Court Opinion

ID: 9702228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:02:08.415019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:35.313192
License: Public Domain

HOOD, Associate Judge
(concurring).
In my opinion there are many facts in this case strongly indicative of usury. First and foremost, plaintiff received by way of credit in payment for his house the sum of $2,760 for which he eventually paid defendant $3,450 plus 6% interest. In the second place, the note was dated the same date the settlement took place and I think it can be assumed that the two endorsements on the note were made the same day because the credit was made on that day. In other words, it appears to have been one transaction. Certain pertinent questions in the case stand unanswered. Defendant says he made ño' loan but instead purchased a note. From whom did he purchase? Why was the note made payable to Key, the broker? Why did Key endorse the note to Sligo Hills Corporation? Was Key ever the owner of the note ? Did the corporation, become the actual owner of the note ? Did the corporation and plaintiff agree that the price of the property should be increased when it was learned that plaintiff would have to give a second trust note as part payment? Did the corporation take the note as part payment for the house and then sell the note at a discount to defendant? At whose instruction was. the note marked as given for “money loaned.”
The issue in this case is whether defendant made a bona fide purchase of a note at a discount or whether under the guise of ¡buying a note he actually made a direct and usurious loan. The facts in the case were not fully developed and somewhat reluctantly I reach the conclusion that since the burden of proving usury was on the plaintiff, it was permissible for the trial court to find that plaintiff did not sustain that ■burden. Accordingly I concur in the result of the court’s opinion.