Ohio Neighborhood Fin., Inc. v. Scott (Slip Opinion)
13 N.E.3d 1115
Ohio2014Background
- Payday lending in Ohio analyzed under MLA and STLA; MLA permits interest-bearing and precomputed loans; single-installment loans previously ambiguous under MLA; STLA governs short-term loans and licenses; repeal of Check-Cashing Lender Law left MLA as a possible authority for payday-type loans; appellant Bank (Cashland) offered a single-installment MLA loan with 25% APR-equivalent to 235.48% APR; trial court and Ninth District disagreed on MLA vs STLA authority; the Supreme Court reversed and held MLA can authorize single-installment, interest-bearing loans, and STLA does not limit MLA lenders; no MLA license issue addressed, only statutory authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MLA permit single-installment, interest-bearing loans? | Cashland argues yes under MLA | State argues no for single installments | Yes, MLA may include single-installment loans |
| Does the STLA preclude MLA lenders from making payday-style loans? | STLA exclusive authority not present | STLA governs payday loans exclusively | STLA does not limit MLA lenders' authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Zumwalde v. Madeira & Indian Hill Joint Fire Dist., 128 Ohio St.3d 492 (2011-Ohio-1603) (statutory interpretation rules applicability when language is unambiguous)
- Porterfield v. State, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (2005-Ohio-3095) (interpretation of ambiguous language and rules of construction)
- Hedges v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 109 Ohio St.3d 70 (2006-Ohio-1926) (grammar and context in interpreting statutes)
- State ex rel. Carnean v. Hardin Cty. Bd. of Edn., 170 Ohio St.415 (1960-) (notwithstanding clause precedence over conflicting provisions)
- State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (2004-Ohio-969) (judicial interpretation of statutory language)