AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
đź“‹Key Facts
⚖️Legal Issues
đź“šCourt Holding
đź’ˇReasoning
🎯Significance
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-13-135
GULFCO OF LOUISIANA, INC. D/B/A Opinion Delivered October 3, 2013
TOWER LOAN OF SPRINGHILL,
LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV-11-111-6]
V.
HONORABLE DAVID F. GUTHRIE,
JUDGE
MACARTHUR BRANTLEY AND
PAMELA BRANTLEY AFFIRMED.
APPELLEES
COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice
Appellant Gulfco of Louisiana, Inc., d/b/a Tower Loan of Springhill, Louisiana
(Gulfco), appeals the decision of the Columbia County Circuit Court denying its request to
foreclose on the home of appellees Pamela and MacArthur Brantley. For reversal, Gulfco
argues that the circuit court erred in applying Arkansas usury law to decline enforcement of
the debt instruments that it contends are governed by the laws of the State of Louisiana.
Gulfco also asserts that the circuit court erred in concluding that it was required to be licensed
by the Arkansas Secretary of State and in ruling that the transactions were unconscionable and
the product of predatory lending practices. We affirm the circuit court’s decision.
The record reflects that Gulfco is in the business of extending high-risk loans to
customers with poor credit ratings. It operates primarily in Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Missouri. The Brantleys, who reside in Waldo, Arkansas, obtained four loans over a two-year
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
period from Gulfco at its location in Springhill, Louisiana, that is near the Arkansas-Louisiana
border. First, on May 13, 2009, they borrowed $1,580.36 with an annual interest rate of
40.20 percent. After deductions for fees and insurance, the Brantleys received $1,031.63 in
cash. Applying the stated interest rate, the finance charge amounted to $811.64, yielding a
total indebtedness of $2,392, payable in twenty-six monthly installments of $92. The
promissory note evidencing the debt stated that the loan was secured by “personal property.”
On December 17, 2009, the Brantleys obtained another loan of $20,887.71 at an
annual interest rate of 24.09 percent. Out of that sum, Gulfco satisfied the first loan and paid
both a hospital bill owed by the Brantleys and their delinquent property taxes. After
deducting those sums and $850 in fees, they received $17,388.32. With the finance charge
of $18,784.29, the Brantleys were to pay a total of $39,672 over the course of seventy-two
months at the rate of $551 per month. To secure the note for this loan, the Brantleys
executed a mortgage on their home in Waldo. Gulfco appraised the value of the home at
$32,000 with a quick-sale value of $27,000.
On June 2, 2010, Gulfco loaned the Brantleys an additional $2,779.82. On this loan,
Gulfco charged an annual interest rate of 35.67 percent, and after deductions for fees and
prepaid interest, the Brantleys received $2,501.83. Adding the finance charge of $1,250.18,
the total debt amounted to $4,030 to be satisfied in twenty-six monthly installments of $155.
This loan was secured by a list of personal property that included a riding lawn mower, a drill,
a chainsaw, televisions, and cameras.
On March 11, 2011, the Brantleys borrowed an additional $3,345.34 with interest at
2
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
34.32 percent. Gulfco charged $400.72 in fees, and the proceeds were used to retire the June-
2010 note. After these deductions, the Brantleys received cash in hand of $598.71. Including
the finance charge of $1,464.66, they were obligated to pay $4,810 over twenty-six months
at the rate of $185 per month. This note was secured by the same personal property as was
the June-2010 loan.
The Brantleys made no payments on the loans after March 31, 2011. On July 1, 2011,
Gulfco filed in the Circuit Court of Columbia County a pleading styled “Notice of Default
and Intention to Sell,” alleging that the mortgage on the Brantleys’ home was in default and
stating that a sale of the home would occur on August 19, 2011. Gulfco attached a copy of
the mortgage to the notice of default. On July 14, 2011, Pamela Brantley filed a pro se
answer that was followed by a response filed by the Brantleys’ attorney. In the response, the
Brantleys denied the substantive allegations of the notice of default, and they asserted the
defenses of usury, unconscionability, estoppel, illegality, unclean hands, predatory lending
practices, and a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA).
On August 11, 2011, the Brantleys filed a petition for a preliminary injunction to halt
the proposed sale of their home. In the petition, they asserted that the promissory notes were
unconscionable, as Gulfco took advantage of their lack of sophistication and induced them to
mortgage their home with knowledge that they did not have stable, full-time employment.
The Brantleys also alleged that the interest rates Gulfco charged were usurious under the
Arkansas Constitution. Gulfco did not file a response to the petition. On August 12, 2011,
the circuit court entered an order granting the Brantleys’ request for a preliminary injunction.
3
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
At the trial held on May 11, 2012, MacArthur Brantley testified that he worked part-
time for a moving company. He said that he learned about Gulfco through a friend and that
he and Pamela took out the first loan to pay personal bills that were about to become
delinquent. MacArthur said that they fell behind on their payments of $92 per month because
his work was slow and because Pamela had become ill. He stated that “Dee,” Gulfco’s loan
agent, called him about their delinquency and suggested that they take out a second loan.
MacArthur said that Dee already had the papers prepared when he arrived at the office. He
stated that he did not read well and that he read what he could of the loan disclosure
statement and promissory note. MacArthur testified that the money for the second loan was
used to pay the first note and to buy a logging truck. He stated that he purchased the truck
for $1,500 and spent $2,300 for welding in addition to buying tires and paying insurance.
With regard to the June-2010 loan, MacArthur testified that the money was used to catch up
the arrearages on the December-2009 loan. He said that they borrowed more money in
March 2011 to again bring their loans current. MacArthur testified that they did not have the
money to pay the loans and that they were faced with the choice of either accepting more
loans or losing their home.
Pamela Brantley testified that she and MacArthur began construction of their home in
2000 and that they had built it a little at a time when money was available. Pamela said that
she graduated from high school with a B average and that MacArthur had taken remedial
classes in high school. Pamela stated that the county assessor had appraised the value of their
home at $51,450. She said that she had heard from friends that Gulfco offered easy money
4
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
and that she and MacArthur sought a loan because they were behind on their household bills.
She said that they told the loan agent, Demetrius Wilson, that she earned $120 per week
sitting for an elderly woman and that MacArthur worked part-time for a moving company
and sometimes mowed yards. She said she also advised Wilson of her medical problems.
Pamela stated that Wilson knew that they had a home and about MacArthur’s idea of
obtaining a logging truck as a means to generate income. She testified that she advised Wilson
that they were having a hard time making their payments on the first loan and that it was
Wilson who suggested mortgaging their house and purchasing a logging truck. Pamela said
that Wilson mentioned this idea many times in their conversations and that they finally agreed
to another loan with a mortgage on their home. She testified that having the logging truck
did not work out due to problems keeping the truck running, the high cost of gasoline, and
a downturn in the logging business. Pamela said that they used the June-2010 loan to make
a past-due payment on the previous loan and to pay household bills. She said that she was
having medical problems at the time and could not work and that they “were going in
circles” and getting deeper and deeper in a hole. Pamela stated that she did not read the loan
documents because she and MacArthur were broke and in need of money.
Lori Spence, Gulfco’s district manager, testified that between the first loan in May
2009 and the second one in December 2009, appellees were assessed three late charges and
had missed two $92 monthly payments. She acknowledged that, when the June-2010 loan
was made, appellees had missed the June payment. Spence stated that with the December-
2009 and June-2010 loans, appellees were paying $551 a month on the note and mortgage
5
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
in addition to $155 per month on the June-2010 note. She said that they continued to miss
payments and garner late charges. Introduced into evidence was a receipt appellees received
dated February 18, 2011, stating that “[y]ou can obtain an additional $3043.48 from us, if you
need it. Just ask the manager.” Spence stated that they were one payment behind on the
mortgage when the final loan was made in March 2011, and the loan proceeds were used to
pay that arrearage. Further, she testified that Gulfco has several offices located near the
Arkansas border.
After the conclusion of testimony, the circuit court took the case under advisement and
asked for posthearing briefs, directing the Brantleys’ attorney to submit his brief first and
Gulfco’s attorney to file his brief in response. In their brief, the Brantleys argued that the law
of Arkansas applied and that the series of loans and conduct of Gulfco were unconscionable
and unjust. In response, Gulfco maintained that the loans and mortgage were executed in
good faith and in compliance with Arkansas law.
The court entered an order setting forth its decision on August 12, 2012. The circuit
court described what it referred to as a “disturbing pattern of lending.” The court found that
Gulfco made four loans to the Brantleys despite their lack of stable employment. It said that
it was no surprise that they were soon behind on their payments. The court noted that
subsequent loans were used to bring the former loans current, and the court called attention
to the receipt that indicated that even more money was available. The circuit court believed
Pamela’s testimony that Gulfco recommended the purchase of the logging truck and that the
venture turned out to be one that they could not afford. It noted that with MacArthur’s
6
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
income level and Pamela’s illness, they could not break the cycle of debt. The court
considered that the fees charged for the four loans was $2,322, and it deemed significant the
fact that the charges were deducted from the loan proceeds on the front end, thereby reducing
the amount of money available to the Brantleys and increasing the probability of further debt.
It concerned the court that Gulfco referenced a quick-sale value of the home, as it indicated
that a foreclosure sale might not be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner, which
would result in a deficiency judgment against the Brantleys. In addition, the circuit court
observed that Gulfco does business in three other states; that it was not licensed to do business
in Arkansas; and that the interest rates would violate Arkansas usury law. In conclusion, the
court found that “the loans collectively constitute predatory lending by a foreign corporation
not authorized to do business in Arkansas and that the contract sought to be enforced is
unconscionable and cannot be given full faith and credit. Accordingly, the contract will not
be enforced against Arkansas property.” Gulfco brings this appeal from the circuit court’s
order.1
As its first point on appeal, Gulfco argues that the law of Louisiana applies to the debt
instruments and that the circuit court erred by employing Arkansas usury law to void the
agreements. It points out that the promissory note that was secured by the mortgage contains
a choice-of-law provision stating that the note is governed under the provisions of Louisiana
1
Initially, the appeal was lodged in the court of appeals. We granted Gulfco’s
motion to transfer the appeal to this court under the provisions of Arkansas Supreme
Court Rule 1-2(b)(4) & (5).
7
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
law. Further, Gulfco maintains that it is a Louisiana corporation, that the agreements were
executed in Louisiana, and that the Brantleys’ payments were directed to Louisiana. It
contends that, under these circumstances, the validity of the agreements must be judged under
Louisiana law. In response, the Brantleys assert that Gulfco waived reliance on Louisiana law
because it did not give notice of its intent to rely on foreign law as required by Rule 44.1 of
the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure.
We summarily dispose of this argument. While the circuit court was indeed mindful
that the loans would be usurious under Arkansas law,2 the court did not decline to enforce the
agreements based on a violation of Arkansas usury law. Instead, the court’s ruling was that
the debt instruments were not enforceable because they were unconscionable and the product
of predatory lending practices. Inasmuch as the circuit court did not rule that the agreements
were void because they violated Arkansas usury law, Gulfco’s argument presents no basis for
reversal.
Next, Gulfco contends that the circuit court erred in ruling that it was required to
register with the Arkansas Secretary of State. We also summarily reject this argument because,
again, Gulfco has misinterpreted the circuit court’s decision. The circuit court did not find
that Gulfco was required to be licensed in Arkansas. Nor did the court nullify the agreements
because Gulfco is not registered to do business in the State of Arkansas. In its decision, the
circuit court merely commented on the fact that Gulfco was an out-of-state business, a fact
2
The Arkansas Constitution sets a cap on interest rates for consumer loans at
seventeen percent. Ark. Const. art. 19, § 13(b).
8
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
that is undoubtedly true. As with the first issue, Gulfco’s argument on this point does not
provide a basis on which to overturn the circuit court’s decision.
We now turn to the final contention raised on appeal. Gulfco takes issue with the
circuit court’s finding that it engaged in unconscionable and predatory lending practices. It
asserts that appellees signed the documents and were aware of the interest rates being charged;
that they agreed to mortgage their home; and that they wished to engage in the logging
business. Gulfco argues that parties are bound by contractual provisions and may not assert
ignorance of the document they have signed. It contends that a court is not to rewrite a
contract but must construe it as to reflect the parties’ intent. Further, Gulfco maintains that
the Brantleys were not desperate or taken advantage of because it was they who sought out
the first loan to help pay bills that were about to become delinquent. Gulfco also points out
that the Brantleys’ credit was poor and that they did not seek a loan from any other lending
institution.
In support of its argument, Gulfco cites only to Arkansas caselaw. Therefore, we will
apply the law of Arkansas in deciding this issue. Our standards regarding unconscionability
are as follows. An act is unconscionable if it affronts the sense of justice, decency, and
reasonableness. Baptist Health v. Murphy, 2010 Ark. 358, 373 S.W.3d 269. We have stated
that in assessing whether a particular contractual provision is unconscionable, the courts
review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and execution of the
contract. Jordan v. Diamond Equip. & Supply Co., 362 Ark. 142, 207 S.W.3d 525 (2005).
Two important considerations are whether there is a gross inequality of bargaining power
9
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
between the parties and whether the aggrieved party was made aware of and comprehended
the provision in question. Id. We also observe that another factor which may contribute to
a finding of unconscionability is a belief by the stronger party that there is no reasonable
probability that the weaker party will fully perform the contract. Restatement (Second) of
Contracts § 208.
Arkansas’s consumer-protection law, which is an expression of this State’s public
policy, is consistent with the Restatement. The Arkansas Home Loan Protection Act applies
to high-cost home loans, which is a loan that is secured by a first lien on the structure that
does not exceed $150,000, where the borrower is a natural person, and where the debt is
incurred by the borrower primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Ark. Code
Ann. § 23-53-103(5)(A) (Repl. 2012). The Act prohibits practices such as lending without
due regard to repayment ability. It provides,
A creditor shall not make a high-cost home loan unless the creditor reasonably
believes at the time the loan is consummated that one (1) or more of the
obligors, when considered individually or collectively, will be able to make the
scheduled payments to repay the obligation based upon a consideration of their
current and expected income, current obligations, employment status, and
other financial resources other than the borrower’s equity in the dwelling that
secures repayment of the loan.
Ark. Code Ann. § 23-53-104(l) (Repl. 2012). Any violation of the Act constitutes an
unconscionable or deceptive act or practice under the ADTPA. Ark. Code Ann. § 23-53-
106(a)(1) (Repl. 2012).
The determination of unconscionability is a mixed question of fact and law. State ex
rel. Bryant v. R & A Inv. Co., 336 Ark. 289, 985 S.W.2d 299 (1999). In bench trials, the
10
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
standard of review on appeal is whether the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous or
clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Benefit Bank v. Rogers, 2012 Ark. 419, ___
S.W.3d ___. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,
the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed. Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Wilburn, 2013 Ark. 258, ___ S.W.3d ___.
However, this court reviews questions of law de novo. Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., 2011
Ark. 157, 381 S.W.3d 21. Therefore, we review the circuit court’s factual findings for clear
error and its interpretation of the law de novo. Robinson v. Villines, 2009 Ark. 632, 362
S.W.3d 870.
Our review of the record confirms the circuit court’s opinion of Gulfco’s lending
practices vis-a-vis the Brantleys. The Brantleys first obtained a modest loan from Gulfco to
pay household bills that were about to become delinquent. They had difficulty making the
$92 per month payments on this loan, as neither of them had full-time employment. Yet
Gulfco, with knowledge of their employment status and Pamela’s illness, loaned them
approximately $20,000, taking a mortgage on the Brantleys’ home as security. The proceeds
of this loan were used to retire the unsecured first loan. The testimony also indicated that
Gulfco’s agent persuaded the Brantleys to mortgage their home. Thereafter, the Brantleys had
trouble making the monthly payments of $551. Despite this fact, Gulfco extended more
credit to them, and with this third loan, they were required to pay an extra $155 per month
in addition to the $551 for the second loan. Predictably, the Brantleys could not meet these
obligations. Nonetheless, Gulfco made yet another loan to them after advertising in a receipt
11
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
that more money was available. With this fourth loan, the third note was satisfied, and the
Brantleys’ monthly payments increased once again.
The evidence thus shows that the Brantleys were not capable of making their payments
from the beginning. Subsequent loans were made to pay off previous notes or to bring their
payments current. Despite the Brantley’s demonstrated inability to pay, Gulfco continued to
loan them money. Each loan, that included built-in fees and high interest rates, placed the
Brantleys in a position of ever-increasing debt, such that it was all but inevitable that they
would end up in default. While the Brantleys’ debt situation became more dire with each
loan, Gulfco’s risk was minimal, because with the mortgage, it was assured of receiving full
payment on the loan. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the circuit court found
that the evidence revealed an intolerable pattern of reprehensible and unconscionable conduct
on the part of Gulfco that offended its sense of decency and justice. We cannot conclude that
the circuit court’s findings of unconscionability and predatory lending practices are clearly
erroneous. We hold that the court did not err in refusing to enforce the mortgage, as to do
so would contravene the public policy of this State. Accordingly, we affirm its decision.
Affirmed.
HANNAH, C.J., concurs.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice, concurring. I concur with the majority’s holding that
the circuit court did not err in refusing to enforce the contract. I write separately because I
reach that same conclusion on a different basis. As the facts cited by the majority clearly
show, the contract at issue violates public policy in Arkansas with regard to usury, and the
12
Cite as 2013 Ark. 367
predatory loan practices of Gulfco are against public interest. The courts hold the power to
declare a contract void for contravening public policy or where it violates the interests of the
public. See Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Denver Roller, Inc., 313 Ark. 128, 854 S.W.2d 312 (1993);
Sirman v. Sloss Realty Co., 198 Ark. 534, 129 S.W.2d 602 (1939). In the present case, I would
declare the contract void as against public policy and against public interest.
John D. Lightfoot; and Robert S. Tschiemer, for appellant.
Claudell Woods, for appellees.
13