Judges: RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Filed Date: 1/9/2004
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Dear Rep. Frith:
You requested the opinion of this office concerning a policy promulgated by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions and whether said policy is contrary to the Louisiana Deferred Presentment and Small Loan Act, as recently amended (the "Act").
The Act was amended by Act
On the same day that Act 1272 became effective, the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (the "Commissioner") adopted a policy requiring the keeping of records with respect to loans made pursuant to the Act, and also prohibiting the making of a loan to a customer who purchases a telephone service within ten days of the sale. The policy further allows a lender to accept utility bill payments from consumers provided the lender does not charge the consumer a fee for same.
Under the Act, the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (the "Commissioner") is given the authority to adopt rules and regulations as he deems necessary to implement the purposes of the Act (La.R.S.
As stated in Kramer v. State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners,
There can be no question but that the policy of the Commissioner is more narrow than the provisions of Act 1272. The policy prohibits a lender from making a loan to a customer who purchases a telephone service or product within 10 days before to 10 days after the sale. There is no similar language in Act 1272. The policy also states that a lender may not charge a fee for selling or financing a utility payment service, even though Act 1272 specifically authorizes a lender to sell or finance a utility payment service. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that the Commissioner is attempting to set different policies than those enacted by the legislature and such policy would be invalid.
Trusting this adequately responds to your request, we remain
Yours very truly,
RICHARD P. IEYOUB Attorney General
BY: ________________________________ MARTHA S. HESS Assistant Attorney General
RPI/MSH