Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 56. REGULATED LOANS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 56.18 (2026)

Unlicensed Persons Not To Make Loans

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person, except as authorized in this chapter, shall, directly or indirectly, charge, contract for, or receive any interest, discount, or consideration greater than the lender would be permitted by law to charge if that person were not authorized hereunder upon the loan, use, or forbearance of money, goods, or things in action, or upon the loan, use, or sale of credit of the amount regulated by this chapter.

The foregoing prohibition shall apply to any person who, by any device, subterfuge, or pretense, shall charge, contract for, or receive greater interest, consideration, or charges than is authorized by this chapter for any such loan, use or forbearance of money, goods, or things in action, or for any such loan, use or sale of credit.

No loan made by a person not authorized hereunder in an amount regulated by this chapter for which a greater rate of interest, consideration, or charges than is permitted by the laws of this state has been charged, contracted for, or received, wherever made, shall be enforced by a licensee in this state, and every person in anywise participating therein in this state shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter, provided, that the foregoing shall not apply to loans legally made in another state.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1986–2015 · leading case: Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988). “The party moving for summary judgment under Rule 56, Minn.”
Spearman v. Salminen, 379 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). “*632 Haydock, 2A Minnesota Practice § 56.18 (1985). 4. Finally, Michael Salminen argues the district court improperly allowed his attorney to withdraw as his counsel on February 13, 1985.”
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney Gen., Lori Swanson & its Comm'r of Com., Michael Rothman v. CashCall, Inc., a California Corp. (Minn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Section 56.18 Minnesota Statutes section 56.”
In the Matter of the Petition of Prime Sec. Bank For a New Certificate of Title After Mortg. Foreclosure. (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “ary 31, 2014, appellants submitted an answer that raised the same claims that were heard by the federal district court in the action for which appellants filed the second notice of lis pendens, including violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), a request for a declaratory…”
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.