Hamilton filed a motion for summary judgment, by which she asked the court to get that there is no genuine dilemma of product reality and therefore as a case of legislation she had been eligible for relief due to the fact defendants’ page violated the SLA’s prohibition against collecting lawyer costs and from participating in unjust or misleading methods to get a financial obligation as a result of a loan agreement that is small. The movement additionally asked for summary judgment on a single count beneath the FDCPA. Hamilton further requested summary judgment regarding the defendants’ counterclaims.
The test court awarded summary judgment in support of Hamilton on her behalf grievance therefore the breach of agreement counterclaim. The test court additionally issued a judgment from the pleadings in the defendants’ fraudulence and check that is bad. The test court later joined judgment against Payday within the number of $10,250.00 and against Hall when you look at the number of $3,250.00. The honor against Payday includes damages and lawyer charges caused by Payday’s violation of Indiana statutes, even though the prize against Hall includes damages and lawyer charges caused by their breach of federal legislation. In component, the judgment represents the test court’s determination that Payday committed four split violations associated with SLA. The defendants now appeal.
DECISION and DISCUSSION
We. OVERVIEW JUDGMENT ON HAMILTON’S SLA CLAIM
The goal of summary judgment is always to end litigation about which there isn’t any factual dispute and which might be determined as a matter of legislation. Ratcliff v. Barnes, 750 N.E.2d 433, 436 (Ind.Ct.App), trans. rejected. Whenever reviewing the grant or denial of summary judgment, this court is applicable the exact same standard as the test court. Id. Summary judgment is suitable if the designated evidentiary material programs there is absolutely no genuine problem of product reality as well as the party that is moving eligible for judgment as being a matter of legislation. Indiana Rule of Test Procedure 56(C). We try not to reweigh the data, and our inquiry is restricted to just those materials designated to your test court, that are seen into the light many favorable into the non-movant. Estate of Hofgesang v. Hansford, 714 N.E.2d 1213, 1216 (Ind.Ct.App).
Payday contends that the trial court erred in giving summary judgment in the presssing problem of whether its claim for lawyer charges violated the SLA. Payday notes that Ind.Code § 24-4.5-7-410(d) forbids just “contracting for or gathering lawyer charges” on little loans, plus it contends that the page did neither. Payday additionally states it was permitted to request lawyer costs under Ind.Code § 35-43-5-8.
The SLA is component of this Indiana credit rating Code, which offers so it “shall be liberally construed and used to advertise its purposes that are underlying policies,” Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-1-102(1), such as “protecting ․ borrowers against unjust techniques.” Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-1-102(2)(d). Also without this liberal construction supply, we can’t accept Payday’s declare that the dunning page is certainly not an effort to contract for or gather lawyer charges on Hamilton’s tiny loan. The dunning page is a definite breach of Ind.Code В§ 24-4.5-7-410(d).
Pertaining to Ind.Code В§ 35-43-5-8, which takes care of fraudulence on banking institutions, we keep in mind that Payday’s claim for lawyer charges is delineated in a split paragraph from its claim for fraudulence. appropriately, the prohibited lawyer charge claim isn’t a element of an Ind.Code В§ 35-48-5-8 claim.
Payday contends so it may not be held accountable for the prohibited articles for the dunning page as the page comes from Hall’s workplace. Especially, it contends so it “did perhaps perhaps perhaps perhaps not commit or reason to be committed any breach for the SLA. Hall’s office drafted the dunning page and delivered the page on behalf of Payday as procedure of Hall’s workplace, not too of Payday’s workplace.” (Appellant’s Brief at 18). Consequently, Payday contends so it would not break the SLA.
Pertaining to this contention, we first remember that Indiana Trial Rule 56(H) bars reversal of summary judgment on a lawn of an dilemma of material undeniable fact that wasn’t designated towards the test court. See Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076, 1081 (Ind). Payday designated absolutely absolutely absolutely absolutely nothing that produces a problem of product reality about this matter; certainly, it’s undisputed that Payday hired Hall as the lawyer in this collection case and therefore Hall sent the page at issue as a particular representative with respect to Payday with this restricted function. It strains credulity to claim that extra proof must certanly be submitted by Hamilton to show that Payday “caused” this violation associated with SLA, specially offered its declare that identical letters are regularly utilized by payday loan providers. It really is clear that Payday caused the breach to happen. 1
Payday additionally contends that the test court erred to find and entering judgment on four split violations associated with the SLA. Both in her issue plus in her motion for summary judgment, Hamilton had been looking for damages of $2,000 for the violation payday loans in Indiana that is single of statute. We trust Payday that the test court may well not rewrite Hamilton’s grievance and summary judgment motion. Correctly, we reverse the judgment and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment for the $2,000 required by Hamilton. 2