N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 53
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-164 (2026)

Title

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 53 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This Article shall be known and may be cited as the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act. (1961, c. 1053, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Goleta Nat'l Bank v. Lingerfelt, 211 F. Supp. 2d 711 (E.D.N.C. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Goleta Nat'l Bank v. Lingerfelt, 211 F. Supp. 2d 711 (E.D.N.C. 2002). · cites it 4× “, the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, N.C.Gen. Stat. § 53-164, et seq., the North Carolina Check Casher Act, N.”
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc., 624 S.E.2d 371 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Under the Consumer Finance Act, a consumer lender may not charge interest “greater than permitted by Chapter 24” on loans of $10,000 or less without first obtaining a license from the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks.”
Cmty. State Bank v. Knox, 850 F. Supp. 2d 586 (M.D.N.C. 2012). · cites it 4× “For example, the Knox Complaint alleges that, even if the Knox Defendants are without any direct financial stake in the loans they service, that the Knox Defendants have violated the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 53-164, et seq. (2007) (“CFA”).”
Beneficial North Carolina, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. North Carolina State Banking Comm'n, 484 S.E.2d 808 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “section 53-164 et seq., to sell a form of noncredit disability insurance known as Liberator Income Protector Plan (LIPP) in conjunction with its consumer loan business.”
Ken-Mar Fin. v. Harvey, 368 S.E.2d 646 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, G.S. 53-164 et seq., renders void any loan contract in which the licensed lender engages in unfair competition or deceptive trade practices.”
Brown v. W. Sky Fin., LLC, 84 F. Supp. 3d 467 (M.D.N.C. 2015). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs allege the loans violate the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-164 et seq.; the usury statutes, N.”
In Re Advance Am., Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc., 657 S.E.2d 405 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “*116 Facts On 1 February 2005, the Consumer Finance Division of the Office of the Commissioner of Banks commenced a contested case against Advance America, alleging that the company was unlawfully engaging in the business of payday lending in violation of the Consumer Finance…”
In re Ivey, 131 B.R. 43 (M.D.N.C. 1991). · cites it 2× “The evidence presented by Fleet in support of its position can be summarized as follows: (a) Fleet is authorized by the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks to conduct a consumer finance business pursuant to the provisions of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act,…”
Patterson v. DAC Corp. of North Carolina, 310 S.E.2d 783 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). “Plaintiffs seventh claim alleges violations of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, G.S. 53-164, et seq. Since the Act establishes a private right of action for its violation, and does not prescribe a different period of limitation, the action is one created by statute which…”
State v. W. Sky Fin., LLC, 2015 NCBC 84 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff also alleges that the interest rates charged by Defendants violate the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, G.S. §§ 53-164 et seq., and the UDTPA, G.”
Strange v. Select Mgmt. Resources, LLC (M.D.N.C. 2019). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs seek to recover damages and penalties under the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-164 et seq., id. at ¶¶ 23–28; under N.”
Frazier v. TitleMax of Va., Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “On 9 April 2020, Plaintiffs filed individual suits against TitleMax in North Carolina state court, alleging that the Loan Agreements violated the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act (“CFA”) ( N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-164 et seq.); North Carolina usury laws ( N.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.