SE HABLA ESPAÑOL | MAP
312-739-4200
Contact Us

Contact Us

Archives

  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013

  • Areas & Topics

    Frquently Asked Questions

    Our Office Location

    Edelman, Combs, Latturner, & Goodwin, LLC

    20 South Clark Street
    Suite 1500
    Chicago, IL 60603

    info@edcombs.com
    Phone: 312-739-4200
    Fax: 312-419-0379


    E-mail Us  |  Chicago Law Office

    Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's facebook page   Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's Twitter Page   Edelman Combs Latturner Goodwin's Google Plus Page

    Requiring repayment of loan by electronic fund transfer is illegal

    A California federal court recently held that a lender violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) prohibition on “condition[ing] the extension of credit” on a borrower’s repayment “by means of preauthorized electronic fund transfers.” The court found the lender violated this prohibition by requiring borrowers to agree to repay their loans by payments made through Automated Clearing House (ACH) debits, even though borrowers were given the right to revoke the ACH authorization at any time, including before the first payment was due.

    In Eduardo De La Torre, et al. v. CashCall, Inc., the court  held that such a requirement violated the EFTA as a matter of law, because the uncontroverted evidence showed that the lender only made loans to borrowers who consented to repay them through preauthorized electronic fund transfers. Agreeing with last year’s decision from a South Dakota federal court in FTC v. Payday Financial LLC, the court rejected the lender’s argument that it did not violate the EFTA prohibition because its promissory notes provided that the borrower could cancel his or her authorization of EFTs “at any time (including prior to my first payment due date) by sending written authorization to CashCall.” According to the court, the lender’s “loan application and loan agreement forms do not state that a consumer need not consent to EFT to obtain a loan from CashCall or explain how a consumer could obtain a loan from CashCall without consenting to EFT.”