approximately $1,100 per month.
- In May 2013, needing money for food and rent, James sought a $200 loan from National Financial, LLC (“National”).
- James had previously taken out five high-interest loans from National and believed she was getting another standard payday loan where she would repay a total of $260.
- National provided a one-year, non-amortizing “Flex Pay Loan” requiring James to make 26 bi-weekly interest-only payments of $60, followed by a final payment of $260, for a total repayment of $1,820 on the $200 principal.
- The loan agreement disclosed an Annual Percentage Rate (APR) of 838.45%.
- National had intentionally structured this long-term, interest-only loan to circumvent Delaware's Payday Loan Law, which placed limits on short-term consumer loans and rollovers.
- Shortly after receiving the loan, James broke her hand, reducing her work hours and income.
- When James requested a workout agreement, National refused to accommodate her and instead attempted to debit her pre-paid card account for payments against her express instructions.
Procedural Posture:
- Gloria James filed a class action lawsuit against National Financial, LLC in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
- The complaint sought to enjoin collection on the loans and a declaration that the loan terms were unconscionable.
- National's motion to compel arbitration was denied, and National was sanctioned because it knew James had properly opted out of the arbitration clause.
- James amended her complaint to add a claim under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
- The court sanctioned National for discovery misconduct, establishing for trial purposes that the APRs disclosed by National were incorrect and violated TILA.
- The court denied James’s motion for class certification.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial in the Court of Chancery on James's individual claims for unconscionability and TILA violations.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a non-amortizing consumer loan agreement with an 838.45% APR unconscionable where the borrower is a financially unsophisticated, low-income individual, and the lender structured the loan to evade state consumer protection laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Laster, Vice Chancellor
Yes, the loan agreement is unconscionable. A contract is unconscionable if it is both substantively and procedurally unfair, with the analysis being unitary such that more of one element requires less of the other. Substantively, the loan's price shocks the conscience; an 838.45% APR and a total finance charge of $1,620 on a $200 loan is an excessive price indicative of fundamental unfairness. The contract also contained an overall imbalance of rights, with confusing and disadvantageous clauses regarding electronic withdrawals and rescission. Procedurally, the contract resulted from a gross inequality of bargaining power between a sophisticated lender and an unsophisticated, financially distressed consumer with no meaningful alternatives. National exploited James's vulnerability, used a take-it-or-leave-it contract of adhesion, and misled her about the loan's cost by emphasizing a 'block rate' while denigrating the importance of the APR. Critically, National structured the loan with the purpose and effect of evading the Delaware Payday Loan Law, which further demonstrates procedural unconscionability. Because the agreement is unconscionable, it is rescinded.
Analysis:
This case provides a comprehensive modern framework for applying the common law doctrine of unconscionability to high-interest, 'fringe' consumer credit products. It establishes that even in a jurisdiction without a statutory interest rate cap, courts can and will void loan agreements with grossly excessive prices when coupled with evidence of predatory practices. The decision's significance lies in its detailed, factor-based analysis and its focus on the lender's intent to circumvent the spirit of consumer protection legislation, setting a precedent that form-over-substance attempts to evade such laws can be a key factor in finding a contract unconscionable.
Unlock the full brief for James v. National Financial, LLC