ILNews

7th Circuit affirms permanent injunction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction preventing the application of Indiana's Uniform Consumer Credit Code to an Illinois company because it violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In Midwest Title Loans Inc. v. David H. Mills, Director of the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions,  No. 09-2083, the state appealed the permanent injunction entered by the U.S. District judge in Indiana's Southern District against applying Indiana's UCCC against Midwest Title Loans, which is a "car title lender." Midwest had offices only in Illinois but had many Indiana residents travel to the state in order to obtain a loan. Midwest advertised in Indiana but stopped once it learned about the "territorial application" provision added to the Indiana UCCC in 2007. The provision says if an Indiana resident enters into a consumer sale, loan or lease with a creditor in another state and the creditor advertises in Indiana, the lender is subject to the code. That would require a license from Indiana to make consumer loans and would subject the company to restrictions on annual interest rates it can charge. The goal is to protect residents from predatory lending.

The 7th Circuit judges, who included U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the Northern District of Illinois sitting by designation, agreed with the District Court's injunction. They likened the instant case to that of Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324, 337 (1989), and a hypothetical case of involving Indiana and out-of state casinos to rule the application of the state's UCCC to Midwest violates the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

In Healy, Connecticut passed a "price affirmation" law that required brewers to commit that the prices they charged for beer in Connecticut wouldn't be any higher than the lowest prices charged in a bordering state. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the law because Connecticut would be regulating prices in another state, albeit indirectly.

The Circuit judges also used the hypothetical of Indiana banning casinos because of massive gambling problems but requiring out-of-state casinos to obtain Indiana licenses that would limit a Hoosier to gambling no more than $10 per day.

"A state law of that kind, however well intentioned and genuinely beneficial to the state imposing it, would burden interstate commerce by restricting travel and a firm's ability to deal with residents of a different state, even though the law treated out-of-state businesses no worse (in our example, even slightly better) than businesses located in the state," wrote Judge Richard Posner.

Allowing Indiana to apply its law against title loans when its residents obtain them in a different state that has a different law would arbitrarily exalt the public policy of one state over the other, he continued.

All of the commercial activity involved with the loans happened in Illinois - the offices are located there, car keys handed over there, and checks were drawn and could be cashed there. The contract was made in Illinois, and that is enough to show that the territorial-application provision violates the commerce clause, wrote the judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT