Alexis Taitel

Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date

Fall 9-2019

Case Synopsis

In an en banc opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court answered whether title lender TitleMax’s Grace Period Deferment Agreement (“GPPDA”), which applied to short-term, high-interest loans offered to Nevada consumers in 2014 and 2015, qualified as a true grace period under NRS 604A.210. The Court concluded that the GPPDA was not a true grace period, but was instead an impermissible extension of the 210-day loans. The Court reasoned that the GPPDA was an extension because TitleMax charged borrowers additional interest during the extended period and thus violated NRS 604A.445, a statute enacted by the Nevada Legislature in part to protect consumers from predatory lending, by explicitly forbidding the charging of additional interest during grace periods. Further, the Court concluded that TitleMax’s violation was not willful, but was instead a reasonable interpretation of the pertinent statutes, and thus sanctions were inappropriate.