Gilmore v. Pawn King, Inc

Summary

Justice Espinosa dissented from the majority's interpretation of the pawnbroking and usury statutes. She would have concluded that the 1997 amendment did not clearly overrule the prior interpretation governing repurchase transactions, so the pawnbroking rate limits continued to apply and the general usury statute did not apply to pawnbrokers. The dissent also reasoned that the statutory scheme excludes pawnbrokers as a class from the general usury limit. Justice Espinosa, dissenting, would have answered the certified questions in favor of continuing the prior rule.