(a) Subject to the provisions of title 19, no person, partnership, association, or corporation
loaning money to or negotiating the loan of money for another, except duly licensed
pawnbrokers, shall, directly or indirectly, reserve, charge, or take interest on a
loan, whether before or after maturity, at a rate that shall exceed the greater of
twenty-one percent (21%) per annum or the alternate rate specified in subsection (b)
of this section of the unpaid principal balance of the net proceeds of the loan not
compounded, nor taken in advance, nor added on to the amount of the loan.
(b) The alternate rate means the rate per annum that is equal to nine percentage points
(9%) plus an index that is the domestic prime rate as published in the Money Rates
section of The Wall Street Journal on the last business day of each month preceding
the later of the date of the debtor’s agreement or the date on which the interest
rate is redetermined in accordance with the terms of the debtor’s agreement. If the
Wall Street Journal ceases publication of the prime rate, the director of business
regulation shall designate a substantially equivalent index. In the event an index
is published as a range of rates, then the lowest rate shall be the index.
(c)(1) For purposes of this section, interest shall not be construed to include:
(i) Charges pursuant to chapter 30 of title 27;
(ii) Premiums for insurance in an amount not exceeding the reasonable value of property
offered as security for a loan against any substantial risk of loss, liability, damage,
or destruction in conformity with the insurance laws of this state;
(iii) Premiums for insurance providing loss of income or involuntary unemployment coverage
if the coverage is not a factor in the approval by the lender of the extension of
credit and the debtor gives specific written indication that the cost of this coverage
has been conspicuously disclosed to the debtor; that the debtor realizes that the
coverage is not a condition for the extension of credit; and that the debtor voluntarily
desires the coverage;
(iv) Commercial loan commitment or availability fees to assure the availability of a specified
amount of credit for a specified period of time or, at the borrower’s option, compensating
balances in lieu of the fees;
(v) Reasonable attorney’s fees customarily charged for the preparation of loan, security,
or mortgage documents and for the collection of defaulted loans;
(vi) Fees for title examination or title insurance;
(vii) Other customary and reasonable costs incident to the closing, supervision, and collection
of loans in this state; and
(viii) Consideration received for the redemption, sale, transfer, or other disposition of
equity securities by a small business investment company licensed under the provisions
of the “Small Business Investment Act of 1958”, 15 U.S.C. § 631 et seq., as amended, or an entity that would qualify for regulation as a business
development company under the provisions of the “Investment Company Act of 1940”,
15 U.S.C. § 80a-1 et seq., as amended, whether or not the equity securities were acquired by a small
business investment company or business development company in connection with or
as an incident to the extension of credit.
(2) Any of the preceding charges, if paid or advanced by the lender, may be considered
part of the net proceeds of the loan, and if paid by the debtor, shall not be deducted
from the net proceeds of the loan.
(d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter or in any other provision
of Rhode Island law, the provisions of this chapter shall not be applicable with respect
to credit card transactions as defined in chapter 26.1 of this title. Chapter 26.1
shall apply exclusively to all such transactions.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section and/or any other
provision in this chapter to the contrary, there is no limitation on the rate of interest
that may be legally charged for the loan to, or use of money by, a commercial entity,
where the amount of money loaned exceeds the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000)
and where repayment of the loan is not secured by a mortgage against the principal
residence of any borrower; provided, that the commercial entity has first obtained
a pro forma methods analysis performed by a certified public accountant licensed in
the state of Rhode Island indicating that the loan is capable of being repaid.
Notes of Decisions
NV One, LLC v. Potomac Realty Capital, LLC, 84 A.3d 800 (R.I. 2014).
· cites it 17× “The defendant asserts that the trial justice erred when he granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability for violation of the usury statute, G.L.1956 § 6-26-2, by declaring the usury savings clause of the parties’ loan agreement unenforceable.”
Sheehan v. Richardson, 315 B.R. 226 (D.R.I. 2004).
· cites it 14× “R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2 (2000) (emphasis added).”
Bank of New York v. Hoyt, 617 F. Supp. 1304 (D.R.I. 1985).
· cites it 13× “, R.I.Gen.Laws §§ 6-26-2, 6-26-4. And, the identical trio of defendants filed counterclaims against BONY which pivoted off the same state statutes.”
Opella v. Opella, 896 A.2d 714 (R.I. 2006).
· cites it 4× “4 He argues that the difference of $32,000 between the note’s face amount and the actual amount advanced “could only have constituted interest,” meaning that the note contained a 82-percent rate of interest, which is prohibited by G.L. 1956 § 6-26-2. The plaintiff alleges that…”
Household Fin. Corp. v. Swartz (In Re Swartz), 37 B.R. 776 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1984).
· cites it 7× “LAWS § 6-26-2. Count I also urges that Swartz be allowed to recover all payments of principal and interest made to Household Finance Corporation on account of this allegedly illegal loan, pursuant to R.”
Holden v. Salvadore, 964 A.2d 508 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See G.L. 1956 § 6-26-2. When determining whether a transaction is a loan or other business transaction, we focus on the substance over the form of the transaction and examine all the facts and circumstances that reveal the true nature of the transaction.”
Bank of New York v. Hoyt, 108 F.R.D. 184 (D.R.I. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The parties dispute the applicability of the interest ceiling limned by R.I.Gen.Laws §§ 6-26-2, 4 to this type of loan.”
Acropolis Enter., Inc. v. C.R. Amusements, LLC (In Re C.R. Amusements, LLC), 259 B.R. 523 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2001).
· cites it 4× “R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(a) (West 2000). To prove the loan usurious, the Minority Shareholders offered the testimony of John Evans of Financial Publishing Company, who testified that he made several calculations using the formula, Interest = Principal x Rate x Time (I=PRT).”
Raheb v. Lemenski, 350 A.2d 397 (R.I. 1976).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) §6-26-2 and were therefore usurious. Before us, plaintiff refers to a belated plea of usury by defendant.”
DeFusco v. Giorgio, 440 A.2d 727 (R.I. 1982).
“Essentially, the Giorgios would have this court declare that, as a matter of law, a litigant may never waive the defense of usury.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(a) — 8 cases
NV One, LLC v. Potomac Realty Capital, LLC, 84 A.3d 800 (R.I. 2014).
“The defendant asserts that the trial justice erred when he granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability for violation of the usury statute, G.L.1956 § 6-26-2, by declaring the usury savings clause of the parties’ loan agreement unenforceable.”
Opella v. Opella, 896 A.2d 714 (R.I. 2006).
“4 He argues that the difference of $32,000 between the note’s face amount and the actual amount advanced “could only have constituted interest,” meaning that the note contained a 82-percent rate of interest, which is prohibited by G.L. 1956 § 6-26-2. The plaintiff alleges that…”
Acropolis Enter., Inc. v. C.R. Amusements, LLC (In Re C.R. Amusements, LLC), 259 B.R. 523 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2001).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(a) (West 2000). To prove the loan usurious, the Minority Shareholders offered the testimony of John Evans of Financial Publishing Company, who testified that he made several calculations using the formula, Interest = Principal x Rate x Time (I=PRT).”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(a)(2000) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(c) — 2 cases
Acropolis Enter., Inc. v. C.R. Amusements, LLC (In Re C.R. Amusements, LLC), 259 B.R. 523 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2001).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(a) (West 2000). To prove the loan usurious, the Minority Shareholders offered the testimony of John Evans of Financial Publishing Company, who testified that he made several calculations using the formula, Interest = Principal x Rate x Time (I=PRT).”
Household Fin. Corp. v. Swartz (In Re Swartz), 37 B.R. 776 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1984).
“LAWS § 6-26-2. Count I also urges that Swartz be allowed to recover all payments of principal and interest made to Household Finance Corporation on account of this allegedly illegal loan, pursuant to R.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(c)(l) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(c)(l)(iv) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-2(e) — 3 cases
NV One, LLC v. Potomac Realty Capital, LLC, 84 A.3d 800 (R.I. 2014).
“The defendant asserts that the trial justice erred when he granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability for violation of the usury statute, G.L.1956 § 6-26-2, by declaring the usury savings clause of the parties’ loan agreement unenforceable.”
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.