Brown v. Tennessee Title Loans, Inc.
328 S.W.3d 850
| Tenn. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs filed suit in 2004 with an amended complaint in 2005 seeking, among other relief, class-wide and individual claims under the Tennessee Title Pledge Act (TTPA) and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising from title pledge loans.
- Defendant Tennessee Title Loans, Inc. allegedly charged prohibited fees and interest in excess of TTPA limits and misrepresented the legality of a redemption premium fee.
- The case was initially dismissed for failure to state a TTPA claim; TCPA claims were severed for class treatment issues.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of TTPA claims, prompting Supreme Court review on whether the TTPA provides an individual private right of action.
- The Court holds that the TTPA does not expressly create a private right of action and that there is no implied private right of action under the statute.
- The case is remanded to address remaining TCPA and other claims; the private right of action issue governs only the TTPA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TTPA provides an express or implied private right of action. | Brown asserts an implied/private right of action exists. | TTPA provides no private right of action. | No private right of action implied. |
| Whether legislative history indicates intent to create a private action under the TTPA. | Legislative history supports intent to protect pledgors. | No manifest intent to create private action. | No evidence of manifest legislative intent. |
| Whether the TTPA’s statute of limitations supports an implied private action. | Limitation provision suggests a private action. | Limitation does not imply private action; governs statutory timing. | Limitation does not establish private action; statute controls time bar. |
| Whether implied private action would be consistent with TTPA’s purposes and enforcement scheme. | Implied action would further protections for pledgors. | Regulatory scheme relies on criminal/administrative remedies only. | Implied action would be inconsistent with regulatory enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Premium Fin. Corp. v. Crump Ins. Servs. of Memph., Inc., 978 S.W.2d 91 (Tenn. 1998) (court rejects implied private action in regulatory act)
- Reed v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 677 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999) (statutory enforcement through government remedies; no private action)
- Ellison v. Cocke Cnty., Tenn., 63 F.3d 467 (6th Cir.1995) (factors for implied private rights of action)
- Buckner v. Carlton, 623 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn.Ct. App.1981) (Cort v. Ash framework; authorization to imply rights)
- Dobbins v. Terrazzo Mach. & Supply Co., 479 S.W.2d 806 (Tenn.1972) (contextual limits on implied private actions)