PAYDAY TODAY INC v. HAMILTON. Court of Appeals of Indiana
PAYDAY TODAY, INC., Edward R. Hall, Appellants-Defendants, v. Maria L. HAMILTON, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 71A03-0805-CV-255.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellants Payday Today, Inc. (“Payday”) and Edward R. Hall (“Hall”) (collectively, “the defendants”) appeal from the test court’s grant of judgment in the pleadings additionally the grant of summary judgment in support of Plaintiff-Appellee Maria L. Hamilton (“Hamilton”). We affirm in part, reverse in component, and remand.
The defendants raise five problems for the review, which we restate since:
We. Whether or not the test court erred in giving summary judgment on Hamilton’s claim beneath the Small Claims Act.
II. Perhaps the test court erred in giving summary judgment on Hamilton’s claim beneath the Fair commercial collection agency tactics Act.
III. Whether or not the test court erred in giving judgment for Hamilton regarding the defendants’ counterclaims.
IV. Whether or not the defendants had been unfairly rejected leave to amend their counter-complaint.
V. If the test court erred in giving lawyer charges to Hamilton.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Payday is just a loan that is payday, and Hall is its lawyer. A“small loan” as defined by Ind.Code § 24-4.5-7-104(a) in July of 2004, Payday loaned $125.00 to Hamilton. Underneath the regards to the mortgage contract, Hamilton would be to spend $143.75, such as the $125.00 principal and an $18.75 solution fee, within fourteen days through the date for the loan. As protection for...
Czytaj więcej...
Social Profiles