local loan companies

local loan companies

Англо-русский экономический словарь .

Смотреть что такое "local loan" в других словарях:

local loan — A loan issued by a UK local government authority for financing capital expenditure … Big dictionary of business and management

loan — Money lent on condition that it is repaid, either in instalments or all at once, on agreed dates and usually that the borrower pays the lender an agreed rate of interest (unless it is an interest free loan). See also balloon; bank loan; bridging… … Big dictionary of business and management

Loan modification in the United States — Loan modification, the systematic alteration of contactual mortgage loan agreements, has been practiced in the United States since the 1930s. During the Great Depression loan modification programs took place at the state level in an effort to… … Wikipedia

Local Initiatives Support Corporation — Infobox company company name = Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) company company type = Non Profit company mission = Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) is dedicated to helping nonprofit community development organizations… … Wikipedia

Loan Participation Note - LPN — A fixed income security that permits investors to buy portions of an outstanding loan or package of loans. LPN holders participate, on a pro rata basis, in collecting interest and principal payments. Banks or other financial institutions often… … Investment dictionary

Loan shark — A loan shark is a person or body that offers illegal unsecured loans at high interest rates to individuals, often backed by blackmail or threats of violence. They provide credit to those who are unwilling or unable to obtain it from more… … Wikipedia

loan — <>I.<> noun ADJECTIVE ▪ large, massive ▪ small ▪ long term, short term ▪ high interest, interest free … Collocations dictionary

Local Education Authority — A Local Education Authority (LEA) is the part of a local council, or local authority (LA), in England and Wales that is responsible for education within that council s jurisdiction. The phrase is now obsolete in official use, but is still… … Wikipedia

local authority bond — /ˌləυk(ə)l ɔ: θɒrəti bɒnd/ noun a fixed interest bond, repayable at a certain date, used by a local authority in order to raise a loan and similar to a Treasury bond … Dictionary of banking and finance

loan — /ləυn/ noun money which has been lent ■ verb to lend something ● The truck has been loaned by the local haulage company. ▪▪▪ ‘…over the last few weeks, companies raising new loans from international banks have been forced to pay more, and an… … Dictionary of banking and finance

Interlibrary loan — (abbreviated ILL, and sometimes called interloan, document delivery, or document supply) is a service whereby a user of one library can borrow books or receive photocopies of documents that are owned by another library. The user makes a request… … Wikipedia

Have a question, comment, or complaint?

© Copyright 2018 Sun Loan Company. All rights reserved. * Loan amounts differ by location.

Offers featured via a paid Google advertisement contain rate quotes of no greater than 35.99% APR with lengths from 24 to 48 months with no term less than 24 months. Sun Loan Company personal loan amounts typically range from $2,000 to $5,000. Your actual rate depends upon loan amount, loan term, credit usage and history and will be agreed upon between you and the lender. The disclosures are presented pursuant to the terms and conditions of our service agreement with GOOGLE, Inc. They are not required by any federal, state, or local laws. They are provided as informational services only and may not be construed as legal advice.

Find peace. Whether you pray or meditate, it is vital to locate peace within your lifetime. Do not let the negative facets of money troubles ruin you. Take hold of it and use your finances to transfer . What did you find? You are able to manage without specific things you had once believed you could not live without. One of the finest parts of being an individual is adaptability.

Bad credit loans are a good option for people who had CCJs or defaults, or may have difficulty obtaining finance because they have formerly got into payment arrears. There certainly are a number of bad credit loans lenders that now offer this sort of finance but you may be perplexed by the financial jargon that is used to describe borrowing which is especially for this particular sector of the marketplace. The previous is a helpful alternative as it means that people do not have to bother about getting turned down because of fiscal problems that are previous. The latter also frequently indicates that rigorous tests are not likely to be carried out.

Steer clear of automatic rollovers when it comes to loans. Some payday lenders have systems set up that extend the term of your loan in exchange for fees deducted out of your checking account. Aside from setting it up most of these don't need any actions. You may never have the ability to totally pay off the payday advance and find yourself getting stuck with fees. Read the little print and select a lender that has a great standing.

Triple The Technology: It means contemplate taming the expense of your Internet, phone and cable bills by looking into suppliers who offer package bundles on the three services. It is sometimes called a tripe play while offering consumers a means to save money in addition to enjoy the ease of one bill every month. As you'd for all three in a triple play bundle, you may find that you will be paying the same now to get one phone line.

Local Loan Company v. Hunt/Opinion of the Court

United States Supreme Court

Local Loan Company v. Hunt

Argued: April 4, 5, 1934. --- Decided: April 30, 1934

On September 17, 1930, respondent borrowed from petitioner the sum of $300, and assecurity for its payment executed an assignment of a portion of his wages thereafter to be earned. On March 3, 1931, respondent filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy in a federal District Court in Illinois, including in his schedule of liabilities the foregoing loan, which constituted a provable claim against the estate. Respondent was adjudicated a bankrupt; and, on October 10, 1932, an order was entered discharging him from all provable debts and claims. On October 18, 1932, petitioner brought an action in the municipal court of Chicago against respondent's employer to enforce the assignment in respect of wages earned after the adjudication. Thereupon, respondent commenced this proceeding in the court which had adjudicated his bankruptcy and ordered his discharge, praying that petitioner be enjoined from further prosecuting said action or attempting to enforce its claim therein made against respondent under the wage assignment. The bankruptcy court, upon consideration, entered a decree in accordance with the prayer; and this decree on appeal was affirmed by the court below (In re Hunt (C.C.A.) 67 F.(2d) 998), following its decision in Re Skorcz (C.C.A.) 67 F.(2d) 187.

Challenging this decree, petitioner contends that the bankruptcy court was without jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding to enjoin the prosecution of the action in the municipal court; that, assuming such jurisdiction, the rule is that an assignment of future wages constitutes an enforceable lien; but that, in any event, the highest court of the state of Illinois has so decided, and by that decision this court is bound.

First. The pleading by which respondent invoked the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court in the present case is in substance and effect a supplemental and ancillary bill in equity, in aid of and to effectuate the adjudication and order made by the same court. That a federal court of equity has jurisdiction of a bill ancillary to an original case or proceeding in the same court, whether at law or in equity, to secure or preserve the fruits and advantages of a judgment or decree rendered therein, is well settled. Root v. Woolworth, 150 U.S. 401, 410-412, 14 S.Ct. 136, 37 L.Ed. 1123; Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U.S. 93, 112 114, 24 S.Ct. 399, 48 L.Ed. 629; Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Manufacturing Co., 198 U.S. 188, 194 et seq., 25 S.Ct. 629, 49 L.Ed. 1008; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450, 460, 16 L.Ed. 749. And this, irrespective of whether the court would have jurisdiction if the proceeding were an original one. The proceeding being ancillary and dependent, the jurisdiction of the court follows that of the original cause, and may be maintained without regard to the citizenship of the parties or the amount involved, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 265 of the Judicial Code (Rev. St. § 720), U.S.C., title 28, § 379 (28 USCA § 379). [1] Julian v. Central Trust Co., supra, 112 of 193 U.S., 24 S.Ct. 3&9; Dietzsch v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 494, 497, 26 L.Ed. 4&7; Root v. Woolworth, supra, 413 of 150 U.S., 14 S.Ct. 136; McDonald v. Seligman (C.C.) 81 F. 753; St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Bellamy (D.C.) 211 F. 172, 175-177; Brun v. Mann (C.C.A.) 151 F. 145, 150, 12 L.R.A.(N.S.) 154.

These principles apply to proceedings in bankruptcy. In re Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. (D.C.) 180 F. 549, 554; Sims v. Jamison (C.C.A.) 67 F.(2d) 409, 410; Pell v. McCabe (C.C.A.) 256 F. 512, 515, 516; Seaboard Small Loan Corporation v. Ottinger (C.C.A.) 50 F.(2d) 856, 859, 77 A.L.R. 956. Petitioner relies upon a number of decisions where other federal courts sitting in bankruptcy have declined to entertain suits similar in character to the present one, on the ground that the effect of a discharge in bankruptcy is a matter to be determined by any court in which the discharge may be pleaded. See, for example, Hellman v. Goldstone (C.C.A.) 161 F. &13; In re Marshall Paper Co. (C.C.A.) 102 F. 872, 874; In re Weisberg (D.C.) 253 F. 833, 835; In re Havens (C.C.A.) 272 F. 975. To the extent that these cases conflict with the view just expressed they are clearly not in harmony with the general rule in equity announced by this court. And we find nothing, either in the nature of the bankruptcy court or in the terms of the Bankruptcy Act, which necessitates the application of what would amount to a special rule on this subject in respect of bankruptcy proceedings. Courts of bankruptcy are constituted by sections 1 and 2 of the Bankruptcy Act, amended by Act May 27, 1926 (U.S.C., title 11, §§ 1 and 11 (11 USCA §§ 1, 11)), and are invested 'with such jurisdiction at law and in equity as will enable them to exercise original jurisdiction in bankruptcy proceedings,' etc. The words 'at law' were probably inserted to meet clause (4) of section 2, 11 USCA § 11(4), which empowers such courts to arraign, try, and punish certain designated persons for violations of the act. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, 178 U.S. 524, 534-536, 20 S.Ct. 1000, 44 L.Ed. 1175. But otherwise courts of bankruptcy are essentially courts of equity, and their proceedings inherently proceedings in equity. Bardes v. Hawarden Bank, supra, 535 of 178 U.S., 20 S.Ct. 1000; In re Rochford (C.C.A.) 124 F. 182, 187; In re Siegel-Hillman Dry Goods Co. (D.C.) 111 F. 980, &83; Swarts v. Siegel (C.C.A.) 117 F. 13, 16; Dodge v. Norlin (C.C.A.) 133 F. 363, 368, 369; In re Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., supra, at page 553 of 180 F.; In re Lahongrais (C.C.A.) 5 F.(2d) 899, &01; French v. Long (C.C.A.) 42 F.(2d) 45, 47. And, generally, proceedings in bankruptcy are in the nature of proceedings in rem, adjudications of bankruptcy and orders of discharge being, as this court clearly has treated them, in every essential particular decrees in equity determining a status. Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181, 192, 22 S.Ct. 857, 46 L.Ed. 1113; Commercial Bank of Manchester v. Buckner, 20 How. 108, 118, 119, 15 L.Ed. 862.

What has now been said establishes the authority of the bankruptcy court to entertain the present proceeding, determine the effect of the adjudication and order, and enjoin petitioner from its threatened interference therewith. It does not follow, however, that the court was bound to exercise its authority. And it probably would not and should not have done so except under unusual circumstances such as here exist. So far as appears, the municipal court was competent to deal with the case. It is true that respondent was not a party to that litigation; but undoubtedly it was open to him to intervene and submit to that court the question as to the effect upon the subject-matter of the action of the bankruptcy decrees. And it may be conceded that the municipal court was authorized in the law action to afford relief the equivalent of that which respondent now seeks in equity. Nevertheless, other considerations aside, it is clear that the legal remedy thus afforded would be inadequate to meet the requirements of justice. As will be shown in a moment, the sole question at issue is one which the highest court of the state of Illinois had already resolved against respondent's contention. The alternative of invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court was for respondent to pursue an obviously long and expensive course of litigation, beginning with an intervention in a municipal court and followed by successive appeals through the state intermediate and ultimate Courts of Appeal, before reaching a court whose judgment upon the merits of the question had not been predetermined. The amount in suit is small, and, as pointed out by Judge Parker in Seaboard Small Loan Corporation v. Ottinger, supra, at page 859, of 50 F.(2d), such a remedy is entirely inadequate because of the wholly disproportionate trouble, embarrassment, expense, and possible loss of employment which it involves.

Second. Whether an assignment of future earned wages constitutes a lien within the meaning of section 67d of the Bankruptcy Act, [2] is a matter upon which the decisions of the state and federal courts are not in complete accord; although by far the larger number of cases and the greater weight of authority are in the negative. We do not stop to review the state decisions. Among those which deny the existence of the lien are Leitch v. Northern Pacific R. Co., 95 Minn. 35, 38, 103 N.W. 704, 5 Ann.Cas. 63; Levi v. Loevenhart & Co., 138 Ky. 133, 136, 127 S.W. 748, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 375, 137 Am.St.Rep. 377; Public Finance Co. v. Rowe, 123 Ohio St. 206, 174 N.E. 738, 74 A.L.R. &00; Hupp v. Union Pac. R. Co., 99 Neb. 654, 157 N.W. 343, L.R.A. 1916E, 247. The only state cases definitely to the contrary which have been called to our attention are certain Illinois cases, mentioned later, and Citizens' Loan Ass'n v. Boston & Maine R.R., 196 Mass. 528, 82 N.E. 696, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1025, 124 Am.St.Rep. 584, 13 Ann.Cas. 365. The lower federal courts which have had occasion to consider the question concur in the view that the lien has no existence or is ineffective as against an adjudication and discharge in bankruptcy. Judge Bellinger, in Re West (D.C.) 128 F. 205, 206, sucsinctly stated the ground of his ruling in accordance with that view as follows:

'The discharge in bankruptcy operated to discharge these obligations as of the date of the adjudication, so that the obligations were discharged before the wages intended as security were in existence. The law does not continue an obligation in order that there may be a lien, but only does so because there is one. The effect of the discharge upon the prospective liens was the same as though the debts had been paid before the assigned wages were earned. The wages earned after the adjudication became the property of the bankrupt clear of the claims of all creditors.'

This conclusion finds ample support in the following decisions among others. In re Home Discount Co. (D.C.) 147 F. 538, 547 et seq.; In re Lineberry (D.C.) 183 F. 338; In re Voorhees (D.C.) 41 F.(2d) 81; In re Fellows (D.C.) 43 F.(2d) 122; In re Potts (D.C.) 54 F.(2d) 144, and especially Seaboard Small Loan Corporation v. Ottinger, supra.

The earning power of an individual is the power to create property; but it is not translated into property within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act until it has brought earnings into existence. An adjudication of bankruptcy, followed by a discharge, releases a debtor from all previously incurred debts, with certain exceptions not pertinent here; and it logically cannot be supposed that the act nevertheless intended to keep such debts alive for the purpose of permitting the creation of an enforceable lien upon a subject not existent when the bankruptcy became effective or even arising from, or connected with, preexisting property, but brought into being solely as the fruit of the subsequent labor of the bankrupt.

Third. To the foregoing array of authority petitioner opposes the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois in Mallin v. Wenham, 209 Ill. 252, 70 N.E. 564, 65 L.R.A. 602, 101 Am.St.Rep. 233, and Monarch Discount Co. v. C. & O.R. Co., 285 Ill. 233, 120 N.E. 743. Undoubtedly, these cases hold, as petitioner asserts, that in Illinois an assignment of future wages creates a lien effective from the date of the assignment, which is not invalidated by the assignor's discharge in bankruptcy. The contention is that even if the general rule be otherwise, this court is bound to follow the Illinois decisions, since the question of the existence of a lien depends upon Illinois law.

We find it unnecessary to consider whether this contention would in a different case find support in section 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, now section 725, title 28, U.S.C., 28 USCA § 725, [3] since we are of opinion that it is precluded here by the clear and unmistakable policy of the Bankruptcy Act. It is important to bear in mind that the present case is one not within the jurisdiction of a state court, but is a dependent suit brought to vindicate decrees of a federal court of bankruptcy entered in the exercise of a jurisdiction essentially federal and exclusive in character. And it is that situation to which we address ourselves, and to which our decision is confined.

One of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy Act is to 'relieve the honest debtor from the weight of oppressive indebtedness, and permit him to start afresh free from the obligations and responsibilities consequent upon business misfortunes.' Williams v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U.S. 549, 554, 555, 35 S.Ct. 289, 290, 59 L.Ed. 713. This purpose of the act has been again and again emphasized by the courts as being of public as well as private interest, in that it gives to the honest but unfortunate debtor who surrenders for distribution the property which he owns at the time of bankruptcy, a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of pre-existing debt. Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U.S. 605, 617, 38 S.Ct. 215, 62 L.Ed. 507; Hanover National Bank v. Moyses, supra; Swarts v. Fourth National Bank (C.C.A.) 117 F. 1, 3; United States v. Hammond (C.C.A.) 104 F. 862, 863; Barton Bros. v. Texas Produce Co. (C.C.A.) 136 F. 355, 357; Hardie v. Swafford Bros. Dry Goods Co. (C.C.A.) 165 F. 588, 591, 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 785; Gilbert v. Shouse (C.C.A.) 61 F.(2d) 398. The various provisions of the Bankruptcy Act were adopted in the light of that view and are to be construed when reasonably possible in harmony with it so as to effectuate the general purpose and policy of the act. Local rules subversive of that result cannot be accepted as controlling the action of a federal court.

When a person assigns future wages, he, in effect, pledges his future earning power. The power of the individual to earn a living for himself and those dependent upon him is in the nature of a personal liberty quite as much if not more than it is a property right. To preserve its free exercise is of the utmost importance, not only because it is a fundamental private necessity, but because it is a matter of great public concern. From the viewpoint of the wage-earner there is little difference between not earning at all and earning wholly for a creditor. Pauperism may be the necessary result of either. The amount of the indebtedness, or the proportion of wages assigned, may here be small, but the principle, once established, will equally apply where both are very great. The new opportunity in life and the clear field for future effort, which it is the purpose of the Bankruptcy Act to afford the emancipated debtor, would be of little value to the wage-earner if he were obliged to face the necessity of devoting the whole or a considerable portion of his earnings for an indefinite time in the future to the payment of indebtedness incurred prior to his bankruptcy. Confining our determination to the case in hand, and leaving prospective liens upon other forms of acquisitions to be dealt with as they may arise, we reject the Illinois decisions as to the effect of an assignment of wages earned after bankruptcy as being destructive of the purpose and spirit of the Bankruptcy Act.

^1 'The writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.'

^2 'Liens given or accepted in good faith and not in contemplation of or in fraud upon the provisions of this title, and for a present consideration, which have been recorded according to law, if record thereof was necessary in order to impart notice, shall, to the extent of such present consideration only, not be affected by anything herein.' U.S.C. title 11, § 107(d), 11 USCA § 107(d).

^3 'The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.'

Where YOUR money works FOR you!

WELCOME and THANK YOU for considering

as part of your investment strategy!

Local Loan Company has been in the real estate and lending business for 25 years, with over four decades of experience from the one principal shareholder. Having personally and professionally invested in numerous properties, projects, stocks, mutual funds, and bonds, we have found trust deeds to be among the best and most consistent performers in any market.

As a result of personal experience and the success of investors, we firmly believe that trust deeds should be a component of every investor’s portfolio. So much so that Local Loan Company was founded to provide trust deed investment opportunities to investors like YOU.

The basics of trust deed investments are relatively easy to understand:

2. Look at the amount of the loan request.

3. Include any loans senior to the loan you are being asked to make (if any).

4. Determine the loan-to-value ratio.

5. Determine the Net Equity.

6. Carefully evaluate the borrower’s track record and ability to repay the debt.

Some questions are sure to arise. CALL US! We are always eager to talk about trust deeds and explore how they might fit your financial picture. In fact, our team prides itself on the creation of innovative solutions that best suit the individual needs of our clients. We also know from experience that everyone’s needs are different, so we encourage you to confer with your legal and financial advisors when making any investment decisions.

We invite you to contact us at anytime with NO obligations or pressure --- we are confident that the many benefits of our investment opportunities speak for themselves. Our aim is to provide exceptional service with every opportunity and build trusting relationships with all of our clients. It’s just the way we do business! We look forward to sharing the experience with you.

Local Loan Company


Trust Deed is the term commonly used for a legal document known as a "deed of trust". Simply speaking, a "deed of trust" secures a borrower’s obligation to repay money borrowed from a lender.

With the scarcity of institutional funds, finding the best financing option for commercial loans has become increasingly difficult. Private lenders have become the principal source of capital for this use. Institutions are often backed by investor pools. The funds from these pools can provide brokers with a reliable source of funding for their clients as well as diversity for the investor.

This Income Fund is a registered security and is under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Corporations. This registration permit is permissive only and does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement of the securities permitted to acquire investors.

Is this fund open to everyone? NO! There are investor suitability standards. Scroll over the menu to find the INVESTOR QUALIFICATION page. There you will find a list of the basic qualifications you will need before you make application to invest.

This page is a brief summary only and is qualified in its entirety by the information appearing in the Offering Circular. The Offering Circular should be read in its entirety before any investment decision is made.

Request the Offering Circular and additional information by scrolling over the menu and clicking on the REQUEST INFORMATION PACK link.

As always, feel free to give us a call with any questions! CALL 503-643-5000 or scroll over the menu and click on the CONTACT LOCAL LOAN link to find our email and mailing addresses.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 оценок, среднее: 5.00 из 5)
Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

7 + 2 =

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: