Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-4

Loans at greater rate than twelve per cent prohibited

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person and no firm or corporation or agent thereof, other than a pawnbroker as provided in section 21-44, shall, as guarantor or otherwise, directly or indirectly, loan money to any person and, directly or indirectly, charge, demand, accept or make any agreement to receive therefor interest at a rate greater than twelve per cent per annum.

(1949 Rev., S. 6779.)

Meaning of “mortgage”; assignment of wages. 82 C. 232. Section valid. Id.; 83 C. 1; 218 U.S. 563. Whether contract is made in evasion of section is question of fact. 91 C. 601. Does not apply to “guarantee of loan”. 93 C. 647. Particularity required in information. Id., 646. Does not apply to receipt of higher rate of interest as a gift. Id., 668. “Agreement” constitutes separate offense. Id., 669. Necessity of proving wrongful intent. 94 C. 148; 101 C. 558; 118 C. 4. Defense of usury on part of endorser in due course. 97 C. 320; 99 C. 684. Defense of usury of accommodation endorser with knowledge of usurious agreement. 101 C. 560; 102 C. 37. Cited. 107 C. 280. A larger price fixed in good faith by a seller because sale is on time and not for cash does not make contract usurious. 110 C. 259; 117 C. 254. Cited. 111 C. 87; 113 C. 571. History of usury statutes. 120 C. 665. Voluntary taking or reservation of more than legal interest is per se usurious; specific intent to violate section is not essential. 123 C. 94. Usurious note, found not to represent loan as such but to constitute separate obligation given as collateral security, will not prevent recovery on loan. 124 C. 489. Cited. 125 C. 317. Renewal notes as tainted with usury of original. 126 C. 339. Cited. 128 C. 61; 130 C. 19. Method of determining if note violates usury statutes; bonus for use of money counts as interest; intent to violate statute as a matter of law. Id., 552. Jury could reasonably have found that transaction was a usurious loan in violation of statute rather than a bona fide sale of the note. 138 C. 636. Cited. 139 C. 425; 141 C. 301; 145 C. 342, 465; 149 C. 159; 153 C. 400; 172 C. 395; Id., 520; 180 C. 491; 193 C. 304; 211 C. 613. Section applies to pawnbroker repurchase agreements. 313 C. 535.

Cited. 2 CA 119. Statute does not apply to sales on credit. 3 CA 306. Cited. 6 CA 88. Provisions of this statute and Sec. 37-8 bar a deficiency judgment in this case. Id., 691. Cited. 21 CA 131; 27 CA 628; 31 CA 455; 41 CA 754; 44 CA 439; Id., 471. Statute does not apply when indebtedness arose from purchase of educational and related services, rather than from a loan of money. 53 CA 455. Interest rate in stipulated judgment that exceeded 12 per cent limitation under section was usurious as a matter of law. 133 CA 773.

Cited. 1 CS 160. Promissory note and certificate of indebtedness executed simultaneously held to be one transaction and the loan usurious. 6 CS 49. Payee not entitled to charge interest upon whole sum, only upon that part which remains payable. 7 CS 424. Intent necessary to constitute usury. 8 CS 244. Does not apply to any loan made by any national bank or any state bank or trust company incorporated in Connecticut. 32 CS 245. Cited. 36 CS 183. Where there are only a few percentage points difference in usury laws of this state and those of another state and both states have a substantial relationship to the transaction, court will apply the usury laws of state which gives validity to the contract. 39 CS 510.

Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 283.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Ferrigno v. Cromwell Development Associates

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ferrigno v. Cromwell Development Associates (1998) conn · cites it 22× “The plaintiff filed a timely motion for a deficiency judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 49-14 (a).”

Haworth v. Dieffenbach (2012) connappct · cites it 24× “On appeal, he claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to enforce the stipulated judgment in this action or, in the alternative, (2) failed to conclude that the stipulated judgment was usurious as a matter of law in violation of…”

Hamm v. Taylor (1980) conn · cites it 5× “Despite the exemption of bona fide mortgages, by virtue of General Statutes § 37-9, 1 from the 12 percent interest rate ceiling of General Statutes § 37-4, 2 the court determined that the interest terms of the mortgage note, although not usurious, were unconscionable and…”

Greglon Industries, Inc. v. Bowman (1990) connappct · cites it 16× “1 The defendants claim that, with respect to their special defense of usury, the trial court erred (1) in considering whether the plaintiff intended to violate General Statutes § 37-4, 2 and (2) in finding an absence of such intent by the plaintiff.”

Maresca v. DeMatteo (1986) connappct · cites it 6× “General Statutes § 37-9 (3), however, provides that the provisions of § 37-4 do not affect “any bona fide mortgage of real property for a sum in excess of five thousand dollars .”

Ferrigno v. Cromwell Development Associates (1997) connappct · cites it 8× “1 The trial court denied this motion on the grounds that the loan was usurious under General Statutes § 37-4. 2 Loans with interest rates in excess of 12 percent per annum are prohibited by General Statutes § 37-4 and as a penalty no action may be brought to collect principal or…”

Mildred Ives v. W. T. Grant Company (1975) ca2 · cites it 6× “, and the Connecticut usury laws, C.G.S.A. §§ 37-4, 36-243. 1 Plaintiffs are three residents of Connecticut, suing on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.”

North Park Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Pinette (1992) connappct · cites it 6× “The special defenses and the counterclaim alleged that the loan to the defendants, on which the foreclosure action was based (1) violated the Secondary Mortgage Act, General Statutes § 36-224/ (a), (2) was usurious under General Statutes §§ 37-4 and 37-9, (3) violated the…”

Brunswick School, Inc. v. Hutter (1999) connappct · cites it 15× “The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) rendered judgment in accordance with the attorney trial referee’s report and (2) awarded interest in violation of public policy, specifically General Statutes § 37-4, and (3) deprived the defendant of his right to “a day…”

Lieberman v. Emigrant Mortgage Co. (2006) ctd · cites it 9× “Usury Lieberman asserts that the terms of the default interest rider are usurious under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 37-4. The court previously addressed whether a default interest rider identical to the one in the instant case was violative of section 37-4 in Pierce v.”

Bizzoco v. Chinitz (1984) conn · cites it 2× “Under General Statutes §§ 37-4, 37-8 and 37-9, the defendant Leon Chinitz was therefore held not to be liable, in his capacity as co-maker, upon any of those five notes.”

Solevo v. Aldens, Inc. (1975) ctd · cites it 7× “Count II alleges in a pendent claim that the agreement imposes a rate of interest in excess of that permitted under Connecticut law, Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 37-4, 42-133c. Defendant has moved to dismiss Count I for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Count II for failure to state…”

Show all 50 citing cases →

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.