Opinion ID: 2520234
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violations of the KCPA

Text: Finally, Bomhoff argues that Nelnet's application of the $1,000 payment first to interest, as well as its extension of due dates, were deceptive and unconscionable practices. She contends that the issue of deceptive acts is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury and implies that it is not a proper claim for summary judgment. The district court held: Plaintiff similarly claims Defendant violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (K.S.A. 50-626 and 50-627) by improperly reducing the outstanding principal instead of extending the payment due date on the loan. The Court finds by the uncontroverted facts herein, that Defendant acted in accordance with Federal law which mandated it apply the prepayments to future installments. 34 C.F.R. 682.209[b](2)(ii). Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant's conduct does not rise to the standard of deceptive conduct as proscribed by the intent of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, as a matter of law, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted dismissing plaintiff's claims under the Consumer Protection Act. We agree with the district court. We acknowledge that K.S.A. 50-626(a) provides: No supplier shall engage in any deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. The statute then goes on to provide a nonexhaustive list of deceptive acts and practices. Similarly, K.S.A. 50-627(a) provides: No supplier shall engage in any unconscionable act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. An unconscionable act or practice violates this act whether it occurs before, during or after the transaction. The statute then goes on to provide a nonexhaustive list of unconscionable acts and practices. However, summary judgment is appropriate if there is no evidence of deceptive or unconscionable acts. Gonzales v. Associates Financial Serv. Co. of Kansas, 266 Kan. 141, 166, 967 P.2d 312 (1998); see Stair v. Gaylord, 232 Kan. 765, 775-76, 659 P.2d 178 (1983) (directed verdict for defendant on K.S.A. 50-626[b][3] and K.S.A. 50-627[b]; KCPA claims affirmed because no evidence of deceptive or unconscionable acts presented, reversed on other KCPA claims). In the instant case, Bomhoff presents no evidence that Nelnet engaged in a deceptive or unconscionable act or practice. Under 34 C.F.R. § 682.209(b), Nelnet was not only entitled to apply the $1,000 payment first to outstanding interest but was also required to extend the payment due dates on the loan. The provisions, (b)(1) and (b)(2)(ii), are not mutually exclusive. Affirmed. GERNON, J., not participating. LARSON, S.J., assigned.