Unconscionable trade practices are defined in relevant part as an extension of credit. After borrowers brought complaints to the Attorney General, the State sued Defendants under the UPA, which prohibits nfair or deceptive trade practices and unconscionable trade practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Walker Albuquerque, NM for Appellees OPINION CHÃ VEZ, Justice. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellant Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. I am saving as much as I can to splurg on an adventure. Meyers, Assistant Attorney General John D. When I go on vacation I dream of Taos but end up on a truck like this site. CERTIFICATION FROM THE NEW MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS Gary K. ©1996-2021 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. B&B INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., d/b/a CASH LOANS NOW, and AMERICAN CASH LOANS, LLC, d/b/a AMERICAN CASH LOANS, Defendants-Appellees. KING, Attorney General, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 34,266 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., GARY K. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number:_ Filing Date: JDocket No. The Supreme Court concluded that the interest rates in this case were substantively unconscionable and violated the UPA. However, the Court reversed the district court’s refusal to find that the loans were substantively unconscionable because under the UPA, courts have the responsibility to determine whether a contract results in a gross disparity between the value received by a person and the price paid. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s finding of procedural unconscionability.
The district court found that Defendants’ marketing and loan origination procedures were unconscionable and enjoined certain of its practices in the future, but declined to find the high-cost loans substantively unconscionable, concluding that it is the Legislature’s responsibility to determine limits on interest rates. The Attorney General’s Office sued Defendants, alleging that the loan products were procedurally and substantively unconscionable under the common law and that they violated the Unfair Practices Act (UPA). The loans were for twelve months, payable biweekly, and carried annual percentage rates ranging from 1,147.14 to 1,500%. In January 2006, two former payday lenders, defendants B&B Investment Group, Inc., and American Cash Loans, LLC, began to market and originate high-cost signature of $50 to $300, primarily to less-educated and financially unsophisticated individuals.