Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 334. MONEY, RATES OF INTEREST
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 334.021 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 2002 c 342 s 11]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1971–1997 · leading case: Trapp v. Hancuh, 530 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Trapp v. Hancuh, 530 N.W.2d 879 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 334.021 (1988). The usury laws are intended to protect the weak and necessitous from being taken advantage of by lenders who can unilaterally establish the terms of the loan transaction.”
Barton v. Moore, 558 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. 1997). · cites it 2× “At the trial court, the lenders also argued that the Moores were guarantors of the corporation and are thus denied the defense of usury under Minn.Stat. § 334.021 (1996), which prohibits corporations from asserting the defense of usury.”
United Realty Trust v. Prop. Dev. & Rsch. Co., 269 N.W.2d 737 (Minn. 1978). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff lender, United Realty Trust of California (URT), cross-appeals from certain of the trial court’s findings of fact, urging that the judgment be affirmed on the additional ground that the loan was exempt from usury laws because made to a corporate borrower within §…”
Farrell v. Wurm (In re Donnay), 184 B.R. 767 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1995). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 334.021. The party asserting usury must prove four elements to establish a violation of the usury law: 1.”
Bichel Optical Labs., Inc. v. Marquette Nat'l Bank, 336 F. Supp. 1368 (D. Minn. 1971). · cites it 2× “He cites Minn.Stat. § 334.021 which provides “No corporation shall hereafter interpose the defense of usury in any ac *1370 tion.”
Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Minneapolis v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 407 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “The interest rate is 12.35% annually. The trial court dismissed this argument, explaining that West Bend is a corporation barred by statute from raising the defense of usury.”
Jones v. Nelson, 432 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “The Joneses conceded the interest rates exceeded that allowed by state usury law, but argued that the usury law was inapplicable because the principal obligation was corporate, thus triggering the corporate loan exception to the usury law, Minn.Stat. § 334.021 (1974). The trial…”
Wolpert v. Foster, 254 N.W.2d 348 (Minn. 1977). “01 is a “defense of usury” within the meaning of § 334.021. 6 We conclude that the requirement that interest charges different than 6 percent be in writing is not a usury defense.”
Ryan v. Comm'r, 54 T.C.M. 1503 (T.C. 1988). “The usury statute did not apply to situations involving corporate borrowers. Minn.”
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.