FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT SEPT 16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1219 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00233 -CV -W -E BK CYN o. 06- 8064 6 In Re: BERNICE GUNN, D e b t o r .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ BERNICE GUNN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us TITLE MAX OF AL ABAMA, INC., d.b .a Tit le Max of Al ex an de r Ci ty #1, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 16, 200 8)2

Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Bernice Gunn appeals the district court’ s judgm ent affir m ing th e bankruptcy court’ s Fed. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 6) dism issal of both counts of her adversary co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Ti tl eMa x o f Alaba m a, In c. W e aff irm. I. InO ct obe r 2005 G unn re ce ive d aloan of $50 0. 00 f

ro m T itl eM ax and pledged th e title to her car as a security . Gunn rece ived a four-page Pawn T icket that contained required federal and state disclo sures. I t also stated that the pledg er co uld , by pay ing a“paw nsho p c harg e” ins te ad of any loan pr inc ipa l, c re at e deferr al periods in which TitleMax w ouldcontinu e to hold th e security and delay the loan’ s du e da te f

or thi rty m or e day s. R ep ay

m en t of the loan, in the a m ount

of $5 79 .95 , was due on Nov em be r 21 , 20 05 . Be tw ee n N ove m

be r 2005 and July

200 6 th er e w er e a num

be r of tr an sa ct ion s dur ing w hic h G unn pa id i nte re st i n th e fo rm of m onthly paw nsho p c harg es and, ap pare ntl y , som e of

the pr inc ipa l bu t no t a ll of it . O n Ju ly

21, 200 6 G unn pa id T itl eM ax int er es t i n th e am ount of $63 . 93, and r ec ei ve d aCu sto m er Re ce ipt show ing that onA ugus t 21 , 200 6 sh e w oul d ow e $399 . 82 p lus anothe r int er es t paym ent in the am ountof $63.93. T he Custom er R eceipt contained no federalThese doc uments are proper ly befor e us bec ause Gunn incorporated them into her 1 complaint. See B ickley

v. Carema

rk RX, Inc., 461 F .3d 1325, 1329 n.7 (11th Cir. 2006) (“ wher e the plaintiff re fer s to certa in documents in the complaint and those doc uments are centr al to the plaintiff’s cla im, then the Court may consider the documents par t of the plea ding f

or purpose s of Rule 12(b)(6) dismiss al.”) (quotation marks omitted). 3 T ru th i n L en din g A ct

( “ T IL A ”) , 15 U . S. C. § 16 01 e t se q. , dis cl osur es , but state d:

“ You are only

required to pay

the Interest D ue am ount in order to extend or renew the Paw n Ticket. ” Gunn filed a Chapter

13 bankrup tcy

petition in August 20 06. T itleMax then m ade a c laim

in her bankruptcy

case, asking for $46 3.75 and listin g Gunn’ s car a s co llate ra l. G unn re spon de d by f ili ng a tw o- co unt

a dve rs ar y c om pla int a ga ins t T itl eM ax . C ount

1 a lle ge d th at

e ac h of the m onthly

tr an sa ct ion s be tw ee n G unn an d Ti tl eMa x was a “ Subs eq ue nt Loan Agre em en t” req ui rin g n ew TILA dis cl osur es . C ount

2 a ske d th e co urt t o r ec ogni ze that T itl eM ax ’ s c la im f or $463 . 75 w as ind ep en de nt o f the or igi na l $5 00. 00 p awn and thus unse cure d. G unn atta ch ed he r or igi na l P awn T ic ke t and h er Jul y 200 6 C ust om er

Re ce ipt a s E xhi bit s B and C to the c om

pla int . 1 TitleMa x filed a m otion to dism iss un der Fe d. R. Civ. P . 12(b)( 6), co nte ndi ng tha t the m onthly tr an sa ct ion s be tw ee n N ove m be r 2005 and July

200 6 we re m erely

extensions of the original pawn agree m ent and thus did no t require T IL A dis cl osur es . T he bankr upt cy c ourt gr an te d T itl eM ax ’ s m oti on, dis m iss ing4

G unn’ s c om

pla int w ithpr ej udi ce . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a ff irm ed . G unn tim el y

f ile d a no ti ce o f ap pe al to th is Co ur t. II . W e re vie wde nov o th e le ga l c onc lus ion s of the bankr

upt cy c ourt. A sbe sto s Se ttl em en t T ru st v . Ci ty

of N ewY ork ( Inr e Ce lot ex Co rp . ), 487 F . 3d 1 320, 132 8 (1 1thCi r. 200 7) . I n de ci din g am oti on t o di sm iss f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im , thi s Court acce pts the factual allegations in th e plaintiff’ s com plaint and con strues the m in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to he r. Y oung Apartm en ts, I nc . v. T ow n of Jupit er, 529 F.3d 1027 , 1037 (11th Cir. 2008). H owever , the plaintiff’ s “ factual allegations m

ust be enou gh to raise a right to relief a bove the sp eculative level.” Bel l At la nt ic Co rp . v. Twom bl y , __ _ U.S. _

__ , 12 7 S . Ct. 1 95 5, 1 96 5 (2 00 7) . This Court is “ not bo und to acce pt as true a legal c onclusi on couched as a factual al le gatio n. ” I d. ( quot ing P ap as anv. A lla in, 478 U . S. 265 , 286 , 106 S . Ct . 293 2, 2944 (1986)). III . G unn co nte nds that T itl eM ax vio la te d T IL A ’ s di sc los ur e re qui re m en ts i n co nne ct ionw iththe ir

Jul y 21, 200 6 tr an sa ct ion . T IL A r equir es m eanin gf ul dis cl osur es to cu sto m er s inc onsum er c re dit tr an sa ct ion s, and i n c los ed -e nd tr an sa ct ion s li ke the one s be tw ee n G unn an d T itl eM ax , the dis cl osur es m ust be5

giv enbe fo re c re dit

is ex te nde d. 15 U . S. C. § 16 01( a) ; 15 U . S. C. § 16 38( b) (1 ); 12 C.F.R. § 22 6.1 8. T he F ed er al Re se rv e Bo ar d ha s pr om ulg at ed Re gul at ionZ , 12 C. F. R. § 22 6. 1( a) , to im

ple m en t TI LA . It has also issued Officia l Staff In te rp re ta tio ns o f Re gul at ionZ , and the S upr em e Co urt ha s in str uc te d th at the se interpretations be disp ositiv e unless they are “ dem onstrablyirrational. ” Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S . 555, 565 (1980). N either party dispu tes the applicabilityor rationality of Regulation Z and its Of ficial Sta ff In te rp re ta tio ns. It is undis puted th at “ a re financing is a new transaction requiring new disclos ures to the consum er, ” Regulation Z, 12 C.F .R. § 226.20(a), but that a m ere extension of an earlier dea l, e ven if the term s change, does not trigger new dis cl osur e re qui re m en ts. 12 C. F. R. P t. 226 , S upp. I a t § 226. 20 ( “ Re dis cl osur e is no lon ger re quired for defer rals or extensions.”) . G unn la be ls the Jul y

200 6 tr an sa ct iona“ re fi nanc ing ” of he r N ove m

be r 2005 paw n. T itl eM ax la be ls the tr an sa ct ionam er e ex te nsi on o f the or igi na l paw n a gr ee m en t. Gunn’ s argum ent fails because it re lies on two cases that w ere decided unde r ane ar lie r, m

uc h f ri en dli er se t of r eg ulatio ns than th ose that e xis te d in200 6 and on a contorted in terpretation of the A labam a Pawnshop Act, Ala . C ode § 5– 19 A–1 et s eq .6

Gunn relies prim arily

on Dennis v. H andley , 453 F. Supp. 833 (N. D. Ala . 1978 ), and on Chapes, L td. v. Anderson (In r e Sc aife) , 825 F. 2d 35 7 (11th Cir. 1987 ). B othc as es inv olv ed diam ond ri ngs that w er e paw ne d. I n bo th c as es , further transactions repeatedly extended the pawns. Both courts, apply ing a pre1982 ve rs ionof

Re gul at ionZ , f

ound that e xte nsi ons of

e xis tin g paw n a gr ee m en ts we re r efinancings and thu s did require TI LAdisclosu res. D ennis, 453 F. S upp. at 835; I n r e Sc ai fe , 825 F . 2d at 36 1. H ow ev er , m or e than tw en ty y ears be fo re the transactions between G unn andTitleMa x occurred in 2005 and2006 , the F ederal Re se rv e Bo ar d c re at ed

ane wve rs ionof

Re gul at ionZ , w hic h be cam e m an da tor y in O ct obe r 1982 . C om

pare 12 C . F. R. § 22 6. 8(

j ) (1 981) w ith12 C . F. R. § 22 6. 20 (2006). T he O ff ic ia l S ta ff I nte rp re ta tio n of

the c ur re nt R eg ulatio n Z state s: “ 1981 ch an ge s: W

hil e the pr ev iou s r eg ulatio n tr eate d vi rt ua lly any c hange in te rm s a s a re fi nanc ing r equir ing ne wdis cl osur es , thi s r eg ulatio n li m its r ef inanc ing s to tr an sa ct ion s inw hic h th e en tir e or igi na l ob lig at ionis ex tin gui she d and r ep la ce d by a ne wone . R ed isc los ur e is n o lo nge r re qui re d f or de fe rr al s or

e xte nsi ons. ” 12 C.F .R. Pt. 226, Supp. I at § 226 .20. Thus, the law has changed in a pivo tal way sin ce D en nis and S ca if

e, and the a m en de d R eg ulatio n Z sig nif ic an tly narr ow s th e fie ldof t ran sa ct io ns th atqu al ify as “ refi na nc in g.”7

T he c ur re nt r eg ulatio ns d ef

ine “ re fi nanc ing ” as “ w he n an e xis tin g ob li ga ti on . . . is s at is fie d a nd rep la cedby a new o bl ig at io n.” 12 C.F.R. § 226. 20( a) . T he O ff

ic ia l S ta ff I nte rp re ta tio ns o f the r eg ulatio n no te that: [W ] hether a r efinancing has occurred is determ ined by ref erence to whether t h e o r i g i n a l o b l i g a t i o n h a s b e e n s a t i s f i e do r e x t i n g u i s h e dan dr e p l a c e db y a ne wobl igatio n. . . . Ch an ge s inthe te rm s of an e xis tin g ob lig at ion , suc h a s th e de fe rr al of

ind ivi dua l i nst al lm en ts, w ill not c onst itu te ar ef

inanc ing unl es s accom plish ed by

the cancellation of that obligatio n and the sub stitut ion of a ne w ob li ga ti on . 12 C.F. R. Pt. 226, Supp. I at § 226 .20. Gunn contends th at her original pawn w as

“ canc el le d” or

“ ex tin gui she d” w ith in the m eanin g of 12 C . F. R. § 22 6. 20 and i ts O ff ic ia l S ta ff I nte rp re ta tio n by

the A la ba m a Paw nsho p A ct . G unn ar gue s th at the A la ba m a Paw nsho p A ct

c an ce lle d he r or igi na l N ove m be r 2005 paw n be ca

use , in he r vie w , the law“ doe s no t m ak e an y pr ovi sio n w ha tso ev er

f or the r en ew al or ex te nsi on o f the m at

ur ity da te of the paw n tr an sa ct ion . ” H ow ev er , G unn’ s f oc us i s m isp la ce d. T he pr ovi sio ns tha t sh e ci te s li m it the a m ount of pe rm iss ibl e pawnshop charges to 25 p erce nt of the principal per m onth and grant the pledger thirty day s’ grace period bey ond th e original m aturity date in which to redee m

her paw n. S ee A la . Co de §§ 5 –19A –6; 5–1 9A

–10( b) ; 5–

19A –7( a) . N one of

the se se ct ion s of

the A la ba m a Paw nsho p A ct

pr ohi bit ple dge rs and p awnbr oke rs f ro m agreeing to extension s of the original m aturity date. In fa ct, both the original8

Paw n T ic ke t gi ve n to G unn in O ct obe r 2005 and the Cu sto m er Re ce ipt she rece iv edin Ju ly 200 6 c le arl y pro vi de forex te ns io ns of t he ori gi na l l oa n. T he $57 9. 95 tha t G unn ow ed T itl eM ax w as ne ith er

“ sa tis fi ed

and r ep la ce d” nor c an ce lle d. Gunn’ s C ust om er Re ce ipt , r ec ei ve d inJul y 200 6, giv es no indication that TitleMa x ever loaned Gunn any m oney bey ond th e $500.00 it had giv enhe r in O ct obe r 2005 , and Gunn doe s no t c la im oth er w ise . N ei the r party al le ge s th at

G unn ev er

e nti re ly pa id the $57 9. 95 tha t sh e ow ed T itl eM ax in N ove m be r 2005 , e ith er

on h er ow n or w ithr ef inanc ing a ssi stanc e fr om

T itl eM ax . Furthe r, the r ec ei pt i s di vid ed int o tw o c at eg or ie s, “ T oday ’ s P ay m en t De tails” and “Ne xt Paym ent Inform ation.” I t designates $3 99.82 as the “ Principal Due” in August and refers to the possib ility of extending o r re newing the original Paw n Ticket. T he only

logical reading of the July 2006 Custom er R eceipt is that the “ Pr inc ipa l D ue ” of

$39 9. 82 r ef

le ct s th e re m ai nin g pr inc ipa l du e fr om the or igi na l l oan. T he Cu sto m er Re ce ipt is not an in ad equa te ne wpaw n ti ck et , but ins te ad ar ec ei pt s how ing that G unn m ad e a m onthly int er es t paym en t of

$63 . 93 an d th at she ow ed

anothe r int er es t paym en t the ne xt m onth. A ll of thi s r el at es to the or igi na l l oan.9

T he re w as no s at isf

ac tio n and r ep la ce m en t no r canc el la tio n, and thus no

“ re fi nanc ing ” unde r T IL A . N o f urthe r dis cl osur es w er e re qui re d. S ee Re gul at ion Z, 12 C.F .R. § 220(a). Ac cordingly , the f acts that Gunn has pleaded do no t state a cl ai m und er T IL A , and the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y gr an te d T itl eM ax ’ s R

ule 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s. IV. Gunn contends that because the A labam a Pawnshop Act allegedly cancelled the October 2005 pawn of her car , T itleMax’ s lien on her vehicle was e xting uished an dth ei r Ju ly 200 6 t ran sa ct io n was un se cu red . H ow ev er , the A la

ba m a Paw nsho p A ct

doe s no t pr ohi bit

e xte nsi ons or re ne w al s of

an in iti al m at

ur ity da te , and the P awn T ic ke t and C ust om er Re ce ipt both allow f

or such extensio ns. Be cause w e have concluded that the init ial $500 . 00 p awn w as m er el y e xte nde d, not

sa tis fi ed and r ep la ce d no r canc el le d, TitleMa x’ s initial lien o n Gunn’ s vehicle rem ains valid. Ala . C ode § 5–1 9A–10(a) (“ A pawnbroker shall have a lien on the pledg ed good s for the m oney advanced an d t he pa wns ho p c ha rg e o wed .”). AFFIRMED.