{ "id": 4160500, "name": "NANCY E. ODELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LEGAL BUCKS, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, JAMES KEITH TART and LYNN DAVIES TART, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Odell v. Legal Bucks, LLC", "decision_date": "2008-09-02", "docket_number": "No. COA07-1094", "first_page": "298", "last_page": "320", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "192 N.C. App. 298" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "624 S.E.2d 371", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634834 ], "weight": 10, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374", "parenthetical": "defining a \"loan\" as \" 'an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum lent, with or without interest' \" (emphasis added) (quoting Kessing, 278 N.C. at 529, 180 S.E.2d at 827 (citation omitted))" }, { "page": "374" }, { "page": "377" }, { "page": "374" }, { "page": "375" }, { "page": "375-76" }, { "page": "378" }, { "page": "378" }, { "page": "378" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/624/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 707", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631151 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/592/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 N.C. App. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8915901, 12631151 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "170-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/163/0166-01", "/se2d/592/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "623 S.E.2d 263", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634571, 12634572, 12634573 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/623/0263-01", "/se2d/623/0263-02", "/se2d/623/0263-03" ] }, { "cite": "614 S.E.2d 328", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633132 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/614/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "657 S.E.2d 361", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640450 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/657/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "454 S.E.2d 225", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "228" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 717", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2557296 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0717-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 S.E.2d 896", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694693, 4700070, 4693586, 4700021, 4698716 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0378-02", "/nc/316/0378-03", "/nc/316/0378-01", "/nc/316/0378-04", "/nc/316/0378-05" ] }, { "cite": "338 S.E.2d 918", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "923" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8519376 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-2.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "640-41" }, { "page": "(g)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "548 S.E.2d 704", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135724 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "656" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-1.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 53-166", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 S.E.2d 770", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "774", "parenthetical": "noting that \"[i]n the absence of contrary indication, it is presumed that no word of any statute is a mere redundant expression. Each word is to be construed upon the supposition that the Legislature intended thereby to add something to the meaning of the statute.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559260 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "500" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 L.E. 1197", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1919, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that the second element of a usury claim requires \"an understanding that the principal shall be or may be returned\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 U.S. 665", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "year": 1919, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that the second element of a usury claim requires \"an understanding that the principal shall be or may be returned\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 S.E. 199", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1919, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "202", "parenthetical": "stating that the second element of a usury claim requires \"an understanding that the principal shall be or may be returned\" (emphasis added)" }, { "page": "202-03", "parenthetical": "stating that \"[t]he fourth element [of a usury claim] may be implied if all the others are expressed upon the face of the contract\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N.C. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654548 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1919, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "386", "parenthetical": "stating that the second element of a usury claim requires \"an understanding that the principal shall be or may be returned\" (emphasis added)" }, { "page": "386" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S.E. 184", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 3, "year": 1913, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "188" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N.C. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656297 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1913, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/164/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Paige Ch. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Paige Ch.", "case_ids": [ 2179824 ], "year": 1830, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/paige-ch/2/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 997", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1000-01" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652818 ], "year": 1911, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 N.C. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12152888 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1800, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/1/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 S.E.2d 401", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 N.C. App. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548969 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/35/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N.C. App. 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8352915 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "634", "parenthetical": "defining a \"loan\" as \" 'an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum lent, with or without interest' \" (emphasis added) (quoting Kessing, 278 N.C. at 529, 180 S.E.2d at 827 (citation omitted))" }, { "page": "639" }, { "page": "634" }, { "page": "635-36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/174/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E.2d 823", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "827", "parenthetical": "defining a \"loan\" as \" 'a contract by which one delivers a sum of money to another and the latter agrees to return at a future time a sum equivalent to that which he borrows' \" (emphasis added) (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "827", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "827" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561041 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529", "parenthetical": "defining a \"loan\" as \" 'a contract by which one delivers a sum of money to another and the latter agrees to return at a future time a sum equivalent to that which he borrows' \" (emphasis added) (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "529" }, { "page": "529" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 S.E.2d 101", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "defining a \"loan\" as \"a delivery or transfer of a sum of money to another under a contract to return at some future time an equivalent amount with or without an additional sum being agreed upon for its use\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565661 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "defining a \"loan\" as \"a delivery or transfer of a sum of money to another under a contract to return at some future time an equivalent amount with or without an additional sum being agreed upon for its use\" (emphasis added)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367", "parenthetical": "defining a \"loan\" as \"a delivery or transfer of a sum of money to another under a contract to return at some future time an equivalent amount with or without an additional sum being agreed upon for its use\" (emphasis added)" }, { "page": "363-64" }, { "page": "364" }, { "page": "364-65" }, { "page": "367" }, { "page": "368" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 30", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571351 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "39" }, { "page": "33-34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-1.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "409 S.E.2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "895" }, { "page": "895" }, { "page": "895" }, { "page": "895" }, { "page": "895" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2512142 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "159" }, { "page": "159" }, { "page": "159" }, { "page": "159" }, { "page": "159" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0153-01" ] }, { "cite": "682 N.W.2d 671", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 9240593 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/682/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "789 N.E.2d 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "411 S.E.2d 825", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "827", "parenthetical": "noting that \"it is well settled that North Carolina public policy encourages prompt settlement of disputed claims\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 N.C. App. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521233 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73", "parenthetical": "noting that \"it is well settled that North Carolina public policy encourages prompt settlement of disputed claims\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/105/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "458 S.E.2d 186", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790200, 790212, 790077 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0364-01", "/nc/340/0364-03", "/nc/340/0364-02" ] }, { "cite": "455 S.E.2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "657" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790117 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S.E. 172", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 5, "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "175", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "175", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "174", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "174", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269784 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "76", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "78-79" }, { "page": "76" }, { "page": "76" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "308 S.E.2d 719", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N.C. 71, 76, 63 S.E. 172, 174 (1908) (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4766361, 4767131, 4763555, 4767775 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "quoting Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N.C. 71, 76, 63 S.E. 172, 174 (1908) (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0634-02", "/nc/309/0634-01", "/nc/309/0634-03", "/nc/309/0634-04" ] }, { "cite": "305 S.E.2d 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192", "parenthetical": "quoting Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N.C. 71, 76, 63 S.E. 172, 174 (1908) (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 N.C. App. 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525421 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "469", "parenthetical": "quoting Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N.C. 71, 76, 63 S.E. 172, 174 (1908) (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/63/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "513 S.E.2d 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 807", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11240754 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "809" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0807-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 16-1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3789190, 3790698, 3793132, 3793873, 3791767, 3790329, 3790458 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0078-06", "/nc/360/0078-04", "/nc/360/0078-07", "/nc/360/0078-02", "/nc/360/0078-03", "/nc/360/0078-05", "/nc/360/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 N.C. App. 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8434676 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/171/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4149183 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0191-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1559, "char_count": 54226, "ocr_confidence": 0.732, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.963969884138579e-08, "percentile": 0.5376481408761669 }, "sha256": "d3e7e4a798d82da57792a40c4d53fdc61306f5f79fab321a94db785ad59bab14", "simhash": "1:9b2ae522046bb6f8", "word_count": 8708 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:54:33.452279+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and CALABRIA concur." ], "parties": [ "NANCY E. ODELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LEGAL BUCKS, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, JAMES KEITH TART and LYNN DAVIES TART, Defendants-Appellees" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nThe record in this case shows that Nancy E. Odell (Plaintiff) was involved in a motor-vehicle collision in June 2001. Plaintiff retained counsel and pursued a personal injury claim against the driver of the second motor vehicle. Although Plaintiff expected to recover at least thirty thousand dollars from her personal injury claim, Plaintiff was having financial difficulties and approached Legal Bucks, LLC (Defendant Legal Bucks) to obtain an advance.\nDefendant Legal Bucks is a Limited Liability Company. James Keith Tart (Defendant James Tart) and Lynn Davies Tart (Defendant Lynn Tart) are member-managers of Defendant Legal Bucks (collectively, Defendants). Defendant Legal Bucks is in the business of \u201clitigation funding.\u201d Specifically, Defendant Legal Bucks advances money to borrowers who are expecting to recover in pending tort claims, but who need money for personal expenses before their claims go to trial or settle. When a potential borrower approaches Defendant Legal Bucks to obtain an advance, Defendants James Tart and Lynn Tart investigate the borrower\u2019s legal claim to determine the merit of the borrower\u2019s claim, how much the borrower is likely to recover, and, if an advance is made, the appropriate amount of the advance. The borrower then repays Defendant Legal Bucks, with interest, out of the proceeds of his or her recovery.\nAfter investigating Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim, Defendant James Tart agreed to advance Plaintiff three thousand dollars. The parties executed a \u201cTransfer and Conveyance of Proceeds and Security Agreement\u201d (the Agreement) on 28 March 2003. The Agreement provided, in pertinent part:\n[F]or and in consideration of the sum of Three Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($3,000.00) (the \u201cAdvance\u201d) . . . Legal Bucks and Plaintiff do hereby agree as follows:\n2. Plaintiff unconditionally and irrevocably transfers and conveys to Legal Bucks all of Plaintiffs control, right, title and interest in the first monies paid to Plaintiff from the Proceeds [of Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim] as follows:\n(A) If Legal Bucks is paid prior to July 1, 2003: $4,200 (the amount of the Advance ($750) plus 40% of the Advance ($300)); and\n(B) If Legal Bucks is paid on or after July 1, 2003: The amount from Subparagraph A ($4,200) plus $234 (7.8% of the Advance) for each month thereafter and until Legal Bucks is paid (the \u201cmonthly assignment\u201d). The monthly assignment will occur the first day of each month, beginning July 1, 2003. Under no circumstances, however, shall the amount owed under this Subparagraph exceed three hundred twenty-five percent (325%) of the Advance ($9,750).\n3. Plaintiff hereby grants to Legal Bucks a security interest in the Proceeds of the Litigation ... in order to secure the conveyance, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement[.]\n4. This Agreement is expressly intended to transfer, convey and relinquish control over only a specified portion of the Proceeds which may flow from and are received as a result of the Litigation, to wit: the Security Interest. This Agreement is not an assignment, nor a purchase of any right, chose in action, cause of action, or claim which Plaintiff may have or possess as against any responsible party, respondent or defendant referred to herein. No control, input, influence, right or involvement of any kind as concerns any claim, right, or interest of Plaintiff in the Litigation is contemplated by any party to this Agreement.\n5. Except as expressly provided for herein, this Agreement is contingent, speculative and without recourse on the part of Legal Bucks.\n6. If there is no recovery of Proceeds by Plaintiff, then Legal Bucks shall receive NOTHING. If the Proceeds do not allow for payment of the Security Interest in full, Plaintiff shall. . . satisfy the Security Interest to the maximum extent possible from the Proceeds and owe nothing further ....\n13. In the event that Plaintiff terminates or otherwise breaches the covenants, conditions or terms of this Agreement, Plaintiff shall pay liquidated damages to Legal Bucks in the amount of three times (3x) the Security Interest^]\nPlaintiffs personal injury claim settled for $18,000.00 in May 2005. Pursuant to subparagraph (2)(B) of the Agreement, Plaintiff owed Defendant Legal Bucks $9,582.00 at the time her claim settled. Plaintiffs debt reached the contractual cap of $9,750.00 on 1 June 2005.\nRather than repay Defendant Legal Bucks out of the proceeds of her settlement, Plaintiff filed a complaint on 15 June 2005 against Defendants alleging, inter alia, that the Agreement: was usurious; constituted champerty and maintenance; constituted unlawful gaming; violated the Consumer Finance Act; and was an unfair and deceptive trade practice. Plaintiffs complaint also included class allegations. The Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an order on 17 August 2005 designating Plaintiff\u2019s case as exceptional and assigning Judge Peter M. McHugh to preside over the case.\nDefendants filed an amended answer on 31 August 2005 denying the allegations in Plaintiff\u2019s complaint. Defendants also filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and sought $29,250.00 in liquidated damages pursuant to paragraph thirteen of the Agreement.\nPlaintiff filed a motion on 27 October 2005 for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(c). Defendants also moved to dismiss Plaintiff\u2019s action pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6). The trial court held a hearing on the parties\u2019 motions on 22 November 2005. The trial court issued an order on 25 May 2006 granting Defendant\u2019s motion with respect to Plaintiff\u2019s unlawful gaming claim and two other claims not pertinent to this appeal. The trial court denied Defendants\u2019 motion as to Plaintiff\u2019s remaining claims, and denied Plaintiff\u2019s motion in its entirety.\nPlaintiff and Defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment on 16 and 17 May 2006 as to Plaintiffs remaining claims for usury, violation of the Consumer Finance Act, champerty and maintenance, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiff also filed a motion for class certification. The trial court issued an order and judgment on 28 December 2006 denying Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in its entirety and granting Defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The trial court also stated that \u201c[bjecause this ruling resolves all claims raised by [Plaintiff] in favor of [Defendants] and against [Plaintiff], the Court has not addressed [Plaintiff\u2019s] Motion for Class Certification.\u201d\nDefendants filed a motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim for breach of contract and liquidated damages on 6 March 2007. Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Defendants\u2019 counterclaim on 9 March 2007. The trial court issued a final order and judgment on 30 April 2007 granting Defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim and denying Plaintiff\u2019s motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court awarded Defendants $29,250.00 plus post-judgment interest. Plaintiff appeals.\nI.\nBefore we reach the merits of Plaintiff\u2019s appeal, we address Defendants\u2019 motion for sanctions for Plaintiff\u2019s failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Defendants argue that Plaintiff\u2019s brief violates a number of the stylistic requirements set out in N.C.R. App. P. 26(g)(1), N.C.R. App. P. 28(b), and in the appendices to the appellate rules. Defendants contend that these violations warrant severe sanctions, including dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s appeal.\nWe have reviewed Plaintiff\u2019s brief and find that it does not contain errors that constitute substantial or gross noncompliance with the appellate rules. See Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co., LLC v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 201, 657 S.E.2d 361, 367 (2008). We therefore do not impose any of the sanctions set out in N.C.R. App. P. 34(b). Id. We now turn to the merits of Plaintiff\u2019s appeal.\nII.\nPlaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by denying Plaintiffs Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, and by granting Defendants\u2019 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, with regard to Plaintiff\u2019s claim that the Agreement is void as an illegal gaming contract. \u201cThis court reviews de novo rulings on motions made pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) and (c).\u201d Toomer v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 171 N.C. App. 58, 66, 614 S.E.2d 328, 335, disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 78, 623 S.E.2d 263 (2005).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 16-1, in defining illegal gaming contracts, provides:\nAll wagers, bets or stakes made to depend upon any race, or upon any gaming by lot or chance, or upon any lot, chance, casualty or unknown or contingent event whatever, shall be unlawful; and all contracts, judgments, conveyances and assurances for and on account of any money or property, or thing in action, so wagered, bet or staked, or to repay, or to secure any money, or property, or thing in action, lent or advanced for the purpose of such wagering, betting, or staking as aforesaid, shall be void.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 16-1 (2007). Plaintiff argues that the Agreement is void under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 16-1 because Defendants\u2019 return on its advance depended on a contingent event; namely, the amount of Plaintiff\u2019s recovery on her personal injury claim. Defendants respond that although their return depended on a contingent event, the Agreement does not come within the prohibition in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 16-1 because it is not a wager or bet.\nOur Courts have not previously defined what constitutes a \u201cwager\u201d or \u201cbet\u201d for the purposes of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 16-1. Other sources have defined these terms as follows:\nThe term \u201cbet\u201d is defined as ... an agreement to pay something of value upon the happening or nonhappening of a specified contingent event. Someone must take the other side of an uncertain event to give meaning to a \u201cbet.\u201d\n\u201cWagers,\u201d on the other hand, have been defined as contracts in which the parties in effect stipulate that they will gain or lose upon the happening of an uncertain event, in which they have no interest except that arising from the possibility of such gain or loss.\n38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling \u00a7 3 (1999) (footnotes omitted). We hold that the Agreement does not fall within either of these definitions.\nA \u201cbet,\u201d as defined above, requires that the parties to the bet take opposite sides of an uncertain event. It follows that for an agreement to constitute a \u201cbet,\u201d there must be both a winning party and a losing party. In the Agreement at issue in the current case, however, both Plaintiff and Defendants desired the same outcome of the uncertain event: that Plaintiff recover a large sum of money in her personal injury claim. All parties to the Agreement stood to gain if Plaintiff recovered an amount equal to or greater than the sum of the principal of the advance plus the accrued interest. Likewise, all parties to the Agreement stood to lose if Plaintiff recovered less than the amount she owed to Defendants. Such an agreement does not constitute a \u201cbet\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 16-1, notwithstanding that the parties\u2019 respective positions under the Agreement were dependent upon a contingent event.\nA \u201cwager,\u201d as defined above, requires that neither party to the wager have any interest in the contingent event at issue. It is true that Defendants had no independent interest in the outcome of Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim. However, it is equally clear that Plaintiff did have an independent interest in the outcome of her personal injury claim. The outcome of Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim would not only define Plaintiff\u2019s legal rights and obligations under the Agreement with Defendants, but would also define her legal rights with respect to the other parties to the automobile accident giving rise to her claim. Therefore, the Agreement does not constitute a \u201cwager\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 16-1, notwithstanding that the parties\u2019 respective positions under the Agreement were dependent upon a contingent event.\nWe hold that the trial court did not err by denying Plaintiff\u2019s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, or by granting Defendants\u2019 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, with regard to Plaintiff\u2019s claim that the Agreement is void as an illegal gaming contract under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 16-1. Plaintiff\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nIII.\nPlaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in its 28 December 2006 order by granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff\u2019s claim that the Agreement constitutes champerty and maintenance. A trial court should grant a motion for summary judgment only \u201cif the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2007). We review a trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment de novo. Falk Integrated Tech., Inc. v. Stack, 132 N.C. App. 807, 809, 513 S.E.2d 572, 574 (1999).\nOur Court has defined champerty and maintenance as follows:\n\u201cMaintenance\u201d [is] \u201can officious intermeddling in a suit, which in no way belongs to one, by maintaining or assisting either party with money or otherwise to prosecute or defend it.\u201d \u201cChamperty\u201d is a form of maintenance whereby a stranger makes a \u201cbargain with a plaintiff or defendant to divide the land or other matter sued for between them if they prevail at law, whereupon the champertor is to carry on the party\u2019s suit at his own expense.\u201d . . . [A]n agreement will not be held to be within the condemnation of the principles \u201cunless the interference is clearly officious and for the purpose of stirring up \u2018strife and continuing litigation.\u2019 \u201d\nWright v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 63 N.C. App. 465, 469, 305 S.E.2d 190, 192, disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 634, 308 S.E.2d 719 (1983) (quoting Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N.C. 71, 76, 63 S.E. 172, 174 (1908) (citation omitted)). These doctrines are \u201cintended to prevent the interference of strangers having no pretense of right to the subject of the suit, and standing in no relation of duty to the suitor.\u201d Hartsell, 150 N.C. at 78-79, 63 S.E. at 175 (citation omitted). The doctrines are further \u201cintended to prevent traffic in doubtful claims, and to operate upon buyers of pretended rights, who [have] no relation to the suitor or the subject, otherwise than as purchasers of the profits of litigation.\u201d Id. at 79, 63 S.E. at 175 (citation omitted). Plaintiff argues that the Agreement was champertous in that Defendants have no relation to the subject matter of Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim or the parties thereto, other than the fact that Defendants have given Plaintiff an advance in exchange for an interest in the profits of Plaintiff\u2019s claim.\nDefendants first respond that the Agreement is not champertous because it merely gives Defendants an interest in the proceeds of Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim, rather than an interest in the claim itself. Our Supreme Court has stated:\nThere is a distinction between the assignment of a claim for personal injury and the assignment of the proceeds of such a claim. The assignment of a claim gives the assignee control of the claim and promotes champerty. Such a contract is against public policy and void. The assignment of the proceeds of a claim does not give the assignee control of the case and there is no reason it should not be valid.\nCharlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Auth. v. First of Ga. Ins. Co., 340 N.C. 88, 91, 455 S.E.2d 655, 657 (internal citation omitted), reh\u2019g denied, 340 N.C. 364, 458 S.E.2d 186 (1995). The Agreement in this case specifically states that Plaintiff \u201ctransferfed] and conveyfed] to [Defendant Legal Bucks] all of Plaintiffs control, right, title and interest in the first monies paid to Plaintiff from the Proceeds\u201d of Plaintiffs personal injury claim (emphasis added). The Agreement further provides that it \u201cis not an assignment, nor a purchase of any right, chose in action, cause of action, or claim which Plaintiff may have or possess as against any responsible party[.]\u201d Because the Agreement merely assigns the proceeds of Plaintiffs personal injury claim to Defendants, such assignment does not render the Agreement champertous under Charlotte-Mecklenburg.\nWhile the Assignment is not champertous under the rule stated in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, this does not end our inquiry. CharlotteMecklenburg held that an assignment of litigation proceeds is not per se champertous because such an assignment alone does not give the assignee any control over the underlying litigation. However, an assignment of proceeds may still be champertous if some other aspect of the contract gives the assignee such control.\nPlaintiff argues that agreements such as the one in this case give litigation lenders a champertous level of control over borrowers\u2019 lawsuits because they have a deleterious effect on borrowers\u2019 abilities to settle their underlying claims. According to Plaintiff, a rational borrower is likely to reject any settlement offer that is less than the amount of the advance and accrued interest she owes to the lender, even if the settlement offer is perfectly reasonable. This is because the borrower will be required to pay her entire recovery to the lender, and will in effect receive nothing from the settlement. Instead, Plaintiff argues, the borrower will bring her claim to trial, because she at least has a chance of securing a larger recovery if she wins at trial. If the borrower loses at trial or only secures a small recovery, she is no worse off than she would have been had she accepted the settlement offer.\nPlaintiff argues that such concerns are not merely hypothetical. Plaintiff points out that Defendant James Tart testified in his deposition that Defendant Legal Bucks has agreed to reduce the amount of its lien in a number of cases in order to facilitate a settlement, because the parties to the underlying claim were otherwise unable to reach a settlement due in part to Defendant Legal Bucks\u2019 lien on the proceeds of the claim.\nWe share Plaintiff\u2019s concerns regarding the potential negative effects of litigation funding on a borrower\u2019s ability or willingness to settle her underlying claim, especially given our State\u2019s strong public policy in favor of encouraging settlements. See, e.g., Menard v. Johnson, 105 N.C. App. 70, 73, 411 S.E.2d 825, 827 (1992) (noting that \u201cit is well settled that North Carolina public policy encourages prompt settlement of disputed claims\u201d). Nonetheless, we hold that the Agreement in this case is not champertous under controlling North Carolina law.\nAs noted above, our Courts have held for at least a century that an outsider\u2019s involvement in a lawsuit does not constitute champerty or maintenance merely because the outsider provides financial assistance to a litigant and shares in the recovery. Rather, \u201ca contract or agreement will not be held within the condemnation of the principi\u00e9is] ... unless the interference is clearly officious and for the purpose of stirring up \u2018strife and continuing litigation.\u2019 \u201d Hartsell, 150 N.C. at 76, 63 S.E. at 174 (citation omitted); see, e.g., Oliver v. Bynum, 163 N.C. App. 166, 170-71, 592 S.E.2d 707, 711 (2004) (finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court\u2019s decision to disqualify the plaintiff\u2019s counsel, where the evidence demonstrated that counsel engaged in champerty and maintenance by facilitating and helping to secure funding for the plaintiff\u2019s lawsuit against the defendant because counsel desired to ruin the defendant\u2019s career).\nIn this case, Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence that Defendants interfered in Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim \u201cfor the purpose of stirring up \u2018strife and continuing litigation.\u2019 \u201d Hartsell, 150 N.C. at 76, 63 S.E. at 174 (citation omitted). The Agreement between the parties specifically states that Defendants have \u201c[n]o control, input, influence, right or involvement of any kind\u201d regarding \u201cany claim, right, or interest of Plaintiff in the [l]itigation[.]\u201d Further, Plaintiff has never alleged that Defendants directly attempted to influence her decisions with respect to her personal injury claim. In fact, Plaintiff\u2019s deposition testimony demonstrates just the opposite:\n[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: . . . [W]hat did [Defendant James Tart] say when you told him that you were thinking about getting another lawyer?\n[PLAINTIFF]: If I\u2019m not mistaken, he just said [to] keep in touch with him. I might be wrong.\n[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Did you ever talk to [Defendant James Tart] about the settlement offers that [the defendant in the underlying lawsuit] made[?]\n[PLAINTIFF]: Not that I know of, not to my knowledge.\n[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Did anything that [Defendant James Tart] said to you influence your decisions with respect to those [settlement] offers that were made by [the defendant in the underlying lawsuit]?\n[PLAINTIFF]: Not that I \u2014 no.\nWhile the existence of Defendants\u2019 lien on the proceeds of Plaintiff\u2019s recovery may have influenced some of Plaintiff\u2019s decisions regarding her personal injury claim, Plaintiff simply has not demonstrated that Defendants attempted to control the resolution of her claim for the purpose of stirring up strife and continuing litigation.\nPlaintiff correctly notes that courts in other jurisdictions have held similar litigation financing agreements to be champertous and void. See Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp., 789 N.E.2d 217, 221 (Ohio 2003) (holding that \u201ca contract making the repayment of funds advanced to a party to a pending case contingent upon the outcome of that case is void as champerty and maintenance. Such an advance constitutes champerty and maintenance because it gives a nonparty an impermissible interest in a suit, impedes the settlement of the underlying case, and promotes speculation in lawsuits.\u201d); Johnson v. Wright, 682 N.W.2d 671, 678 (Minn. App. 2004) (holding a litigation funding contract champertous because the lending company \u201ceffectively intermeddled and speculated in [the] appellant\u2019s litigation and its outcome. We conclude that because recovery is tied to the outcome of the litigation, the . . . agreement is champertous.\u201d)\nThe cases cited by Plaintiff, however, do not purport to require as a prerequisite for champerty and maintenance that a litigation lender act with a purpose of stirring up strife and continuing litigation. North Carolina law thus appears to require a higher level of intermeddling for a lender\u2019s actions to be considered champertous. The evidence in this'case does not demonstrate that Defendants interfered in Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim to the extent required to support a claim of champerty and maintenance. We therefore hold that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff\u2019s claim that the Agreement constituted champerty and maintenance. Plaintiff\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nIV.\nPlaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in its 28 December 2006 order by granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff\u2019s claim for usury. Our Supreme Court has stated that for a plaintiff to succeed on a claim of usury, the plaintiff must demonstrate:\n[(1)] a loan or forbearance of the collection of money, [(2)] an understanding that the money owed will be paid, [(3)] payment or an agreement to pay interest at a rate greater than allowed by law, and [(4)] the lender\u2019s corrupt intent to receive more in interest than the legal rate permits for use of the money loaned.\nSwindell v. Federal National Mortgage Assn., 330 N.C. 153, 159, 409 S.E.2d 892, 895 (1991). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-1.1 (2007), entitled \u201cContract rates and fees,\u201d expands the types of transactions subject to usury restrictions and specifies the maximum interest rate allowed by law. This statute provides in part:\n(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter or other applicable law, the parties to a loan, purchase money loan, advance, commitment for a loan or forbearance other than a credit card, open-end, or similar loan may contract in writing for the payment of interest not in excess of:\n(1) Where the principal amount is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less, the rate set under subsection (c) of this section].]\n(c) On the fifteenth day of each month, the Commissioner of Banks shall announce and publish the maximum rate of interest permitted by subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section on that date. Such rate shall be . . . [no greater than] sixteen percent (16%)[.]\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-l.l(a)-(c) (2007). It is undisputed in this case that the rate of interest provided for in the Agreement substantially exceeds that permitted by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1.\nPlaintiff argues that the Agreement constitutes an \u201cadvance\u201d that comes within the scope of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1. According to Plaintiff, the inclusion of \u201cadvance\u201d transactions within N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1 means that the usury prohibition applies despite the fact that Plaintiff\u2019s obligation to repay the money owed under the Agreement was contingent upon Plaintiff\u2019s recovery in her personal injury claim. Defendants disagree. According to Defendants, it does not matter whether the Agreement is styled as a \u201cloan\u201d or an \u201cadvance,\u201d because the second element of a usury claim makes clear that to run afoul of usury prohibitions, the borrower must be under an absolute obligation to repay the money lent or advanced.\nWe first consider whether element one of Plaintiff\u2019s usury claim is met in this case. While Swindell asks only whether there has been a \u201cloan or forbearance,\u201d Swindell, 330 N.C. at 159, 409 S.E.2d at 895, it is clear that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1 expands the types of transactions subject to its usury prohibition to include advances and other types of transactions. We must therefore determine whether the type of transaction at issue falls within the scope of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1.\nOur Courts have consistently recognized that a \u201cloan\u201d is a type of transaction in which the borrower has an unconditional obligation to repay the principal. See, e.g., Auto Supply v. Vick, 303 N.C. 30, 39, 277 S.E.2d 360, 367, reaff'd on reh\u2019g, 304 N.C. 191, 283 S.E.2d 101 (1981) (defining a \u201cloan\u201d as \u201ca delivery or transfer of a sum of money to another under a contract to return at some future time an equivalent amount with or without an additional sum being agreed upon for its use\u201d (emphasis added)); Kessing v. Mortgage Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 529, 180 S.E.2d 823, 827 (1971) (defining a \u201cloan\u201d as \u201c \u2018a contract by which one delivers a sum of money to another and the latter agrees to return at a future time a sum equivalent to that which he borrows\u2019 \u201d (emphasis added) (citation omitted)); State ex rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc., 174 N.C. App. 630, 634, 624 S.E.2d 371, 374 (2005) (defining a \u201cloan\u201d as \u201c \u2018an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum lent, with or without interest\u2019 \u201d (emphasis added) (quoting Kessing, 278 N.C. at 529, 180 S.E.2d at 827 (citation omitted))).\nThese cases , make clear that one primary characteristic of a \u201cloan\u201d is repayment of the principal, or its equivalent. Therefore, a transaction in which the borrower\u2019s repayment of the principal is subject to a contingency is not considered a \u201cloan,\u201d because the terms of the transaction do not necessarily require that the borrower \u201crepay the sum lent,\u201d id. at 634, 624 S.E.2d at 374, or return \u201ca sum equivalent to that which he borrow[ed].\u201d Kessing, 278 N.C. at 529, 180 S.E.2d at 827.\nWhile definitions of \u201cadvance\u201d are not as common, those that are available demonstrate that an \u201cadvance,\u201d while similar to a loan, does not require unconditional repayment of the principal. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, for example has defined \u201cadvance\u201d as \u201cmoney advanced to be repaid conditionally^]\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 52 (6th ed. 1990). Our Court has also defined \u201cadvance\u201d as \u201c \u2018[to] furnish[] money or goods for others in expectation of reimbursement.\u2019 \u201d Louchheim, Eng & People v. Carson, 35 N.C. App. 299, 304, 241 S.E.2d 401, 404 (1978) (citation omitted). While parties to an advance transaction may have an \u201cexpectation of reimbursement,\u201d this expectation does not necessarily suggest an absolute right to repayment. In the current case, for example, before Defendants decided to advance money to Plaintiff, they investigated the merits of Plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim and determined that Plaintiff\u2019s claim was likely meritorious and would likely yield a recovery sufficient to allow Plaintiff to repay the amount advanced. Therefore, while Plaintiff\u2019s obligation to repay the principal was conditional on her recovery, Defendants certainly made the advance \u201cin expectation of reimbursement.\u201d\nIn the current case, Defendants delivered three thousand dollars to Plaintiff. While the parties expected that Plaintiff would repay the entire principal and accrued interest, Plaintiff\u2019s repayment obligations were ultimately subject to a contingency; namely, whether Plaintiff\u2019s recovery on her personal injury claim was sufficient to satisfy all or part of her debt to Defendants. On these facts, we find that Defendants\u2019 contract with Plaintiff was an \u201cadvance\u201d within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1. We therefore hold.that the first element of Plaintiff\u2019s usury claim is met in this case.\nThe second element of a usury claim requires that the parties to the qualifying transaction had \u201can understanding that the money owed [would] be paid.\u201d Swindell, 330 N.C. at 159, 409 S.E.2d at 895. Plaintiff argues that the parties had such an understanding, even if Plaintiff\u2019s obligation to repay the principal was conditional.\nDefendants contend that this element demonstrates that a transaction can only be considered usurious if the borrower has an unconditional obligation of repayment. Defendants correctly note that a number of early cases from our Courts suggest that an action for usury only lies when the borrower\u2019s obligation to repay the principal is not subject to any contingency. In Carter v. Brand, 1 N.C. 255 (1800), for example, our Supreme Court held that the contract at issue was usurious because \u201c[n]o part of the principal is put in hazard, but the whole is actually secured by [a lien]; nor is the agreement to pay the [interest] subject to any contingency, but is found to have been positive and absolute.\u201d Id., at 257. So, too, in Riley v. Sears, 154 N.C. 509, 70 S.E. 997 (1911), our Supreme Court cited with approval the following explanation from the New York Court of Chancery:\n\u201cWhenever, by the agreement of the parties, a premium or profit beyond the legal rate of interest for a loan or advance of money is, either directly or indirectly, secured to the lender, it is a violation of the [usury] statute, unless the loan or advance is attended with some contingent circumstances by which the principal is put in evident hazard. A contingency merely nominal, with little or no hazard to the principal of the money loaned or advanced, can not alter the legal effect of the transaction.\u201d\nId. at 518, 70 S.E. at 1000-01 (quoting Colton v. Dunham, 2 Paige Ch. 267 (N.Y. Ch. 1830)).\nWe note, however, that other decisions from our Supreme Court during the same time period suggested that the second element of a usury claim did not require an absolute obligation of repayment. In MacRackan v. Bank, 164 N.C. 24, 80 S.E. 184 (1913), for example, our Supreme Court stated the elements of a usury claim as:\n1. A loan or forbearance of money, either express or implied.\n2. An understanding between the parties that the principal shall be or may be returned.\n3. That for such loan or forbearance a greater profit than is authorized by law shall be paid or agreed to be paid.\n4. That the contract is entered into with an intention to violate the law.\nId. at 34, 80 S.E. at 188 (emphasis added); see also Nat\u2019l Bank v. Wysong & Miles Co., 177 N.C. 380, 386, 99 S.E. 199, 202, cert, denied, 250 U.S. 665, 63 L.E. 1197 (1919) (stating that the second element of a usury claim requires \u201can understanding that the principal shall be or may be returned\u201d (emphasis added)).\nWe further note that our State\u2019s usury statute has expressly included both \u201cloan\u201d and \u201cadvance\u201d transactions within its scope since the General Assembly enacted a prior version of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1 in 1969. See 1969 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 1303, \u00a7 1. We may therefore presume that the General Assembly intended for the usury prohibition in \u00a7 24-1.1 to apply to at least two distinct types of transactions. See, e.g., Transportation Service v. County of Robeson, 283 N.C. 494, 500, 196 S.E.2d 770, 774 (1973) (noting that \u201c[i]n the absence of contrary indication, it is presumed that no word of any statute is a mere redundant expression. Each word is to be construed upon the supposition that the Legislature intended thereby to add something to the meaning of the statute.\u201d). Defendants\u2019 argument that a contract may only be usurious if the borrower has an absolute obligation of repayment is inconsistent with the General Assembly\u2019s inclusion of both \u201cloan\u201d and \u201cadvance\u201d transactions within the scope of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1.\nIn the current case, the parties agreed that Plaintiff\u2019s repayment obligation would depend on the circumstances of her recovery on her personal injury claim. If Plaintiff recovered an amount equal to or greater than the sum of the principal of the advance and the accrued interest, Plaintiff would pay the entire principal and accrued interest out of the proceeds of her recovery. If Plaintiff recovered some amount greater than zero, but less than the sum of the principal of the advance and the accrued interest, Plaintiff would pay her entire recovery to Defendants in complete satisfaction of her debt. Finally, if Plaintiff recovered nothing, Plaintiff would have no obligation to repay the principal of the advance or any accrued interest.\nThe terms of the Agreement demonstrate that the parties had an understanding that the principal of the advance \u201cshall be or may be returned.\u201d MacRackan, 164 N.C. at 34, 80 S.E. at 188. These terms also satisfy the contemporary requirement set out in Swindell that the parties had \u201can understanding that the money owed [would] be paid.\u201d Swindell, 330 N.C. at 159, 409 S.E.2d at 895. There is nothing in the Agreement suggesting that Plaintiff would be excused from paying the amount she owed, whether that amount was the full sum of the principal of the advance plus ' accrued interest, or some lesser amount. Rather, the parties simply agreed that under certain circumstances, the \u201cmoney owed\u201d under the Agreement would be as little as zero dollars. We therefore hold that the second element of a usury claim was met in this case.\nWe note that Defendants have also argued that Vick stands for the proposition that the usury prohibition in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1 does not apply unless the borrower\u2019s repayment obligations are absolute. Defendants\u2019 reliance on Vick is misplaced. In Vick, our Supreme Court considered a business arrangement in which a franchisor extended credit to a franchisee. The franchisee could satisfy its debt either by paying the amount due in cash, or by transferring to the franchisor chattel paper that was generated by the franchisee\u2019s sales. Vick, 303 N.C. at 33-34, 277 S.E.2d at 363-64. However, the franchisee remained responsible for collecting the payments due on the chattel paper and was liable to the franchisor for the balance of any delinquent accounts each month. Further, the franchisee was required .to repurchase from the franchisor any chattel paper representing an account more than ninety days past due. Id. at 35, 277 S.E.2d at 364. The franchisor sued the franchisee for default on its obligations, and the franchisee answered that the transactions at issue were usurious. Id. at 35, 277 S.E.2d at 364-65.\nOn appeal, the question before our Supreme Court was whether the type of transaction at issue was a \u201cforbearance\u201d within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1. Id. at 39, 277 S.E.2d at 367. The Court held that because the franchisee\u2019s liability for the underlying debt represented by the chattel paper remained absolute until the account was fully paid off, the franchisor\u2019s acceptance of chattel paper in the interim constituted \u201ca forbearance of a debt due and payable.\u201d Id. at 41, 277 S.E.2d at 368.\nWe find Vick clearly distinguishable from the current case. The issue in Vick was not whether the transaction in question constituted an advance, but whether it constituted a forbearance. Further, the franchisee\u2019s absolute liability for the underlying debt in Vick was not the component of the transaction that brought the transaction within the scope of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1. Rather, it was the franchisor\u2019s acceptance of chattel paper in forbearance of that debt that subjected the transaction to the usury prohibition. Contrary to Defendants\u2019 contention, Vick did not purport, and cannot be read, to stand for a broad proposition that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1 only applies where the borrower is under an absolute repayment obligation. Further, Defendants\u2019 interpretation of Vick contradicts the express inclusion of \u201cadvance\u201d transactions within the scope of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1, as discussed above.\n\u2022 We now turn to the third element of Plaintiff\u2019s usury claim. As noted above, Defendants do not dispute that the rate of interest provided for in the Agreement substantially exceeds that permitted by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1. We therefore hold that the third element of Plaintiffs usury claim was met in this case.\nFinally, we must determine whether Defendants acted with a \u201ccorrupt intent to receive more in interest than the legal rate permits for use of the money loaned.\u201d Swindell, 330 N.C. at 159, 409 S.E.2d at 895. To satisfy this element, Plaintiff is not required to show that Defendant \u201chad the specific \u2018corrupt intent\u2019 to enter into a usurious loan agreement.\u201d NCCS Loans, 174 N.C. App. at 639, 624 S.E.2d at 377. Rather, Plaintiff simply must show that Defendant \u201cintentional[ly] charg[ed] . . . more for money lent than the law allows.\u201d Id. See also Wysong & Miles, 177 N.C. at 386, 99 S.E. at 202-03 (stating that \u201c[t]he fourth element [of a usury claim] may be implied if all the others are expressed upon the face of the contract\u201d). As discussed above, we have found that Defendants intentionally entered into a contract to receive a greater amount of interest than that allowed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1. We therefore hold that Plaintiff has satisfied all four elements of a usury claim. We further hold that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff\u2019s usury claim.\nV.\nPlaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in its 28 December 2006 order by granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Consumer Finance Act.\nThe Consumer Finance Act provides in part:\nNo person shall engage in the business of lending in amounts of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or less and contract for, exact, or receive, directly or indirectly, on or in connection with any such loan, any charges whether for interest, compensation, consideration, or expense, or any other purpose whatsoever, which in the aggregate are greater than permitted by Chapter 24 of the General Statutes . . . without first having obtained a license from the Commissioner [of Banks],\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 53-166(a) (2007). Our Court has previously noted that \u201cfor an unlicensed lender to charge a rate of interest on a small loan greater than the rates permitted is a violation both of the Consumer Finance Act, and of Chapter 24\u2019s prohibitions on usury.\u201d NCCS Loans, 174 N.C. App. at 634, 624 S.E.2d at 374.\nIt is undisputed in this case that Defendants have not obtained the license required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 53-166(a). Further, as we concluded in Part IV above, Defendants contracted with Plaintiff for a payment of interest that exceeded the maximum amount permitted by Chapter 24 of the General Statutes. We therefore find that Defendants violated the Consumer Finance Act, and we hold that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs claim for violation of the Consumer Finance Act.\nVI.\nPlaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in its 28 December 2006 order by granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs claim that Defendants committed unfair and deceptive trade practices.\nTo establish a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 75-1.1, a plaintiff must show that: \u201c(1) [the] defendant committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) the action in question was in or affecting commerce, and (3) the act proximately caused injury to the plaintiff.\u201d Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 656, 548 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2001).\nPlaintiff first argues that she may succeed on a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices merely by establishing a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-1.1. We disagree. The General Assembly has specifically provided that certain violations of Chapter 24 are both usurious and unfair and deceptive acts. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-1.lE(d) (2007) (providing that \u201cthe making of a high-cost home loan which violates ... this section is hereby declared usurious in violation of the provisions of this Chapter and unlawful as an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce in violation of the provisions of G.S. 75-1.1\u201d). The fact that the General Assembly has not included a similar provision in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1 leads us to conclude that the General Assembly did not intend for violations of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1 to be per se violations of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1.\nPlaintiff may still succeed on her claim, however, if she demonstrates that Defendants committed unfair and deceptive acts in addition to violating N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1. Plaintiff argues that Defendants committed such acts by failing to inform her that she was entering into an unlawful contract, and by violating established public policies supporting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1. Defendants respond that even if their contract with Plaintiff was usurious, they did not engage in any deceptive conduct because they accurately disclosed the terms of the transaction to Plaintiff before she signed the agreement.\nIn NCCS Loans, the defendants engaged in \u201cpayday lending\u201d practices in which the defendants made immediate cash advances to customers who signed contracts for Internet service. NCCS Loans, 174 N.C. App. at 635-36, 624 S.E.2d at 375. The defendants then charged high interest rates on the underlying cash advance. Id. at 635-37, 624 S.E.2d at 375-76. Our Court held that the defendants\u2019 payday lending practices were usurious and also violated the Consumer Finance Act. Id. at 640, 624 S.E.2d at 378. The Attorney General further argued that the defendants\u2019 practices were unfair and deceptive, and our Court agreed:\n[The] [defendants herein assert that, if one assumes that their customers knew they were executing contracts for a loan . . . , then [the] defendants\u2019 conduct was not \u201cdeceptive.\u201d However, \u201c[p]roof of actual deception is not necessary; it is enough that the statements had the capacity to deceive.\u201d We observe that [the] defendants did not inform consumers that they were executing documents in violation of North Carolina\u2019s Consumer Finance Act. On all the facts of this case, we conclude that [the] defendants\u2019 contracts \u201chad the capacity to deceive.\u201d\nMoreover, \u201cviolations of statutes designed to protect the consuming public and violations of established public policy may constitute unfair and deceptive trade practices.\u201d In this regard, we note that it is a \u201cparamount public policy of North Carolina to protect North Carolina resident borrowers through the application of North Carolina interest laws.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-2.1 (2003). [The] [defendants\u2019 practice of offering usurious loans was a clear violation of this policy.\nId. at 640-41, 624 S.E.2d at 378 (quoting Pinehurst, Inc. v. O'Leary Bros. Realty, 79 N.C. App. 51, 59, 338 S.E.2d 918, 923, disc. review denied, 316 N.C. 378, 342 S.E.2d 896 (1986); Stanley v. Moore, 339 N.C. 717, 723, 454 S.E.2d 225, 228 (1995)). Our Court therefore concluded that the trial court did not err by ruling that the defendants committed unfair and deceptive trade practices as a matter of law, in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1. Id. at 641, 624 S.E.2d at 378.\nSimilar circumstances exist in the current case. Although Defendants disclosed the terms of the advance to Plaintiff, Defendants did not inform Plaintiff that she was executing a contract that violated the Consumer Finance Act. Therefore, Defendants\u2019 conduct \u201chad the capacity to deceive,\u201d as Defendants did not disclose the actual nature of the transaction to Plaintiff. Further, Defendants\u2019 contract with Plaintiff for an illegal advance violated \u201cthe paramount public policy of North Carolina to protect North Carolina resident borrowers through the application of North Carolina interest laws.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-2.1(g) (2007). On these facts, we hold that Defendants committed unfair and deceptive trade practices as a matter of law. The trial court therefore erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff\u2019s claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices.\nIn sum, we affirm the trial court\u2019s 25 May 2006 order dismissing Plaintiff\u2019s claim for illegal gaming. We affirm the portion of the trial court\u2019s 28 December 2006 order granting summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff\u2019s claim of champerty and maintenance. We reverse the portion of the trial court\u2019s 28 December 2006 order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff\u2019s claims for usury, violation of the Consumer Finance Act, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Because we find the Agreement to be invalid and unenforceable, we likewise reverse the trial court\u2019s 30 April 2007 order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Defendants\u2019 counterclaim for breach of contract and liquidated damages. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings as may be necessary, including entry of judgment for Plaintiff and consideration of Plaintiff\u2019s outstanding motion for class certification.\nVII.\nFinally, Plaintiff argues that even should our Court find the Agreement to be valid and enforceable, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on their counterclaim for $29,250.00 in liquidated damages. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the liquidated damages clause in the Agreement is unenforceable as a matter of law because it did not provide a reasonable estimate of Defendants\u2019 damages in the event that Plaintiff breached the Agreement. Because we find the Agreement to be invalid and unenforceable, it is unnecessary for us to address Plaintiff\u2019s argument.\nAffirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.\nJudges WYNN and CALABRIA concur.\n. The dollar figures listed in subparagraph (2)(A) of the Agreement appear to be incorrect. The $4,200.00 figure represents the advance of $3,000.00, plus forty percent of the advance, or $1,200.00.\n. The record indicates that the trial court issued its ruling in a 25 May 2006 email message to counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants. The trial court directed counsel for Defendants to prepare an appropriate order. Counsel for Defendants apparently prepared the order, but the order was never entered by the trial court. The parties, however, have stipulated that the trial court\u2019s 25 May 2006 email accurately reflects its rulings on the parties\u2019 motions. Further, the trial court\u2019s 28 December 2006 order contains an acknowledgment that the trial court previously entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs claim for unlawful gaming.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGEE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Baron & Berry, L.L.P., by Frederick L. Berry; Robertson Medlin & Blocker, PLLC, by John F. Bloss, for Plaintiff-Appellant.", "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Hada de Varona Haulsee, for Defendants-Appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NANCY E. ODELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LEGAL BUCKS, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, JAMES KEITH TART and LYNN DAVIES TART, Defendants-Appellees\nNo. COA07-1094\n(Filed 2 September 2008)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 appellate rules violations \u2014 sanctions\u2014 failure to show substantial or gross noncompliance\nThe Court of Appeals denied defendants\u2019 motion for sanctions under N.C. R. App. P. 34(b) based on plaintiff\u2019s failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, including stylistic requirements provided in N.C. R. App. P. 26(g)(1), N.C. R. App. P. 28(b), and in the appendices to the appellate rules, because the errors did not constitute substantial or gross noncompliance with the appellate rules.\n2. Gambling\u2014 litigation funding agreement \u2014 not illegal gaming contract\nA litigation funding agreement under which defendant creditor advanced money to plaintiff borrower that was to be repaid out of plaintiff\u2019s expected recovery in a pending personal injury claim was not a \u201cbet\u201d or a \u201cwager\u201d that rendered it an illegal gaming contract under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 16-1, even though defendant\u2019s return on its advance depended on the contingent event of the amount of plaintiff\u2019s recovery on her personal injury claim, because: (1) a \u201cbet\u201d requires the parties to the bet to take opposite sides of an uncertain event, whereas both parties in the instant case desired the same outcome of the uncertain event; and (2) a \u201cwager\u201d requires that neither party to the wager have any interest in the contingent event at issue, and plaintiff did have such an interest based on the determination of her legal rights.\n3. Champerty and Maintenance\u2014 litigation funding agreement \u2014 repayment from personel injury claim proceeds\nA litigation funding agreement under which defendant creditor advanced money to plaintiff borrower that was to be repaid out of plaintiffs expected recovery in a pending personal injury claim was not void as constituting champerty and maintenance where: (1) the agreement gives defendants an interest in the proceeds of plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim rather than an interest in the claim itself; (2) plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence that defendants interfered in plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim for the purpose of stirring up strife and continuing litigation, and the agreement specifically states that defendants have no control, input, influence, right or involvement of any kind regarding any claim, right, or interest of plaintiff in the litigation; (3) plaintiff has never alleged that defendants directly attempted to influence her decisions with respect to her personal injury claim, and while the existence of defendants\u2019 lien on the proceeds of plaintiff\u2019s recovery may have influenced some of plaintiff\u2019s decisions regarding her personal injury claim, plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendants attempted to control the resolution of her claim for the purpose of stirring up strife and continuing litigation; and (4) although plaintiff notes that courts in other jurisdictions have held similar litigation financing agreements to be champertous and void, those cases do not purport to require as a prerequisite for champerty and maintenance that a litigation lender act with a purpose of stirring up strife and continuing litigation, and thus, North Carolina law appears to require a higher level of intermeddling for a lender\u2019s actions to be considered champertous.\n4. Interest\u2014 usury \u2014 litigation funding agreement \u2014 payment from personal injury recovery\nA litigation funding agreement which assigned the expected proceeds from plaintiff borrower\u2019s personal injury claim to defendant creditor as the method of repayment of funds advanced to plaintiff was usurious because: (1) the agreement constituted an \u201cadvance\u201d within the scope of the usury statute, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1, when defendant investigated the merits of the plaintiff\u2019s personal injury claim, determined that the claim was meritorious and would likely yield a recovery sufficient to pay the funds advanced to plaintiff plus interest; and thus made the advance \u201cin expectation of reimbursement\u201d; (2) the parties to the agreement had an understanding that the principal of the advance \u201cshall be or may be returned\u201d even if repayment was not absolute but was contingent on plaintiff\u2019s recovery in the litigation and, depending on the amount recovered, could be as little as zero; (3) it was undisputed that the rate of interest provided for in the agreement substantially exceeded that permitted by the usury statute; and (4) defendant acted with a corrupt intent to received more in interest than the legal rate permitted for the use of the money advanced when plaintiff simply had to show that defendant intentionally charged more for money lent than the law allowed.\n5. Creditors and Debtors; Consumer Protection\u2014 litigation funding agreement \u2014 violation of Consumer Finance Act\nA litigation funding agreement violated provisions of the Consumer Finance Act set forth in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 53-166(a) where defendant creditor had not obtained the license required by that statute and contracted with plaintiff for a payment of interest that exceeded the maximum permitted by Ch. 24 of the General Statutes.\n6. Unfair Trade Practices\u2014 litigation funding agreement\u2014 usury \u2014 failure to disclose Consumer Finance Act violation \u2014 public policy\nDefendant creditor committed an unfair and deceptive trade practice as a matter of law in entering a litigation funding agreement with plaintiff where, in addition to showing that the agreement was usurious in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-1.1, plaintiff showed that defendant\u2019s conduct had the capacity to deceived when defendant failed to disclose to plaintiff that she was executing a contract that violated the Consumer Finance Act, and that defendant\u2019s contract with plaintiff violated the paramount public policy of North Carolina to protect resident borrowers through application of the North Carolina interest laws.\nAppeal by Plaintiff from order dated 25 May 2006 and from order and judgment entered 28 December 2006 by Judge Peter M. McHugh, and from final order and judgment entered 30 April 2007 by Judge Anderson D. Cromer in Superior Court, Rockingham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 February 2008.\nBaron & Berry, L.L.P., by Frederick L. Berry; Robertson Medlin & Blocker, PLLC, by John F. Bloss, for Plaintiff-Appellant.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Hada de Varona Haulsee, for Defendants-Appellees." }, "file_name": "0298-01", "first_page_order": 326, "last_page_order": 348 }