(a) No loan contract made outside this State in the amount or of the value of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less, for which greater consideration or charges than are authorized by G.S. 53-173 and G.S. 53-176 have been charged, contracted for, or received, shall be enforced in this State. This subsection, however, does not apply to loan contracts in which all contractual activities, including solicitation, discussion, negotiation, offer, acceptance, signing of documents, and delivery and receipt of funds, occur entirely outside this State.
(b) If any lender or agent of a lender that makes loan contracts outside this State in the amount or of the value of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less comes into this State to solicit or otherwise conduct activities in regard to the loan contracts, then the lender is subject to the requirements of this Article.
(c) No lender licensed to do business under this Article shall collect, or cause to be collected, any loan made by a lender in another state to a borrower that was a resident of this State at the time the loan was made. The purchase of a loan account does not alter this prohibition. (1961, c. 1053, s. 1; 1967, c. 769, s. 2; 1969, c. 1303, s. 13; 1973, c. 1042, s. 8; 1979, c. 706, s. 2; 1989, c. 17, s. 11; 2015-179, s. 5; 2023-61, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Troublefield v. AutoMoney (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 25× “¶ 32 Plaintiff asserts that regardless of the choice of law provisions, Defendant is subject to North Carolina law under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 . As such, we must determine whether N.”
Leake v. AutoMoney (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 25× “¶ 37 Here, Plaintiffs assert that regardless of the choice of law provision, Defendant is subject to North Carolina law under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 . As such, we must LEAKE V.”
Troublefield v. AutoMoney (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 25× “¶ 32 Plaintiff asserts that regardless of the choice of law provisions, Defendant is subject to North Carolina law under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 . As such, we must determine whether N.”
Leake v. AutoMoney (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 25× “¶ 37 Here, Plaintiffs assert that regardless of the choice of law provision, Defendant is subject to North Carolina law under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 . As such, we must LEAKE V.”
Wall v. AutoMoney (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 (a) (2021). Moreover, in enacting the most recent version of the NCCFA our state legislature recognized: new schemes continue to be devised in order to circumvent the lending laws of North Carolina and to avoid regulation by the Commissioner of Banks.”
Wall v. AutoMoney (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 (a) (2021). Moreover, in enacting the most recent version of the NCCFA our state legislature recognized: new schemes continue to be devised in order to circumvent the lending laws of North Carolina and to avoid regulation by the Commissioner of Banks.”
Strange v. Select Mgmt. Resources, LLC (M.D.N.C. 2019).
· cites it 4× “The defendants have filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment on the same issue, contending that none has engaged in any contractual activities related to plaintiffs’ loans in North Carolina and that to the extent the relevant provision of the Consumer Finance Act, N.C.…”
Goines v. Titlemax of Virginia, Inc (M.D.N.C. 2021).
· cites it 4× “) He wrote in the Final Award: While it may be argued that Section 53-190(a) applies only to activities prior to and coincident with the formation of the contract, Section 53-190(b) cannot be read to be so limited when it refers to a lender coming into the State to “otherwise…”
Ray v. TitleMax of Va., Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “On 14 May 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants bringing six claims for relief: (1) violations of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act (the “Act”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 (a); (2) in the alternative of the claim for violations under the Act, violations of N.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190(a) — 4 cases
Goines v. Titlemax of Virginia, Inc (M.D.N.C. 2021).
“) He wrote in the Final Award: While it may be argued that Section 53-190(a) applies only to activities prior to and coincident with the formation of the contract, Section 53-190(b) cannot be read to be so limited when it refers to a lender coming into the State to “otherwise…”
Leake v. AutoMoney (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“¶ 37 Here, Plaintiffs assert that regardless of the choice of law provision, Defendant is subject to North Carolina law under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 . As such, we must LEAKE V.”
Leake v. AutoMoney (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“¶ 37 Here, Plaintiffs assert that regardless of the choice of law provision, Defendant is subject to North Carolina law under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190 . As such, we must LEAKE V.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-190(b) — 1 case
Goines v. Titlemax of Virginia, Inc (M.D.N.C. 2021).
“) He wrote in the Final Award: While it may be argued that Section 53-190(a) applies only to activities prior to and coincident with the formation of the contract, Section 53-190(b) cannot be read to be so limited when it refers to a lender coming into the State to “otherwise…”
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.