Sec. 305.006. LIMITATION ON FILING SUIT. (a) An action under this chapter must be brought within four years after the date on which the usurious interest was contracted for, charged, or received. The action must be brought in the county in which:
(1) the transaction was entered into;
(2) the usurious interest was charged or received;
(3) the creditor resides at the time of the cause of action, if the creditor is an individual;
(4) the creditor maintains its principal office, if the creditor is not an individual; or
(5) the obligor resides at the time of the accrual of the cause of action.
(b) Not later than the 61st day before the date an obligor files a suit seeking penalties for a transaction in which a creditor has contracted for, charged, or received usurious interest, the obligor shall give the creditor written notice stating in reasonable detail the nature and amount of the violation.
(c) A creditor who receives a notice under this section may correct the violation as provided by Section 305.103 during the period beginning on the date the notice is received and ending on the 60th day after that date. A creditor who corrects a violation as provided by this section is not liable to an obligor for the violation.
(d) With respect to a defendant filing a counterclaim action alleging usurious interest in an original action by the creditor, the defendant shall provide notice complying with Subsection (b) at the time of filing the counterclaim and, on application of the creditor to the court, the action is subject to abatement for a period of 60 days from the date of the court order. During the abatement period the creditor may correct a violation. As part of the correction of the violation, the creditor shall offer to pay the obligor's reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court based on the hours reasonably expended by the obligor's counsel with regard to the alleged violation before the abatement. A creditor who corrects a violation as provided by this subsection is not liable to an obligor for the violation.
Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 7.18(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1999.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1018 (H.B. 955), Sec. 2.07, eff. September 1, 2005.
Notes of Decisions
Sotelo v. Interstate Fin. Corp., 224 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 305.006 (c). It is also our opinion that the Legislature’s goal in enacting these provisions was to encourage creditors to amend usurious contracts in the borrower’s favor.”
Anderson v. Chainani (In Re Kemper), 263 B.R. 773 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001).
“103, a more recent amendment to Texas law offers an offending party yet another opportunity to escape liability for a usury violation by issuing a post-notice correction under the provisions of Tex. Fin. Code § 305.006(c). That statute, adopted in 1999, 19 releases the offending…”
Ries v. Ardinger (In re Adkins Supply, Inc.), 555 B.R. 579 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016).
“The Agreed Order First, as for the Agreed Order, 21 such order was entered in response to defendants’ earlier motion to abate, which asked the Court to delay the proceeding so Trustee could give Mary Ardinger proper notice before filing a usury claim, as required by Texas…”
Neubaum v. Stanfield, 465 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App. 2015).
“See Tex. Fin.Code Ann § 305.006(c) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.”
Hayes v. EK Real Est. Servs. of NY, LLC (N.D. Tex. 2022).
· cites it 2× “505; TEX. FIN. CODE § 305.006. The Court granted the Motion to Abate and entered an order abating all proceedings and deadlines until April 24, 2022, to permit Plaintiffs to comply with the applicable notice requirements.”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 305.006(a) — 2 cases
Sotelo v. Interstate Fin. Corp., 224 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App. 2007).
“Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 305.006 (c). It is also our opinion that the Legislature’s goal in enacting these provisions was to encourage creditors to amend usurious contracts in the borrower’s favor.”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 305.006(b) — 4 cases
Sotelo v. Interstate Fin. Corp., 224 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App. 2007).
“Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 305.006 (c). It is also our opinion that the Legislature’s goal in enacting these provisions was to encourage creditors to amend usurious contracts in the borrower’s favor.”
Ries v. Ardinger (In re Adkins Supply, Inc.), 555 B.R. 579 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016).
“The Agreed Order First, as for the Agreed Order, 21 such order was entered in response to defendants’ earlier motion to abate, which asked the Court to delay the proceeding so Trustee could give Mary Ardinger proper notice before filing a usury claim, as required by Texas…”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 305.006(c) — 5 cases
Sotelo v. Interstate Fin. Corp., 224 S.W.3d 517 (Tex. App. 2007).
“Tex. Fin. Code Ann. § 305.006 (c). It is also our opinion that the Legislature’s goal in enacting these provisions was to encourage creditors to amend usurious contracts in the borrower’s favor.”
Anderson v. Chainani (In Re Kemper), 263 B.R. 773 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2001).
“103, a more recent amendment to Texas law offers an offending party yet another opportunity to escape liability for a usury violation by issuing a post-notice correction under the provisions of Tex. Fin. Code § 305.006(c). That statute, adopted in 1999, 19 releases the offending…”
Neubaum v. Stanfield, 465 S.W.3d 266 (Tex. App. 2015).
“See Tex. Fin.Code Ann § 305.006(c) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.”
— Tex. Fin. Code § 305.006(d) — 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.