(a) Every contract made in violation of any of the provisions of § 6-26-2, and every mortgage, pledge, deposit, or assignment made or given as security for
the performance of the contract, shall be usurious and void.
(b) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the rights of an endorsee or transferee
of a negotiable instrument who purchases the instrument before maturity, for value,
and without notice of its usurious character.
(c) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the rights, duties or liabilities of
any persons acting under the provisions of title 19, and if the borrower shall, either
before or after suit, make any payment on the contract, either of principal or interest,
or of any part of either, and whether to the lender or to any assignee, endorsee,
or transferee of the contract, the borrower shall be entitled to recover from the
lender the amount so paid in an action of the case. Receipts shall be given whenever
payments are made of either principal or interest.
(d) The provisions previously stated in this section shall not apply to any financial
institution and its subsidiaries, credit union, or bank holding company and its subsidiaries,
organized under the laws of the state; any other entity regulated by the department
of business regulation; a national bank and its subsidiaries; federal savings and
loan association or federal credit union; or a bank, company, or association collectively
and individually referred to as a regulated financial institution. In the event a
regulated financial institution knowingly contracts or charges a usurious rate of
interest in violation of any of the provisions of § 6-26-2, it shall forfeit the entire interest on the debt. In case the usurious rate of interest
has been paid, the person by whom it has been paid, or his or her legal representative,
may recover from the regulated financial institution in an action in the nature of
an action on the debt, twice the amount of the interest so paid, provided that the
action is commenced within two (2) years from the time the usurious transaction occurred.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1964–2021 · leading case:
Sheehan v. Richardson, 315 B.R. 226 (D.R.I. 2004).
Sheehan v. Richardson, 315 B.R. 226 (D.R.I. 2004).
· cites it 7× “R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-4 (1995). Under Rhode Island law, if it is shown that Appellants acted in concert in (1) making the loan, (2) demanding payment on the loan, and (3) achieving receipt of funds in excess of the 21 percent maximum interest rate, a case of usury has been made…”
Bank of New York v. Hoyt, 617 F. Supp. 1304 (D.R.I. 1985).
· cites it 4× “As a result of the usurious interest charged by the Bank as alleged in paragraph 18, Hoyt, as a limited partner of BCDC, is entitled under R.I.Gen.Laws § 6-26-4 to recover his partnership share of the interest and principal paid by BCDC on the Mortgage Note.”
Household Fin. Corp. v. Swartz (In Re Swartz), 37 B.R. 776 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1984).
· cites it 3× “LAWS § 6-26-4. The dispositive question is: Does the collection or retention of a recording or filing fee by a lender who has already charged the maximum legal rate of interest render the transaction usurious under Rhode Island law? FACTS The facts are undisputed.”
Opella v. Opella, 896 A.2d 714 (R.I. 2006).
“Any contract in which the yearly interest rate exceeds this maximum permissible rate is expressly declared void by § 6-26-4(a). The promissory note at issue in this case, however, clearly stated a rate of interest of 12 percent per annum on its face.”
DeFusco v. Giorgio, 440 A.2d 727 (R.I. 1982).
“Any contract in which the yearly interest rate exceeds the maximum permissible rate set by the Legislature is expressly declared void by § 6-26-4. This statute not only affords borrowers relief from the obligations of usurious agreements but also entitles them to recover any…”
Boyajian v. DeLuca (In Re Remington Dev. Grp., Inc.), 180 B.R. 365 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1995).
“John Boyajian, who was subsequently appointed Chapter 11 trustee, initiated this ad *367 versary proceeding against Shirley DeLuca (“DeLuca”), objecting to her claim, seeking a declaration that Remington received funds from her in usurious loan transactions per Rhode Island…”
Rowell v. Kaplan, 235 A.2d 91 (R.I. 1967).
“Such a payment is a prerequisite to an action at law for usury under §6-26-4. Without it the action which the legislature provided for will not lie.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-4(a) — 3 cases
Sheehan v. Richardson, 315 B.R. 226 (D.R.I. 2004).
“R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-4 (1995). Under Rhode Island law, if it is shown that Appellants acted in concert in (1) making the loan, (2) demanding payment on the loan, and (3) achieving receipt of funds in excess of the 21 percent maximum interest rate, a case of usury has been made…”
Opella v. Opella, 896 A.2d 714 (R.I. 2006).
“Any contract in which the yearly interest rate exceeds this maximum permissible rate is expressly declared void by § 6-26-4(a). The promissory note at issue in this case, however, clearly stated a rate of interest of 12 percent per annum on its face.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-26-4(c) — 3 cases
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.