Opinion ID: 2001887
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: baychar's consumer code claim

Text: The RTC also argues that American could not have violated the Consumer Code because the line of credit it provided Baychar was a commercial loan as opposed to a consumer credit transaction. The Consumer Code does not govern commercial loans; rather, it governs the transactions made by a person who regularly extends credit that is payable in installments, or is subject to a finance charge, to consumers for personal, family or household purposes, when such extensions are secured by personal property, real property or both and such property is used or expected to be used as the consumer's principal dwelling.... 9-A M.R.S.A. § 8-201(1). The RTC argues that American was unaware that Baychar intended to use the Eastport property as her home. Although Baychar's loan application was labeled commercial and she planned to construct a studio at the Eastport property in which she could work, there was competent evidence in the record to support the finding that American was aware of Baychar's intent to use the property as her home. During the loan application process, Baychar had specifically advised Young of her intent to reside at those premises, and Young saw a floor plan and pictures of the property configured as a residence.