Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Amos v. Advanced Funding, Inc.
No. 1:04-CV-2911 (N.D. Ga. filed, Oct. 5, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55787
Description
Disabled and Retired Veterans Challenge High-Interest Loans Secured by Military Benefits
Abstract
Plaintiffs—disabled military veterans or retired enlisted
military veterans—challenge defendant creditors’
high-interest loans secured by military retirement and disability
benefits. Defendants advertised through nationally distributed
Armed Forces newspapers. To plaintiffs they extended credit using
standardized form contracts. Although defendants described their
business as the “purchase” of veterans’ right to
receive their military benefits, plaintiffs contend that the
transactions were loans. Plaintiffs claim that defendants failed to
give clear, accurate, and material disclosures—amounts
financed, interest rates, total of payments, payment schedule, and
finance charges—that the Truth-in-Lending Act and Federal
Reserve Board Regulation Z require. They allege that defendants
structured their loans as assignments of plaintiffs’ right to
receive their military pension or disability benefits and that such
assignments violate the antiassignment provisions of 37 U.S.C.
§ 701(c) and 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1) and (a)(3)(C) and are
void. They contend that defendants’ purchase agreements
illegally attempt to bind borrowers’ heirs and waive defenses
and illegally threaten borrowers with criminal fines and
imprisonment for failure to repay the loan. Plaintiffs seek class
certification, statutory damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, disgorgement, rescission, restitution, and attorney fees
and costs.
