Opinion ID: 4237530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: uniform deceptive trade practices act claim

Text: Nebraska’s UDTPA, Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 87–301 to 87–306, is intended to provide “protection from deception for both consumers and competitors.” Richdale Dev. Co. v. McNeil Co., 508 N.W.2d 853, 860 (Neb. 1993). Mirandette’s complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in deceptive acts and practices that harm its customers and increase interest payments and late fees through intentionally slow or ineffective payment processing. As clarified in Mirandette’s response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, he relies on UDTPA subsection (a)(16)(i), which makes it a deceptive trade practice for any person in the course of his business to use any scheme or device to defraud by means of “obtaining money or property by knowingly false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 87-302(a)(16)(i).3 On appeal, Defendants argue that the UDTPA “does not offer the type of relief sought by Mirandette’s complaint.” Appellee Br. 51. However, Mirandette conceded below that only equitable relief is available under the UDTPA, see Reinbrecht v. Walgreen Co., 742 N.W.2d 243, 247 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007) (“By its own terms, § 87–303(a) provides only for equitable relief consistent with general principles of equity . . . . § 87–303, does not provide a private right of action for damages” (citation omitted)4, and pointed out, correctly, that his complaint sought such relief. PID 299. 3 Section (a)(16)(i) provides: (a) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his or her business, vocation, or occupation, he or she: (16) Uses any scheme or device to defraud by means of: (i) Obtaining money or property by knowingly false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. 4 We observe that § 87-303(d) provides, “The relief provided in this section is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other statutes of this state.” 5 No. 16-2224, Mirandette v. Nelnet, Inc., et al. The district court concluded that regardless of the relief sought, Mirandette’s UDTPA claim fails because it is barred by the four-year limitations period, which runs from the time of “the purchase of goods or services.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-303.10 (emphasis added). Mirandette cites no Nebraska state-court cases, and we have found none, applying the UDTPA to loan payments or suggesting that loan servicing constitutes a good or service; thus it is not clear that the UDTPA applies to loan servicing at all and, if it does, whether its statute of limitations would run from the signing of the loan agreement, as Defendants assert, or from each monthly payment made on the loan, as Mirandette asserts. But the conduct proscribed by the UDTPA suggests it is not applicable to Mirandette’s claim. The Act proscribes an enumerated list of conduct that generally covers misrepresentations in sales; none of the enumerated practices describe the late crediting of loan payments. More important, Mirandette has identified no false or fraudulent promise or representation by Defendants regarding the crediting of payments, or the dates the payments were received. Because the alleged violation of the UDTPA does not fall under any enumerated practice, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this claim.