This is аn appeal from a partial summary judgment. It was deflected to this court by the Alabama Supreme Court, pursuant to §
Initially we note that in order to enter a summary judgment, thе trial court must determine that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.;Bussey v. John Deere Co.,
The material facts are undisputed. Blazer Financial Services, Inc., аnd Great Western Financial Corporation (collectively "Blazer") engaged in a practice known as the "Check-in-the-Mail" ("CIM") program. In this program, Blazer targеted certain persons and mailed them unsolicited loans in the form of actual, negotiable checks. Each check was attached to the bottom of а letter that stated "HERE'S YOUR CHECK FOR. . . ." The letter also advised recipients to "just endorse it, cash it, or deposit it in your checking account and the cash is yours!"
On the back of the letter and check were certain disclosures. These included an annual percentage rate of 25.11%, which, for example, amounted to a finance chаrge of $446.38 for a loan of $1,029.62. On the back of the check were written the terms of a promissory note, and recipients were instructed to endorse the check by signing at the bottom of the note. Thus, after the recipients had cashed or deposited the checks, they no longer had copies of the notes. However, most of the information that was contained on the back of the check was also repeated in some fashion on the back of the letter.
A.L. Parrish was one of those targeted by the CIM program. He endorsed his check and thereby signed the promissory note sent by Blazer. Parrish sued Blazer, basing his claims on the CIM program. His lawsuit was certifiеd as a class action. Both Parrish and Blazer filed motions for summary judgment, with accompanying briefs. The trial court entered a partial summary judgment, holding that (1) Blazer's CIM program violates Alabama's Mini-Code, specifically §
The court certified the partial summary judgment as final, pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Parrish appeаls.
Parrish agrees with that portion of the trial court's judgment that finds Blazer guilty of violating the Mini-Code. However, Parrish does not agree with the trial court's judgment regarding the class's potential recovery. Indeed, Parrish contends that the class's recovery should not be limited to actual damages caused by Blazer's Mini-Code violation, and that in any case class members should be allowed to recover at least a portion of the interest charged by Blazer on the notes resulting from the CIM program.
The trial court held that Blazer had violated §
After determining that Blazer had violated §
Parrish also appeals from that portion of the summary judgment holding that Blazer's CIM program had not violated the TILA. *1385 He argues that Blazer violated the TILA by failing to provide the class members with duplicate copies of the loan instruments, by fаiling to make certain required disclosures, and by failing to use "clear and conspicuous" language.
The TILA, unlike Alabama's Mini-Code, does not require that the debtor be рrovided with a duplicate copy of the loan agreement. Instead, the TILA requires that certain disclosures be made "clearly and conspicuously in writing, in a form that the consumer may keep."
As noted previously, this is an appeal of a partial summary judgment certified as final in accordance with Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Parrish has alleged other Mini-Code violations, which were also argued in motions for summary judgment, but which have not yet been ruled on by the trial court. One such allegation raised by Pаrrish is that the loan agreements are "unconscionable" pursuant to §
The purpose of Rule 54(b) is to allow the trial court to make final "an order which does not adjudicate the entire case but as to which there is no just reason for delay in the attachment of finality." Foster v. Greer Sons, Inc.,
Three requirements must be met before Rule 54(b), A.R. Civ. P., can be applied to certify a judgment as final for purposes of appeal: "(1) there must be either multiple claims for relief or multiple parties involved, (2) there must be a final decision as to one of the claims оr as to the rights and liabilities of one of the parties, and (3) the court must determine that there is no just reason for delay."Fullilove, supra, at 153.
Parrish moved the trial court for a summary judgment holding that Blazer violated two Mini-Code sections, but the trial court ruled only as to one of these alleged violations, leaving the issue of unconscionability pending. If the trial court determines that the loans at issue are unconscionable, on the basis that they were the product of a program designed to coerce certain tаrgeted individuals into accepting high interest loans that they otherwise may not have accepted, it may refuse to enforce the unconscionable pоrtions, such as the interest rate, in accordance with §
APPEAL DISMISSED. *1386
THIGPEN, YATES, MONROE, and CRAWLEY, JJ., concur.
ROBERTSON, P.J., concurs in the result.