Lender also recovered full attorney fees.įield v Fadia Los Angeles County Superior Court Usury-Quiet TitleĬanon Law represented a borrower. The court issued judgment for Canon Law’s client, ruling that the lender’s claims were not barred by statute of limitations, and granted the lender’s request for return of principle, and post maturity interest. Lender argued that usury was not applicable because the Borrower never intended to repay the loan, whatsoever. Borrower also claimed that the Note was usurious, and that the lender should not be entitled to any interest. However, lender claimed that because the Note was secured by a deed of trust, a 10 year statute of limitation applied. Borrower claimed that due to passage of time, the loan had expired (4 year statute of limitations for written contracts). Canon Law argued on behalf of the Lender that the loans throughout the years were not renewals of each other, but rather refinances of each other, and thus, the borrower was only entitled to recover paid interest on only the most recent notes, if any.ĭe La Carrierr et al Los Angeles County Superior Court Quiet Title-Breach of Note-Statute of LimitationsĬanon Law represented a lender in a five day trial before Honorable Michael Johnson, Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court. Borrower claimed that the underlying notes were usurious, and connected in that they were renewals of each other, and thus sought to recover all interest paid in the last 15 years. The underlying Notes were secured by real estate properties in Oakland, California. Hardwick et al Alameda County Superior Court (Oakland) UsuryĬanon Law represented a lender who had made multiple short term loans throughout a 15 year period to the borrower. These defenses are often based on theories such as sham guaranty, wrongful foreclosure, anti-deficiency laws, usury, and other predatory lending laws. Such litigation often crossovers into other fields of law such as bankruptcy, quiet title, and foreclosure laws.Ĭanon Law also represents multiple borrower/debtor clients in their defense against enforcement of Notes and Guaranties. Throughout the years, the Firm has represented many lenders, assisting them in completing foreclosure sale of underlying collateral properties, as well as pursing borrowers and guarantors for outstanding loans. As such, Canon Law’ expertise in real estate litigation and enforcing or enjoining foreclosure sales compliment the firm’s usury litigation practice.Ĭanon Law further specializes in enforcement of Notes and Guaranties, including pursuing debtors for deficiency judgments (anti-deficiency laws and the one-action rule). Usury matters often cross over into real estate laws, as loans are often secured by deeds of trust against properties. A borrower may be entitled to money damages for all monies paid and treble (three times) damages based on interest paid during the last two years prior to filing law suit, as well cancellation of future interest payments.Ĭanon Law specializes in usury laws, representing both lenders and borrowers. The two most common exemptions to usury are loans made to corporations and loans arranged by a licensed broker. Given that the usury law is complex and is riddled with so many exceptions that the law’s application itself seems to be the exception rather than the rule. There is nothing black and white about usury. The California Constitution limits the interest that can be charged on a non-exempt loan to no more than ten percent (10%) per year. Usury and Lending Laws Enforcement and Defense of Notes and Guaranties
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |