DLC contends that the simple concept of NRS 604A.480(2) permits a civil action on the initial loan being refinanced or on a brand new subsection 2 loan since the conditions in subsections 2(a)-(f) act as conditions precedent for a licensee to supply an expansion or repayment loan for a lengthier term. To make this argument, DLC contends that subsection 2(f) relates to the initial loan on that your licensee has not yet previously sued. We disagree. Such an interpretation could be as opposed to your legislative intent behind the statute and would create ridiculous results because it would incentivize licensees to perpetuate the вЂњdebt treadmillвЂќ by simply making extra loans under subsection 2 with an extended term and a greater interest, that your licensee could eventually enforce with a civil action. See Orion Portfolio, 126 Nev. at 403, 245 P.3d at 531 (stating that statutes should always be interpreted in order to not ever вЂњproduce ridiculous or unreasonable resultsвЂќ). The club against future civil action on loans made under subsection 2(f) places a conclusion towards the financial obligation treadmill machine.
We therefore reverse the district court’s purchase and remand this matter to your district court to enter a judgment in line with this viewpoint.
PICKERING, J., dissenting:
I might affirm the region court’s choice, which correctly analyzes NRS 604A.480 based on its text and founded guidelines of statutory interpretation.
NRS Chapter 604A regulates the payday and title lending industry. With particular exceptions, Nevada legislation generally prohibits a lender that is at the mercy of Chapter 604A from issuing a brand new loan to repay a preexisting deferred deposit or high-interest loan. Continue reading HAWAII OF NEVADA DIVISION OF COMPANY AND BUSINESS BANKING INSTITUTIONS DIVISION v. DOLLAR LOAN CENTER LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY BUSINESS