California Codes

Cal. Financial Code § 22750 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)If any amount other than, or in excess of, the charges permitted by this division is willfully charged, contracted for, or received, the contract of loan is void, and no person has any right to collect or receive any principal, charges, or recompense in connection with the transaction.

(b)If any provision of this division is willfully violated in the making or collection of a loan, whether by a licensee or by an unlicensed person subject to this division, the contract of loan is void, and no person has any right to collect or receive any principal, charges, or recompense in connection with the transaction.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: T'Bear v. Forman, 359 F. Supp. 3d 882 (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

T'Bear v. Forman, 359 F. Supp. 3d 882 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 2× “Failure to register under the California Financing Law and violation of California Financial Code § 22750 Plaintiff moves for summary judgment and opposes Defendant's motion on the grounds that the notes at issue are void because Defendant failed to register as a financial…”

Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc. (Cal. 2025). · cites it 2× “(Fin. Code, § 22750, subd. (b).) It appears from the pleading — because plaintiffs contend that the PACE administrators were required to but did not obtain a finance lender license — that the alleged violation pertains to Financial Code section 22100, subdivision (a), which…”

Desage Vs. Aw Fin. Grp., Llc (Nev. 2020). “2d at 917 ("If a contract includes an arbitration agreement, and grounds exist to revoke the entire contract, such grounds would also vitiate the arbitration agreement.”

Rieger v. Barrett CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “557, 562-563 ); (3) Barrett had no standing to bring a cause of action under the financial lending statutes because they did not provide for a private right of action; (4) Barrett had not shown that SSE “willfully” violated the financial lending statutes (Fin. Code, § 22750);…”

Morgan v. Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “2 [failing to admonish, “IF YOU SIGN THIS CONTRACT, YOU WILL BE PUTTING UP YOUR HOME AS SECURITY”]; (3) Financial Code section 22750 [requiring a finance lender license]; and (4) Business and Professions Code section 7159.”

Law Fin. Grp., LLC v. Key (Cal. 2023). “Key’s argument relied on Financial Code section 22750, subdivision (a), which says that if a loan contract “willfully” charges “any amount other than, or in excess of, the charges permitted by” the California Financing Law, “the contract of loan is void, and no person has any…”

Shetty v. Doshi CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “Shetty’s third cause of action alleges the Doshis violated 6 Financial Code section 22750 by operating as unlicensed lenders and in charging impermissible interest and fees.”

Law Fin. Grp. v. Key CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “That is because the arbitrators in this case determined that there was an overriding public policy—namely, the CFL (Fin. Code, §§ 22750, subd. (b), 22309, 22306)—and went on to find that the Contract in this case contravened that public policy and was therefore invalid.”

Grissom v. Dealer Servs. CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “*11-*13 [commercial loans were not void, despite lender’s failure to be licensed in California; Financial Code section 22750 applies only to consumer loans]; WF Capital, Inc.”

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.