No action shall be brought to recover principal or interest, or any part thereof, on any loan prohibited by sections
37-4,
37-5 and
37-6, or upon any cause arising from the negotiation of such loan.
(1949 Rev., S. 6783.)
Cited. 111 C. 87; 120 C. 665. Acceptance of note appearing to be usurious on its face is not sufficient to invoke ban of this section; intent to evade Sec. 37-4 must also be proved. 118 C. 4. Voluntary taking or reservation of more than legal interest is per se usurious; specific intent to violate Sec. 37-4 is not essential. 123 C. 94; 130 C. 552. Where no evidence is offered to explain difference between amount of note and actual loan, court may justifiably find note usurious. 126 C. 339. Statute makes no distinction between rights of an accommodation party who has participated in the usurious transaction and one who has not. 138 C. 636. Cited. 139 C. 425. Where note which would be usurious in Connecticut was executed in New York and payable there, action could be brought thereon in Connecticut, since controlling statute re usury was that of New York. 149 C. 9. Same result where note was executed in Connecticut for convenience of defendant cosigner but delivery was in Massachusetts. Id., 159. Where lender was a 78-year-old woman and borrower, an astute businessman, persuaded her not to seek legal counsel and to accept his note in an usurious amount, action on note allowed. 153 C. 400, 406. Cited. 193 C. 304; 211 C. 613.
Cited. 3 CA 306. Provisions of this statute and Sec. 37-4 bar a deficiency judgment in this case. 6 CA 691. Cited. 21 CA 131; 44 CA 439; Id., 471.
A conditional bill of sale given to avoid the usury statute is void. 1 CS 160. A first mortgage given to secure the performance of an illegal and unenforceable loan is equally ineffective. 8 CS 245. Cited. 33 CS 554.
Notes of Decisions
Ferrigno v. Cromwell Dev. Assocs., 708 A.2d 1371 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 13× “The plaintiff filed a timely motion for a deficiency judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 49-14 (a). 4 The trial court denied the plaintiffs motion for a deficiency judgment on the grounds that the loan was usurious under General Statutes § 37-4 5 and that, consequently, any…”
Haworth v. Dieffenbach, 38 A.3d 1203 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Under General Statutes § 37-8, a lender who loans money at an illegal rate of interest is barred from recovering both interest and principal.”
Ferrigno v. Cromwell Dev. Assocs., 689 A.2d 1150 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 37-8. 3 In addition to the civil forfeiture penalty, Connecticut law also provides a criminal penalty of a fine not to exceed $1000 or imprisonment for not more than six months or both, for making a usurious loan.”
Greglon Indus., Inc. v. Bowman, 572 A.2d 369 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 7× “The plaintiff was not seeking interest on the loan, and Gregory had no intent to exact a usurious rate of interest.”
Maresca v. DeMatteo, 506 A.2d 1096 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 2× “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 .”
Sci. Prods. v. Cyto Med. Lab'y, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 1373 (D. Conn. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, the fact that the Connecticut statute provides a particularly severe penalty— lenders who violate the statute shall forfeit not only all interest but also all the principal, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 37-8 6 — is an addition *1378 al reason for not reading the usury statute…”
Santoro v. Osman, 174 A.2d 800 (Conn. 1961).
· cites it 3× “Unless the settled law was to be overturned, there was no need for any such intent, since our usury laws were inapplicable to the transaction.”
Mildred Ives v. W. T. Grant Co., 522 F.2d 749 (2d Cir. 1975).
“C.G.S.A. §§ 37-8, 36-243. 39 . Grants’ coupon plan was recently enjoined as usurious in Wisconsin as well.”
Leventhal v. Tow, 48 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Conn. 1999).
“§§ 37-8. Sometime in April 1997, the defendants acknowledged in an “internal document” that “[b]ig players will be attracted to the few high-volume customers who provide a high-proportion of Citizens’ margin,” and that “the remaining potential customers in adjacent markets were…”
In re Feldman, 259 F. Supp. 218 (D. Conn. 1966).
· cites it 4× “§ 37-6); and that “[n]o action shall be brought to recover principal or interest, or any part thereof”, on any loan so prohibited, “or upon any cause arising from the negotiation of such loan,” (Conn.”
Solevo v. Aldens, Inc., 395 F. Supp. 861 (D. Conn. 1975).
· cites it 2× “While Conn. Gen.Stat. § 37-8 precluded actions to recover principle or interest on a loan “prohibited by” Connecticut law, this was not such a loan.”
Equity Mortg., Inc. v. Niro, 690 A.2d 407 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 7× “General Statutes § 37-8. In addition to the civil forfeiture penalty, Connecticut law also provides a criminal penalty of a fine not to exceed $1000 or imprisonment for not more than six months or both, for making a usurious loan.”
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.