PAYDAY TODAY, INC., Edward R. Hall, Appellants-Defendants, v. Maria L. HAMILTON, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 71A03-0805-CV-255.

STATEMENT OF CASE

Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellants Payday Today, Inc. (“Payday”) and Edward R. Hall (“Hall”) (collectively, “the defendants”) appeal from the test court’s grant of judgment in the pleadings therefore the grant of summary judgment in support of Plaintiff-Appellee Maria L. Hamilton (“Hamilton”). We affirm in part, reverse in component, and remand.

The defendants raise five dilemmas for the review, which we restate since:

We. If the test court erred in giving summary judgment on Hamilton’s claim underneath the Small Claims Act.

II. Perhaps the test court erred in giving summary judgment on Hamilton’s claim beneath the Fair commercial collection agency methods Act.

III. Perhaps the test court erred in giving judgment for Hamilton in the defendants’ counterclaims.

IV. Perhaps the defendants had been unfairly rejected leave to amend their counter-complaint.

V. Whether or not the test court erred in giving lawyer costs to Hamilton.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Payday is a payday financial institution, and Hall is its lawyer. In July of 2004, Payday loaned $125.00 to Hamilton, a “small loan” as defined by Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-7-104(a). Underneath the regards to the mortgage contract, Hamilton would be to spend $143.75, such as the $125.00 principal plus an $18.75 solution cost, within fourteen days through the date associated with loan. As protection for the loan, Hamilton supplied Payday having a check that is post-dated $143.75. Whenever Hamilton’s check had been gone back to Payday, Hall mailed her a page demanding the amount of the check, along with a $20.00 returned check cost and $300.00 in lawyer charges. The page claimed that payment of those quantities had been essential for Hamilton in order to avoid a lawsuit. Especially, the page claimed in pertinent component:

Re: DISHONORED CHECK TO Payday Today, Inc./South Bend

Please be encouraged that this workplace happens to be retained to represent the above lender with respect to a little loan contract No ․, dated 06/03/2004. This loan provider accepted your check as protection for a financial loan when you look at the quantity of ($143.75). The contract called for the check to be cashed pursuant into the regards to the mortgage contract, in the event that you hadn’t formerly made plans to meet the mortgage. You have got did not make re re re re re re payment towards the loan provider as agreed, and upon presentation, the banking organization by which it had been drawn failed to honor your check. You’ve got been formerly notified because of the loan provider of one’s returned check and have now taken no action to solve the problem.

A LAWSUIT, now is the time for action IF YOU WANT TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER WITHOUT. To take action, you need to spend the next quantities, (1) the amount that is full of check plus, (2) a $20 returned check charge, https://installment-loans.org/payday-loans-ak/ and (3) lawyer costs of $300. This re re re re payment needs to be in the shape of a cashier’s check or cash purchase payable to Attorney Edward R. Hall. We may file suit immediately, in which you may be liable for the following amount under I.C. В§ 24-4.7-5 if you fail to pay in full the amount due within ten days from the date of this letter et seq.; (1) the quantity of the check; (2) a twenty buck returned check cost; (3) court expenses; (4) reasonable lawyer charges; (5) all the reasonable expenses of collection; (6) 3 x (3x) the quantity of the verify that the facial skin number of the check wasn’t more than $250.00, or (7) in the event that face level of the check ended up being $250.00 or higher, the check quantity plus five hundred bucks ($500.00), and pre-judgment interest at the price of 18per cent per year.

(Appellants’ App. 1 at 13; Appellant’s App. 2 at 17). (Emphasis in initial). Hall’s page further recommends Hamilton that she might be responsible for different damages if she had been discovered to own presented her sign in a fraudulent way.

Hamilton filed a problem against Payday and Hall alleging violations for the Indiana Uniform customer Credit Code-Small Loans (Ind.Code § 24-4.5-7 et seq.) (“SLA”) as well as the federal Fair Debt Collection methods Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692) (“FDCPA”). In Count We associated with the issue, Hamilton alleged that Payday violated the SLA whenever

a. Hall threatened ․ to file case against Hamilton that will demand damages in overabundance what the defendants are allowed to recoup under I.C. 24-4.5-7-202, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(b), and Payday caused this danger to be produced, thus breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(b).

b. Hall made misleading and misleading statements to Hamilton ․ concerning the quantity the defendants could recover for a tiny loan, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(c), and Payday caused these statements to be produced, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(c).

c. Hall represented in their letter that Hamilton, being a debtor of a tiny loan, is likely for lawyer costs compensated by the loan provider associated with the assortment of the little loan, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(d), and Payday caused these representations to be manufactured, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(d).

d. Hall made deceptive and fraudulent representations in their page regarding the quantity a loan provider is eligible to recover for a tiny loan, thus breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(g), and Payday caused these representations to be manufactured, therefore breaking I.C. 24-4.5-7-410(g).

(Appellant’s Appendix 2 at 100-01). Hamilton alleged in Count II that Hall violated the FDCPA. Id. at 101. She asked for declaratory judgment pursuant to Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-7-409( 4)( ag ag e) that Payday had no right to get, get, or retain any principal, interest, or other fees through the loan. She additionally asked for statutory damages of $2000 and expenses and damages pursuant to Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-7-409(4)(e). She further asked for statutory damages of $500 pursuant to Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-7-409(4)(c) and Ind.Code В§ 24-5-0.5-4. Finally, she asked for statutory damages of $1000 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. В§ 1692k(a) and “such other and further relief as the court deems simply and equitable.” Id.

Payday and Hall reacted by filing a solution and three counterclaims against Hamilton for (1) defrauding an institution that is financial Ind.Code В§ 35-43-5-8, (2) moving a poor check under Ind.Code В§ 26-2-7-6, and (3) breach of the agreement.