UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

QUESTECH FINANCIAL, LLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ASHWIN TRIVEDI; MEENA TRIVEDI,

Defendants-Appellees,  No. 03-2444

and

SHREE HARIJI, INCORPORATED; AMMA,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-03-470)

Submitted: June 30, 2004

Decided: July 27, 2004

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges,

and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam

opinion. 

COUNSEL

Christopher Todd McGee, TAVENNER & BERAN, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Ashwin Trivedi, Meena Trivedi,

Appellees Pro Se. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Questech Financial, LLC, appeals from the district court’s orders

granting partial default judgment in its favor and denying its motion

to alter or amend the judgment. For the reasons that follow, we vacate

the district court’s orders and remand with instructions to enter judgment including the default interest rate of 18 percent as stated in the

loan agreement entered into by the parties. 

In August 2002, Questech loaned $646,000 to Shree Hariji, Inc.,

Amma, Inc., Ashwin Trivedi, and Meena Trivedi (the "Borrowers").

The Progress Funding Rider ("Rider") attached to the Note and Security Agreement ("Agreement") provided for interest at the rate of 12.75

per cent per annum. The Rider also provided that, in the event of

default by the Borrowers, interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum

would accrue on any unpaid principal amount due and owing at the

time of default until paid in full. The Borrowers defaulted on the loan

in March 2003 and Questech filed the underlying suit in district court

on May 30, 2003. The Borrowers failed to respond to the complaint

and Questech subsequently filed a motion for default judgment. At a

hearing on the default judgment motion, Questech stated that it sought

accrued interest of $6,210.96, as well as default interest, pursuant to

the terms of the loan agreement, in the amount of $70,728.94. At the

conclusion of the hearing, during which Questech’s attorney stated—

erroneously—that Questech sought total interest at the rate of 30 percent, the district court granted Questech’s motion for default judgment but refused to provide any default interest. Questech’s motion

to alter or amend the judgment to add the default interest was also

denied. Questech noted a timely appeal.*

*Shree Hariji, Inc., and Amma, Inc., have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code; therefore, the action is

stayed against these two Defendants pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (2000).

2 QUESTECH FINANCIAL v. TRIVEDI
The Agreement provides that Connecticut law applies. See Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (1995) (upholding a choice-of-law provision and arbitration clause in a form

customer agreement); see also Barnes Group, Inc. v. C&C Prods.,

Inc., 716 F.2d 1023, 1029 n.10 (4th Cir. 1983) (noting that "parties

enjoy full autonomy to choose controlling law with regard to matters

within their contractual capacity," citing Restatement (Second) of

Conflicts § 187(1) (1971)). 

The Rider provides for a default interest rate of 18 percent. The

district court’s refusal to recognize this part of the contract constituted

an impermissible revision of the contract. See Guaranty Bank and

Trust Co. v. Dowling, 494 A.2d 1216 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). In that

case, the Connecticut appellate court found that the trial court erred

in failing to award default interest or attorney’s fees, as provided for

in the contract, noting:

Whether interest is a proper element of damages is primarily

an equitable determination and is a matter which lies within

the discretion of the trial court . . . . Where, on the other

hand, the parties have expressly contracted for the payment

of interest, the court does not have this latitude. Where the

payment of interest is contractually agreed upon, interest is

recoverable. 

Id. at 1221. See also Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Napert-Boyer, 671

A.2d 1303 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996) (recognizing validity of default

interest rate agreed to by the parties but disallowing late fees in addition to the default interest). Because the Rider expressly provides for

a special default interest rate, the district court erred in refusing to

apply its terms. 

At the hearing on the default judgment motion, Questech’s attorney

argued that the default interest was in addition to the 12.75 percent

interest, resulting in a total effective interest rate of 30 percent. However, a review of Questech’s interest calculation submitted with its

supplemental affidavit in support of the default judgment motion

reveals that Questech did not calculate the interest at 30 percent.

Rather, interest claimed was as follows: $6,210.96 for interest accruing prior to default, for the month of February 2003, at 12.75 percent;

QUESTECH FINANCIAL v. TRIVEDI 3
plus $70,728.94 for interest on the outstanding principal accruing

after default and up to the date of judgment, at 18 percent. 

The district court denied Questech’s request for default interest

because it believed that a 30 percent interest rate was usurious. While

we express no opinion as to whether such an interest rate would violate Connecticut’s usury laws, we find that the 18 percent interest rate

in this case does not violate the Connecticut usury statute. See Conn.

Gen. Stat. § 37-9(4) (exempting from usury statute business loans in

excess of $10,000). 

We therefore vacate the district court’s orders and remand with

instructions to enter judgment including the default interest as provided in the Rider. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. 

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

4 QUESTECH FINANCIAL v. TRIVEDI