Tex. Codes » Finance Code · TITLE 4. REGULATION OF INTEREST, LOANS, AND FINANCED TRANSACTIONS · SUBTITLE A. INTEREST · CHAPTER 302. INTEREST RATES
Texas Codes

Tex. Fin. Code § 302.001 (2026)

Contracting For, Charging, Or Receiving Interest Or Time Price Differential; Usurious Interest

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 302.001. CONTRACTING FOR, CHARGING, OR RECEIVING INTEREST OR TIME PRICE DIFFERENTIAL; USURIOUS INTEREST. (a) A creditor may contract for, charge, and receive from an obligor interest or time price differential.

(b) The maximum rate or amount of interest is 10 percent a year except as otherwise provided by law. A greater rate of interest than 10 percent a year is usurious unless otherwise provided by law. All contracts for usurious interest are contrary to public policy and subject to the appropriate penalty prescribed by Chapter 305.

(c) To determine the interest rate of a loan under this subtitle, all interest at any time contracted for shall be aggregated and amortized using the actuarial method during the stated term of the loan.

(d) In addition to interest authorized by Subsection (b), a loan providing for a rate of interest that is 10 percent a year or less may provide for a delinquency charge on the amount of any payment in default for a period of not less than 10 days in an amount not to exceed the greater of five percent of the amount of the payment or $7.50. The charging of the delinquency charge does not make the loan subject to Chapter 342 or any other provision of Subtitle B.

Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 7.18(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 916, Sec. 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “As stated in the Note, CPCWA is a third party providing credit services, and Ritemoney is a lender charging ten percent interest under Texas Financial Code Section 302.001. 34 The usury statutes and CSOA work in harmony, permitting a CSO to charge a brokerage fee in connection…”
Fairfield Ins. Co. v. Stephens Martin Paving, LP, 246 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008). · cites it 2× “In other cases, the Legislature has decided that public policy requires certain conditions be met before an agreement may be enforceable.”
Strasburger Enter., Inc. v. TDGT Ltd. P'ship, 110 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. §§ 302.001, .002, 305.”
Tully v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 173 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App. 2005). “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 302.001(b) (Vernon Supp.”
Sturm v. Muens, 224 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “XVI, § 11; TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. §§ 302.001(b), 305.001-.”
All Seasons Window & Door Mfg., Inc. v. Red Dot Corp., 181 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. App. 2005). “” Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 302.001(b) (Vernon Supp.”
Express Working Capital, LLC v. Starving Students, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 3d 660 (N.D. Tex. 2014). · cites it 3× “See Tex. Fin.Code §§ 302.001(c), 305.001. In general, a transaction is usurious if it is a loan of money that requires a greater interest than allowed by law.”
Anderson v. Chainani (In Re Kemper), 263 B.R. 773 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001). · cites it 2× “9 The Legislature has exer *781 cised that authority through what is now codified in Texas Finance Code § 302.001, which declares that all contracts for usurious interest “are contrary to public policy and subject to the appropriate penalty prescribed by Chapter 305” 10 and that…”
Bair Chase Prop. Co. v. S & K Dev. Co., 260 S.W.3d 133 (Tex. App. 2008). “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 302.001 (West 2006) (setting maximum rate at 10% except as otherwise provided by law), § 303.”
Motten v. Chase Home Fin., 831 F. Supp. 2d 988 (S.D. Tex. 2011). “*999 The proposed amended pleading expressly asserts twelve causes of action against Defendants: (1) RESPA; (2) retaliation for making a RESPA complaint; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of good faith and fair dealing; (6) violation of the Texas…”
Rivera v. AT & T CORP., 141 F. Supp. 2d 719 (S.D. Tex. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Tex.Fin.Code § 302.001; Rimco Enterprises, Inc.”
Kennon v. McGraw, 281 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App. 2009). “Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 302.001(d) (Vernon 2006) allows the trust *653 to charge the greater of five percent of the payment or $7.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Tex. Fin. Code § 302.001(a)(b) — 1 case
Korrody v. Miller, 126 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App. 2003).
— Tex. Fin. Code § 302.001(b) — 12 cases
Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004). “As stated in the Note, CPCWA is a third party providing credit services, and Ritemoney is a lender charging ten percent interest under Texas Financial Code Section 302.001. 34 The usury statutes and CSOA work in harmony, permitting a CSO to charge a brokerage fee in connection…”
Tully v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 173 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. App. 2005). “See Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 302.001(b) (Vernon Supp.”
Sturm v. Muens, 224 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App. 2007). “XVI, § 11; TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. §§ 302.001(b), 305.001-.”
All Seasons Window & Door Mfg., Inc. v. Red Dot Corp., 181 S.W.3d 490 (Tex. App. 2005). “” Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 302.001(b) (Vernon Supp.”
Threlkeld v. Urech, 329 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. App. 2011).
— Tex. Fin. Code § 302.001(c) — 3 cases
Express Working Capital, LLC v. Starving Students, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 3d 660 (N.D. Tex. 2014). “See Tex. Fin.Code §§ 302.001(c), 305.001. In general, a transaction is usurious if it is a loan of money that requires a greater interest than allowed by law.”
Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Benamou (N.D. Tex. 2021).
Tammy Tran & Tammy Tran Attorneys at Law, L.P. & Intervenor Adam Tran v. Tony Buzbee (Tex. App. 2025).
— Tex. Fin. Code § 302.001(d) — 1 case
Kennon v. McGraw, 281 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App. 2009). “Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 302.001(d) (Vernon 2006) allows the trust *653 to charge the greater of five percent of the payment or $7.”
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.