Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1202
Forfeiture of all interest upon obligation involving interest exceeding the maximum amount set by contract
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A person shall not directly or indirectly take or receive in money, goods or things in action, or in any other way, any greater sum or any greater value for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or things in action, than the maximum permitted by law. Any person, contracting for, reserving or receiving, directly or indirectly, any greater sum of value shall, forfeit all interest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: Browne v. Nowlin
Browne v. Nowlin (1977)
“See A.R.S. § 44-1202 et seq. Finally, appellant asserts his payment of an installment prior to the disbursement of the loan, also rendered the loan, ipso facto, usurious.”
Wieman v. Roysden (1990)
“23, 1980, codified in A.R.S. § 44-1202. Both A.R.S. §§ 44-1201(A) and 44-1202 have remained essentially unchanged since the 1980 amendments.”
Amex Distributing Co., Inc. v. Mascari (1986)
“§ 1 , and its Arizona analog, A.R.S. § 44-1202. Appellee argues that the covenants either are per se violative of the Sherman Act or that they violate the “rule of reason” applied in Section 1 cases since Standard Oil Co.”
Britz v. Kinsvater (1960)
“87 — the total amount of interest found to have been exacted — which is in accordance with A.R.S. § 44-1202. This appeal followed. The main contention of defendant on appeal is that, on the given facts, this transaction does not fit into the accepted definition of a usurious…”
Altherr v. Wilshire Mortgage Corporation (1968)
“A.R.S. § 44-1202. The second fee required of the borrower, by Wilshire, was a five per cent discount “on the takeout.”
Pease v. Taylor (1972)
“A.R.S. § 44-1202. In Oregon, the usury statute provides, "[i]f it is ascertained in any action or suit brought on any contract that a rate of interest *762 has been contracted for greater than is authorized by this chapter in money, [ORS 82.”
United Hauling LLC v. Iron Rings Holdings LLC, et al. (2026)
“The Bankruptcy Court found no violation under A.R.S. § 44-1202 and issued the 19 Under Advisement Order denying Appellant’s claim objections on that basis.”
Small v. Ellis (1961)
“note and which contingency presents the probability of accruing an interest obligation in excess of 8% ? (2) Did plaintiff by invoking the acceleration clause on account of defendants’ nonpayment of an installment due before maturity of the entire note, and demanding and suing…”
United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co. (1968)
“A.R.S. § 44-1202. Pursuant to an authorizing resolution of its board of directors, a corporation may agree to pay interest at a rate up to twelve per cent (12%) per annum.”
American Savings Life Insurance v. Financial Affairs Management Co. (1973)
“A.R.S. § 44-1202, as amended, reads as follows : “No person shall directly or indirectly take or receive in money, goods, or things in action, or in any other way, any greater sum or any greater value for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or things in action, than ten…”
In re Maryvale Community Hospital, Inc. (1969)
“Was there here an understanding that the defaulted interest and prepayment premium were absolutely, and not contingently, repayable? If so, and if by their payment the Arizona legal rate of interest, A.R.S. § 44-1202, is exceeded, the indenture is usurious and unenforceable.”
Grady v. Price (1963)
“§ 44-1202. “No person shall directly or indirectly take or receive in money, goods, or things in action, or in any other way, any greater sum or any greater value for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or things in action, than eight dollars on one hundred dollars for…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1202(A) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.