The contract was signed by appellee, Paul Akin, and Tina Akin. Appellee moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted, arguing that usury is an affirmative defense rather than a cause of action, that, due to the lack of appellee's written consent, there was not a valid assignment of the contract from the Akins to appellants, that the Akins are necessary parties to this action, that there is a pending case between these parties in municipal court on appellee's complaint for unlawful detainer, and that appellants should respond in that court. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling appellants had stated sufficient facts to permit the court's denial of the motion. After a bench trial in which the only witnesses were appellee and appellants, the trial court announced its ruling from the bench. The written judgment and decree was entered in accordance with that ruling.
Appellants raise five points for reversal on direct appeal.
We affirm on direct appeal and do not reach the contingent cross-appeal. We review chancery cases de novo, and do not reverse the chancellor's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Chancellors have broad powers to fashion any remedy that is reasonable and justified by the proof. As their first point for reversal, appellants contend that, in addition to recovering twice the amount of interest they paid under the contract to appellee, they are also entitled to recover twice the amount of interest paid by their assignors, Paul and Tina Akin. Appellants cite Ark. Code Ann.