Mr. Baggett is a practicing attorney in Oklahoma City. He is an Oklahoma Commissioner to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), the organization that originally prepared the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (U3C). As a legislator, he was instrumental in its passage in Oklahoma and has represented numerous clients subject to the U3C.

This supplementary commentary is intended to be read with the present commentary by the authors in 14A Okla. Stats., including the present introductory commentary and the present commentary to the various sections of the statute, and supersedes the present commentary to the extent of any inconsistency. The views expressed are those of Mr. Baggett and Professor Miller individually.

In the opinion of your authors, the Oklahoma exemptions have necessitated effective enforcement of the law, and more effective enforcement than would be the case if enforcement were left to federal administrative agencies. Effective enforcement also has reduced the need for litigation. Accordingly the exemptions have benefitted Oklahoma consumers, but also Oklahoma creditors because errors are caught early and resolved without expensive litigation. Clearly the Oklahoma exemptions should be preserved.

See Prefatory Note to 1974 Uniform Consumer Credit Code, at Federal Preemption of Disclosure, which in discussing the deletion of disclosure rules in that later version of the U3C and the substitution of § 3.201 providing as a requirement of state law that a person comply with the federal law, noted: “ ... the National Conference recognizes that in some states problems of delegation of legislative power may arise.”

A mitigating factor here is the fact that most creditors follow federal law so their forms are utilizable in all states in which they do business, or merely because the federal law is more familiar.

Letters from Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, to Administrator, Department of Consumer Credit, dated October 19, 1998 and April 25, 2000, in author's files.

See Department of Consumer Credit, Consumer Leasing, 160:10-1-1 et seq.

14A Okla. Stat. § 2-313(13). See also Administrator's Regulation 160:10-7-1.1.

15 U.S.C. § 1667(1).

14A Okla. Stat. §§ 2-106, 2-301 and 2-311.

14A Okla. Stat. § 2-311.

Administrator's Regulation 160:10-1-2 “Consumer lease.”

Oklahoma Comment to 14A Okla. Stat. § 2-311. Compare Administrator's Regulation 160:10-5-1.2 and § 2-311.

14A Okla. Stat. §§ 2-104 and 3-104; 15 U.S.C. § 1603(3).

14A Okla. Stat. §§ 2-301-2-310; 3-301-3-310.

Administrator's Regulation 160:45-1-3(2). This provision was withdrawn from the rulemaking procedure that amended the regulation to bring it in line with federal law, but is not omitted from the regulation. It uses a $45,000 figure, unlike the federal regulation which uses $25,000.

The revised regulation omits the previous statement that it is adopted in relation to the U3C, but that still is the source of authority. See Administrator's Regulation 160:45-1-1(a).

Another example is an installment agreement for the purchase of home fuels where there is no finance charge. Compare federal Regulation Z, § 226.3(e) with 14A Okla. Stat. § 1-202 and Administrator's Regulation 160:45-1-3(5).

14A Okla. Stat. § 3-104.

15 U.S.C. § 1603(7) and Regulation Z § 226.3(f) (federal); 160:45-1-3(7)(state). This should be allowed under 14A Okla. Stat. § 6-104(2). See also Oklahoma Comment to 14A Okla. Stat. § 3-104. There also is the argument disclosure consistent with federal law satisfies state law under 14A Okla. Stat. § 3-301, but that seems weak in the face of an express statutory inclusion involving a difference in scope. But again see 14A Okla. Stat. § 6-104(2).

Administrator's Regulation 160:45-1-2(a)(3) and (17). While this is consistent with federal law, 14A Okla. Stat. §§ 2-301(4) and 3-301(4), which include arrangers as persons required to disclose, were not amended.

Administrator's Regulation 160:45-1-4.

Id.

14A Okla. Stat. §§ 3-109 and 3-202.

Several other issues might be addressed as well. To illustrate, Oklahoma law has distinguished between what may be a finance charge for disclosure and what may be one for the regulation of charges. This was explicit in previous Administrator's Regulation Z, but now is omitted in Administrator's Regulation 160:45-1-4 and 160:45-5-6. However, 160:45-1-1(b) still provides the chapter does not govern charges for consumer credit; less clear but arguably sufficient. Second, the amendment to 14A Okla. Stat. § 3-109 is poorly drafted in several respects; i.e., subsection (1)(b) both excludes but then includes charges and the included charges overlap in possibly conflicting ways with the general definition of finance charge in subsection (1)(a). Third, an amendment to 14A Okla. Stat. § 3-202(1)(c) deletes a reference to what the described additional charges are excluded from, and similar language in 14A Okla. Stat. § 2-202(1)(c) was left unamended.

Called “Subsection 10 mortgages” in the amendment to 14A Okla. Stat. § 1-301, adding a new subsection 10 (and renumbering later definitions). Compare 14A Okla. Stat. §§ 3-309.4 and 3-102 (this article applies to consumer loans; § 2-102 stating that article applies to consumer credit sales and leases) and Administrator's Regulation 160:45-9-1 and 2.

14A Okla. Stat. § 1-301(18) and § 3-309.5; Administrator's Regulation 160:45-9-1 and 3; 160:45-3-3.

14A Okla. Stat. §§ 3-302(2)(k), 3-304(6) and 3-306(2)(m); Administrator's Regulation 160:45-5-1, 2, 3, 6 and 7.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1666 et seq. This act creates billing error rights, and regulates the length of the billing cycle in relation to finance charges, crediting of payments, treatment of credit balances, set-off, and the ability to assert claims and defenses in credit card transactions, among other matters. The Oklahoma regulation does allude to the federal act, but only to round out open end disclosure requirements.

For this reason, Oklahoma has no exemption from this federal law.

14A Okla. Stat. § 6-104(2) only mandates following federal law in relation to disclosure; these provisions extend well beyond disclosure. 14A Okla. Stat. § 6-104(3) is not a license to extend the statute.

See 15 U.S.C. § 1666j(b).

14A Okla. Stat. §§ 2-203 and 3-203.

S.B. 1481, amending 14A Okla. Stat. § 2-203, which permits a minimum charge of $5, even in each billing cycle in open end credit, and allows adjustment for inflation. See 14A Okla. Stat. § 1-106 as well, and Administrator's Regulation 160:20-1-19.

14A Okla. Stat. § 3-203(5) (similar to § 2-203) and § 3-203.2 (which confusingly overlaps with § 3-203(5)) and, as amended by S.B. 1481, imposes no limit on the amount of the charge. But see 14A Okla. Stat. § 6-104(6). Also, it can be argued the more specific statute (§ 3-203.2) should control. This provision also authorizes over-the-limit and returned item charges. Later amendments also have expanded permitted additional charges. See 14A Okla. Stat. § 3-202.

Oklahoma Comment to § 3-508B.

14A Okla. Stat. §§ 3-205 and 3-206. See also 14A Okla. Stat. §§ 3-208, 3-508B and 3-509.

AG Op. No. 96-84 (1997) (in possession of authors).

Independent Fin. Instit. v. Clark, 990 P.2d 845 (Okla. 1999).

See also 14A Okla. Stat. §§ 6-108 and amendments in 1997 to 14A Okla. Stat. § 3-504.

This brings the requirements closer to but still not into line with the disclosure requirements. See Administrator's Regulation 160:45-3-7(c).