Posted at 05:33h
in
Online Pay Day Loans
CHANDLER v. UNITED STATES GENERAL FINANCE, INC. CHOICE STANDARD OF REVIEW
Parish, that will be factually comparable to Emery, relied on Emery in keeping the plaintiffs acceptably alleged sun and rain of the claim underneath the Illinois customer Fraud Act.
In Parish, the plaintiffs alleged the defendant Beneficial Illinois was in the training of defrauding consumers that are unsophisticated a "loan-flipping" scheme. The Parishes described this scheme:
"A customer removes a preliminary loan with useful Illinois and starts making prompt payments as dictated by the first loan papers. After some unspecified time period, the customer gets a page from useful Illinois providing extra cash. The page states that the customer is really a `great' consumer in `good standing,' and invites her or him to come in and get extra funds. If the customer arrives at Defendant's bar or nightclub and tenders the letter, useful Illinois employees refinance the existing loan and reissue specific insurance plans incidental to it. Useful Illinois will not notify its clients that the expense of refinancing their loans is a lot more than is the price of taking out fully an extra loan or expanding credit beneath the present loan." Parish, slide op. at ___.
The Parishes alleged in more detail two split occasions on that they accepted useful Illinois' offer of extra money.
The court held after describing a "deceptive act or practice" under the Consumer Fraud Act
"This court is satisfied that the loan-flipping scheme alleged by Plaintiffs falls into this broad description.
