Lexplug logoLexplug

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina
624 S.E.2d 371 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Courts will examine the substance of a transaction over its form to determine if it constitutes a loan subject to usury laws. A transaction structured as a sale of a service with a cash 'rebate' will be deemed a usurious loan if the service has negligible value and the arrangement's true purpose is to lend money at an illegally high interest rate.


Facts:

  • NCCS Loans, Inc. operated 'Advance Til Payday' stores offering deferred deposit loans, commonly known as 'payday loans'.
  • The North Carolina statute authorizing payday loans expired on August 31, 2001.
  • On September 1, 2001, the defendants reopened their stores under the name 'Advance Internet,' often using the same locations, staff, and customer base.
  • Under the 'Advance Internet' model, customers signed a one-year contract for 'internet services' and received an immediate cash payment described as a 'rebate.'
  • To obtain the cash, customers had to provide proof of employment and a checking account, and the cash amount was based on their income.
  • The contract obligated the customer to make bi-weekly payments of 20% of the cash 'rebate' for one year, totaling 520% of the initial cash received.
  • The 'internet access' provided was limited to using the defendants' office computers for a few hours per week by appointment and had a negligible market value compared to legitimate internet services.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of North Carolina (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against NCCS Loans, Inc., and JAGJRTX, LLC (defendants) in a state trial court.
  • The complaint alleged usury, violation of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
  • Plaintiff amended its complaint to add JAG N.C., LLC and John Gill as additional defendants.
  • Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
  • The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the State of North Carolina.
  • The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's summary judgment order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a transaction structured as a sale of internet services with an upfront cash 'rebate' constitute a loan subject to North Carolina's usury laws when the substance of the transaction is to provide immediate cash in exchange for future payments far exceeding the cash amount?


Opinions:

Majority - Levinson, Judge.

Yes, the transaction constitutes a loan subject to North Carolina's usury laws. The court must look to the substance of a transaction, not its outward appearance, to determine if it is a subterfuge to conceal a usurious loan. The court reasoned that the 'Advance Internet' contracts were substantively identical to the previously offered illegal payday loans, with the 'internet service' component being a pretext. Evidence showed the service had negligible or zero monetary value, customers entered the contracts solely to obtain immediate cash, and the 'rebate' was not a true rebate but the principal of a loan. Because the transaction was, in substance, a loan with an interest rate far exceeding the legal maximum, it was usurious as a matter of law.



Analysis:

This case strongly reaffirms the 'substance over form' doctrine in the context of consumer lending, preventing lenders from circumventing usury laws through clever contractual labeling. It establishes that bundling a loan with a service of negligible value does not transform the loan into a bona fide sale. This decision makes it significantly more difficult for payday-style lenders to operate through disguised schemes in North Carolina and provides a clear analytical framework for courts to scrutinize similar arrangements that appear to be legitimate sales but function as high-interest loans.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State Ex Rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc. (2005) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State Ex Rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc.