Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 438.42 (2026)

Usurious loan records; possession, penalty.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CRIMINAL USURY

Act 259 of 1968

438.42 Usurious loan records; possession, penalty.

Sec. 2.

A person is guilty of possession of usurious loan records when, with knowledge of the contents thereof, he possesses any writing, paper, instrument or article used to record criminally usurious transactions prohibited by this act. Any person guilty of possession of usurious loan records may be imprisoned for a term not to exceed 1 year or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both.

History: 1968, Act 259, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2023 · leading case: Wilkerson v. Seder, 265 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wilkerson v. Seder, 265 N.W.2d 807 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “” MCLA 438.42; MSA 19.15(52) provides: "A person is guilty of possession of usurious loan records when, with knowledge of the contents thereof, he possesses any writing, paper, instrument or article used to record criminally usurious transactions prohibited by this act.”

Soaring Pine Capital Real Est. v. Park Street Grp. Realty (Mich. 2023). · cites it 8× “41 (punishing criminal usury with up to five years’ imprisonment and/or fines of $10,000); MCL 438.42 (punishing possession of usurious loan documents with up to one year of imprisonment and/or fines of $1,000).”

Mark Pisciotta v. Ronald Lawrence Kardos (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “41 through MCL 438.42], but subject to any other applicable law of this state or of the United States which regulates the rate of interest, it is lawful in connection with an extension of credit to a business entity by a state or national chartered bank, a state or federal…”

Soaring Pine Capital Real Est. v. Park Street Grp. Realty (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “41 to MCL 438.42.]”). -8- plaintiff sought to recover certain fees set forth in the contract that were actually interest charges that, when combined with the 20% interest figure, exceeded the criminally usurious interest rate.”

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.