Ruby v. Cashnet, Inc., 708 S.E.2d 871

Ruby entered 33 payday-loan agreements with Cashnet from March 2005 through November 2007, with loans increasing to a maximum of $500.
Each cycle typically involved Ruby paying $575 (principal plus 15% finance charge) and Cashnet immediately providing a new $500 loan to Ruby.
Ruby would repay the $575 by the due date, then Cashnet would issue another loan the same day or soon after.
In 2008, Ruby sued Cashnet alleging each new loan after full repayment was a refinancing, renewal, or extension in violation of the Payday Loan Act.
The circuit court held that the 2008 amendments clarified the law and did not prohibit the practice; the case proceeded on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the successive loans were refinancing and renewal, violating Code § 6.2-1816(6)(i).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether post-repayment loans are refinancings or renewals	Ruby contends each new loan is a refinancing/renewal of the prior loan.	Cashnet contends the transactions are new loans, not refinancings or renewals.	Yes; the transactions are refinancing or renewal.
Effect of 2008 amendments to former Code § 6.1-459(6)	Amendments clarify and do not create new prohibitions beyond 2002 law.	Amendments create a new substantive restriction and broaden protections.	Amendments serve as both clarification and additional prohibition.

Commonwealth v. Amerson, 281 Va. 414 (2011) (statutory-interpretation framework; legislative intent governs)
In re Biondo, 180 F.3d 126 (4th Cir. 1999) (refinancing defined as substitution of one debt for another; renewal implied by re-establishment of debtor-creditor relationship)
James v. City of Falls Church, 280 Va. 31 (2010) (plain meaning governs when statute is unambiguous)
Kozmina v. Commonwealth, 281 Va. 347 (2011) (plain meaning and legislative intent guide interpretation)
Warrington v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 365 (2010) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent considerations)