Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117 (2026)
Usury or excessive charges - Contracts
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) Any contract which on its face requires the payment of usury or excess loan charges, commitment fees, or brokerage commissions shall not be enforceable; but the original lender or creditor may sue to recover the principal actually advanced, plus lawful interest, loan charges, commitment fees, and brokerage commissions.
- (b) Where usury or excess loan charges, commitment fees or brokerage commissions do not appear on the face of the contract, but are proved, only the principal, plus lawful interest, loan charges, commitment fees, and brokerage commissions may be recovered.
- (c)
- (1) Where, however, the court finds that the lender or creditor has been guilty of unconscionable conduct in a transaction by taking interest, loan charges, commitment fees, or brokerage commissions in excess of the limitations fixed by statute, that lender or creditor shall not be entitled to recover any interest, loan charges, commitment fees, or brokerage commissions with respect to that transaction, and shall be required to refund to the borrower or debtor any loan charges, commitment fees, or brokerage commissions, and twice the amount of any interest collected with respect to that transaction, and the borrower shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from the lender.
- (2) As used in this subsection (c), "unconscionable conduct" includes, but is not limited to, any calculated violation of statutory limitations on interest, loan charges, commitment fees, or brokerage commissions with full awareness of those limitations.
Acts 1979, ch. 203, § 16.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Bank of Crockett v. Cullipher, 752 S.W.2d 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988).
Bank of Crockett v. Cullipher, 752 S.W.2d 84 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). “Lastly, Defendant contends that Bank violated T.C.A. § 47-14-117, and in so doing was guilty of unconscionable conduct by charging usurious interest and excessive loan charges.”
Hathaway v. First Fam. Fin. Servs., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 1999). “As a result, the plaintiffs sought “the full array of remedies provided in T.C.A. § 47-14-117 (1995).” The complaint also alleged that the excessive service charge constituted fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violated the Federal Truth in Lending Act,…”
Craig v. Union Cnty. Bank (In Re Crabtree), 48 B.R. 528 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1985). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-117(a) (1984). ' I An involuntary chapter 7 petition was filed against David A.”
Lucius v. Bayside First Mortg., Inc., 43 F. Supp. 2d 868 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). “Bayside asserts that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages because T.C.A. § 47-14-117 provides Plaintiffs exclusive remedy.”
Foster Bus. Park, LLC v. J & B Investments, LLC, 269 S.W.3d 50 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “In the Complaint, the plaintiff contends that two defendants engaged in unconscionable conduct under Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-117(c) and unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.”
In Re Apple Tree Partners, L.P., 131 B.R. 380 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1991). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-14-117(c). Further, the debtor’s usury attack is undercut by Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-14-115, which provides that one asserting an equitable usury remedy must first pay the lender or tender into court the principal plus lawful interest and loan…”
Bandy v. Roberts (E.D. Tenn. 2022). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117 (c)(1). “‘[U]nconscionable conduct’ includes, but is not limited to, any calculated violation of statutory limitations on interest, loan charges, commitment fees, or brokerage commissions with full awareness of those limitations.”
Sake, LLC v. Cain (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “Count Three: Civil Conspiracy The moving defendants argue that Count Three, the state law civil conspiracy claim, must be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not alleged a predicate underlying tort. They argue that the usury claim in Count One, on which the conspiracy claim…”
Sake, LLC v. Cain (M.D. Tenn. 2025). “The SAC alleges that the defendants “engaged in unconscionable conduct” by knowingly charging and collecting usurious interest and that, under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117 , they are entitled to recover twice the amount of interest collected.”
Robinson v. Serra Chevrolet Buick GMC of Nashville (M.D. Tenn. 2021). “§ 1681s–2; (3) fraud; (4) usury under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117 ; (5) violation of Mich.”
Robinson v. Serra Chevrolet Buick GMC of Nashville (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “) His state law claims include claims for common law fraud, usury under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117 , and an illegal interest rate under Mich.”
Charlene C. Bradford v. Josh Terry (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 47-14-117(c) (2013). And she claimed that the transaction should be rescinded under TILA.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117(a) — 1 case
Craig v. Union Cnty. Bank (In Re Crabtree), 48 B.R. 528 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1985). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-117(a) (1984). ' I An involuntary chapter 7 petition was filed against David A.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117(c) — 4 cases
Foster Bus. Park, LLC v. J & B Investments, LLC, 269 S.W.3d 50 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “In the Complaint, the plaintiff contends that two defendants engaged in unconscionable conduct under Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-14-117(c) and unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.”
Hathaway v. First Fam. Fin. Servs., Inc., 1 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 1999). “As a result, the plaintiffs sought “the full array of remedies provided in T.C.A. § 47-14-117 (1995).” The complaint also alleged that the excessive service charge constituted fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violated the Federal Truth in Lending Act,…”
In Re Apple Tree Partners, L.P., 131 B.R. 380 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1991). “Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-14-117(c). Further, the debtor’s usury attack is undercut by Tennessee Code Annotated § 47-14-115, which provides that one asserting an equitable usury remedy must first pay the lender or tender into court the principal plus lawful interest and loan…”
Charlene C. Bradford v. Josh Terry (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 47-14-117(c) (2013). And she claimed that the transaction should be rescinded under TILA.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117(c)(1) — 1 case
Sake, LLC v. Cain (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “Count Three: Civil Conspiracy The moving defendants argue that Count Three, the state law civil conspiracy claim, must be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not alleged a predicate underlying tort. They argue that the usury claim in Count One, on which the conspiracy claim…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117(c)(2) — 1 case
Sake, LLC v. Cain (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “Count Three: Civil Conspiracy The moving defendants argue that Count Three, the state law civil conspiracy claim, must be dismissed because the plaintiffs have not alleged a predicate underlying tort. They argue that the usury claim in Count One, on which the conspiracy claim…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117(c)(l) — 1 case
Lucius v. Bayside First Mortg., Inc., 43 F. Supp. 2d 868 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). “Bayside asserts that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages because T.C.A. § 47-14-117 provides Plaintiffs exclusive remedy.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-14-117(e)(l) — 1 case
Lucius v. Bayside First Mortg., Inc., 43 F. Supp. 2d 868 (W.D. Tenn. 1999). “Bayside asserts that Plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages because T.C.A. § 47-14-117 provides Plaintiffs exclusive remedy.”
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.