Regulatory Alerts2016-01-01 | Bulletin 2016-02Report on Proposed Bulletin 2016-02: Exceptions To The Requirement To Present A Pawn Ticket For Pledge Redemption
The Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services issued a report regarding Proposed Bulletin 2016-02, which clarifies exceptions to the requirement for presenting a pawn ticket during pledge redemption. The bulletin addresses the Oregon Court of Appeals decision in Hughes v. Ephrem, confirming that a writ of garnishment serves as a valid exemption to the general rule requiring ticket presentation. Following a public comment period that received no submissions, the Department published the bulletin exactly as proposed.
1 Report to Agency on Public Comment Period Date: December 13, 2016 To: Department of Consumer and Business Services From: Aeron Teverbaugh, Senior Policy Analyst Subject: Report on Proposed Bulletin 2016-2: “Exceptions To The Requirement To Present A Pawn Ticket For Pledge Redemption” Comment Period Start October 18, 2016 Comment Period End: November 18, 2016 Background Pawnbrokers, when they make a pledge loan, are required to issue the pledgor (or a representative of the pledgor) a ticket detailing, among other things, the item pledged and the interest rate. The holder of the pawn ticket is presumed to be entitled to redeem the pledge through the payment of the principal, interest, and fees. Generally, Oregon law provides that a pawnbroker is not required to deliver a pledge unless the pawn ticket is presented. Oregon’s Pawnbrokers Act does, however, address instances where a pawn ticket has been lost, stolen or destroyed. On March 30, 2016, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided Hughes v. Ephrem and H&B Jewelry and Loan1 interpreting Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 726.330. The opinion does not change the Pawnbrokers Act or the various responsibilities of pawnbrokers in general. The opinion makes clear that a writ of garnishment, as an act of the court, is an exemption from the general rule that a ticket must be presented to redeem a pledge. The division distributed the draft bulletin to stakeholders and interested parties for comment. The Department did not receive any comments. The Bulletin is being published as proposed.
Aeron Teverbaugh Senior Policy Analyst
1 Hughes v. Ephrem and H&B Jewelry and Loan, 277 Or App 193 (2016).
2 Signed this 13____ day of December, 2016. Department of Consumer and Business Services
Laura Cali, Administrator Division of Financial Regulation