§
Subdivision 1.Limitation of rates.
The imposition, charge or collection of a finance charge upon an account balance by a seller of goods, services or both shall be lawful, provided that:
(a) The sale is a consumer credit sale pursuant to an open end credit plan, agreement or arrangement between the buyer and seller under which (1) the seller may permit the buyer to make purchases from time to time from the seller or other sellers, (2) the buyer has the privilege of paying the balance in full or in installments, and (3) a finance charge may be computed by the seller from time to time on an outstanding unpaid balance.
(b) The terms of the plan, agreement or arrangement provide for a periodic rate of finance charge which does not exceed 1-1/2 percent per month computed on an amount no greater than the average daily balance of the account during each monthly billing cycle; provided a minimum finance charge not in excess of 50 cents per month may be imposed, charged or collected.
(c) No finance charge in excess of 1-1/3 percent per month shall be imposed on an open end and consumer credit account by any issuer whose credit card is issued primarily for the purpose of purchasing motor fuels and related products and whose gross annual national sales exceed $10 billion. Retailers must give adequate notice to open end consumer credit customers before any higher interest rate is applied. Accompanying credit statements must not suggest that the Minnesota legislature required retailers to raise interest rates. The accompanying material must make clear that the increase affects only the maximum allowable interest rate.
§
Subd. 2.Definitions and computations.
The definitions and the provisions on computation of percentage rates in the Truth-in-Lending Act, Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Public Law 90-321, and in Regulation Z of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System adopted pursuant thereto, Code of Federal Regulations, title 12, part 226, as in effect on June 5, 1971, shall apply to the terms used in sections 334.16 to 334.18, and computations thereunder.
§
Subd. 3.Computation of average daily balance.
The calculation of the average daily balance for the purpose of the limitation on rates imposed by subdivision 1, paragraph (b), shall be made by excluding from the daily balances the amount of each sale from the date of sale until the last day of the regular billing cycle during which the sale was made. The portion of any balance arising from the sale of goods which are returned shall be excluded from the unpaid balance as of the date the goods are returned.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Minnesota Sch. of Bus., Inc., 899 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 2017).
· cites it 25× “The Schools responded that their lending was not usurious under Minn. Stat. § 334.16 , subd. 1 (2016), and that they were not required to obtain a license under Minn.”
Am. Accounts & Advisers, Inc. v. Hendrickson, 460 N.W.2d 83 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 16× “In its final order the trial court ruled that the contract came within the consumer credit sale exemption, Minn.Stat. § 334.16 (1988), and the interest rate was therefore not usurious.”
Maus v. Toder, 681 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (D. Minnesota 2010).
· cites it 3× “Minn.Stat. § 334.16; Peterson v. Gustafson, 584 N.”
Widmark v. Northrup King Co., 530 N.W.2d 588 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “In light of our holding, we need not address whether the late charges assessed by Northrup were lawful consumer credit sale finance charges under Minn.Stat. § 334.16 (1992). 2 . In the cases cited by Widmark in support of his argument, a duty to maintain secrecy was explicitly…”
Peterson v. Gustafson, 584 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “16 (1996), permits a provider of services to impose a finance charge if the transaction is an open-end credit plan, agreement, or arrangement between buyer and seller under which the seller may permit the buyer to make purchases from time to time from the seller, the buyer has…”
John David Contracting, Inc. v. Brozek, 535 N.W.2d 397 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 334.16, subd. l(a)-(b). Minnesota has adopted the definition of an open end credit plan set out in the federal Truth-in-Lending Act, which states: The term “open end credit plan” means a plan under which the creditor reasonably contemplates repeated transactions,…”
Hussain v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 541 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (D. Minnesota 2008).
“The government concedes, however, that § 334.16(b) implicitly gives the Court the power to order USCIS to issue Hussain an amended certificate of naturalization.”
— Minn. Stat. § 334.16(b) — 1 case
Hussain v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 541 F. Supp. 2d 1082 (D. Minnesota 2008).
“The government concedes, however, that § 334.16(b) implicitly gives the Court the power to order USCIS to issue Hussain an amended certificate of naturalization.”
— Minn. Stat. § 334.16(l)(b) — 1 case
John David Contracting, Inc. v. Brozek, 535 N.W.2d 397 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
“Minn.Stat. § 334.16, subd. l(a)-(b). Minnesota has adopted the definition of an open end credit plan set out in the federal Truth-in-Lending Act, which states: The term “open end credit plan” means a plan under which the creditor reasonably contemplates repeated transactions,…”
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.