The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on the American Financial Services Association's challenge to Cleveland's predatory lending ordinance. The Association contends that the ordinance can not stand because of Ohio statutes which (1) regulate predatory lending and (2) preclude cities from having their own predatory lending ordinances. The Eighth District Court of Appeals found that the state statute preventing city predatory lending ordinances, R.C. 1.63, was an unconstitutional infringement on cities' power of home rule. The Court of Appeals further found the Cleveland ordinance did not conflict with the Ohio statutes governing "covered loans", R.C. 1349.25-37. "Cleveland Lending Law Now Before Justices" by T.C. Brown, The Plain Dealer, Dec. 1, 2005; Home Rule – Does Cleveland ‘Predatory Lending’ Ordinance Conflict With Parallel State Law?, summary of the case at the Ohio Supreme Court website. See also Am. Fin. Servs. Assoc. v. City of Cleveland (2004), 159 Ohio App. 3d 489.
