12 U.S.C. § 86
Usurious interest; penalty for taking; limitations
The taking, receiving, reserving, or charging a rate of interest greater than is allowed by section 85 of this title, when knowingly done, shall be deemed a forfeiture of the entire interest which the note, bill, or other evidence of debt carries with it, or which has been agreed to be paid thereon. In case the greater rate of interest has been paid, the person by whom it has been paid, or his legal representatives, may recover back, in an action in the nature of an action of debt, twice the amount of the interest thus paid from the association taking or receiving the same: Provided, That such action is commenced within two years from the time the usurious transaction occurred.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 164
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1911–2024 · leading case: Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003).
Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003). “§ 5198, 12 U. S. C. § 86 , provides the exclusive remedies available against a national bank charging excessive interest, [2] and that the removal statute, 28 U.”
Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980). “See 12 U. S. C. § 86 . [16] The Act provides that rules of procedure promulgated by this Court "shall not .”
Est. of Joseph Maglioli v. All. HC Holdings, LLC, 16 F.4th 393 (3rd Cir. 2021). “See 12 U.S.C. § 86 ; 29 U.S.C. §§ 185 (a), 1132(a)(1)(B).”
M. Nahas & Co., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Hot Springs, 930 F.2d 608 (1st Cir. 1991). “The district court held that plaintiffs usury claim against a national bank must necessarily be characterized as federal, that defendant had properly removed the case from state court, and that plaintiffs action was barred by the two year statute of limitations for usury actions…”
Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat'l Bank, Jack Farber & Richard Gelman, 755 F.2d 239 (2d Cir. 1985). “1983-1984) and *242 that counts 2 and 4 either were barred by the two-year statute of limitations provided by 12 U.S.C. § 86 or were brought under provisions that gave Durante no standing to sue.”
Briarpatch Ltd., L.P., Gerard F. Rubin v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., Michael Medavoy, Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., Terence Malick, 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004). “§ 85 , specifies the substantive limits on the rates of interest that national banks may charge, while § 86 of the Act, 12 U.S.C. § 86 , sets forth the elements, statute of limitations, and remedies for usury claims against national banks.”
William S. Walters, Jr. v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A. Memphis, 855 F.2d 267 (1st Cir. 1988). “00 loan was paid on November 2, 1979, and thus any usury claim on that loan was barred by the two year statute of limitations set forth in 12 U.S.C. § 86 . The bond issue was alleged to have been “tainted” because Walters claimed that Ten Tex paid not only the 9% bond rate of…”
Joyce Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Co., 701 F.3d 243 (8th Cir. 2012). “12 U.S.C. § 86 . In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.”
First Nat'l Bank in Mena, Cross-Appellee v. Jack A. Nowlin, Cross-Appellant, 509 F.2d 872 (1st Cir. 1975). “After the Bank accelerated both notes and filed suit, Nowlin counterclaimed for forfeiture of both the principal of the notes and interest as provided by Arkansas law, or a penalty of twice the amount of interest paid, pursuant to the sanctions of 12 U.S.C. § 86 (1970). The…”
Grace Lontz Beverly Pettit v. Joyce Tharp Elizabeth Doak James Baish Sandeep Thakrar Monica, Llc, D/B/A Holiday Inn Express, 413 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2005). “And the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 86 (2000), provides a cause of action for “a usury claim against a national bank.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., as Liquidator for the Hamilton Nat'l Bank of Chattanooga v. Lattimore Land Corp., 656 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1981). “They claim that the entire interest must be forfeited under the usury penalty of 12 U.S.C. § 86 . They contend that Hamilton National Bank’s acceptance of a partial assignment of the note brings that Act into operation because the bank charged and reserved the interest in…”
Nelson v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 794 F. Supp. 312 (D. Minnesota 1992). “The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiff’s usury claim was necessarily federal, that defendant had properly removed the case from state court, and that plaintiff’s action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations for usury actions under 12…”
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.