Appellants Glen and Marlene Anderson contracted with the
Appellants Glen and Marlene Anderson contracted with the
Appellants Glen and Marlene Anderson contracted with the United States Postal Service to deliver mail on a route. The Andersons borrowed $27,500 from appellee Industrial Bank for start-up expenses in establishing the mail delivery route. The Andersons sued the Foothill Industrial Bank while refinancing the loan, claiming that the bank had failed to comply with Wyoming's Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) and the federal Truth-in-Lending Act by the annual percentage rate of the loan and other acts. ROO . NEY, C.].: These allegations of appellants are premtsed on the fact of the loan being a consumer loan and not a commercial loan. The U.C.C.C. applies only to consumer loans and not to commercial loans. A consumer loan is defined in [Wyoming law] as follows: (a) Except with respect to a loan primarily secured by an in land , 'consumer loan' is a loan made by a person regularly engaged in the business of making loans in which: (I) The debtor is a person other than an organization; (ii) The debt IS primarily for a personal, family, household or agncultural purpose; (iii) Either the debt is payable in installments or a loan finance charge is made; and (iv) Either the principal does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or the debt is secured by an interest in land. Considering the evidence in this case in accordance with the foregoing, we find that it established the loan to be a commercial loan and not a consumer loan as : h :t J ;r d of fa . ct. Appellant Glen Anderson inquired of. m an attempt to secure the mane for hi mat! route business. He told the loan officer at p y s Per t at t e money was to be used to “b ., o ” A Fury a ma1 . t lrst Wyoming Bank he . t b d ' I at It was we se to operate a truck or otherwise engage in t e mat! route. He told the representative of a Foothill Industrial Bank that it was for a d pp own on a truck a . nd for start-up expenses. He did not a loan until he decided to go into the mail route . The debt was not “incurred primarily for a personal, family, household purpose” . · · · as requrre d b y 40-14-304, W.S. 1977, supra. Although part of the proceeds of the loan were used to pay off that due on a second mortgage on app llants' residence, the testimony was that rudent lendmg practice would require such pay off with transfer of the collateral if the loan were made for the purpose of financing another enterprise. T?e thrust of all of the evidence was that the debt was “mcurred . primarily” for the purpose of entering a mail route busmess and not for a personal family or household purpose. It was not a consumer loan
1. How does the Wyoming Supreme Court define “consumer”?
2. Why do the borrowers not win this case?
3. On what basis do the borrowers argue that they are consumers?
4. Is a farmer protected as a consumer under Wyoming's UCCC?
"You need a similar assignment done from scratch? Our qualified writers will help you with a guaranteed AI-free & plagiarism-free A+ quality paper, Confidentiality, Timely delivery & Livechat/phone Support.
Discount Code: CIPD30
Click ORDER NOW..
