Lake Region Credit Union v. Crystal Pure Water, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
224 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (2002)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Aimee Jump and several other Indiana residents (the borrowers) (plaintiffs) obtained high-interest payday loans from ACP Enterprises, Inc. (ACP) (defendant). The loans were typically for small amounts, had only two-week terms, and required borrowers to pay unusually high finance charges. As security for the borrowers’ payment obligations, ACP required them to issue ACP with postdated checks at the time the loans were entered into. If a borrower did not repay a loan at the end of the loan term, then ACP could cash the borrower’s postdated check to obtain payment. ACP used postdated checks as security because they came with certain additional legal rights and remedies, such as those under Indiana’s bad-check statute, and therefore increased the likelihood that a borrower would repay the loan. The loan agreements did not disclose to borrowers that ACP had a security interest in the postdated checks. The borrowers therefore sued ACP, arguing that ACP violated the federal Truth in Lending Act, which required lenders to disclose security interests. ACP filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the postdated checks were not security interests and ACP was therefore not required to disclose them as such. The district court considered ACP’s motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sharp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 904,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

