Court Opinion

ID: 9516148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:35:48.254689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:40.529019
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
concurring.
This case involves a $150,000 land loan made by the defendant to Northport Properties, Inc., a corporation owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was liable on the note as an endorser. This action was brought to recover what was alleged to have been usurious interest paid to the defendant.
The only issue of any importance in the appeal is whether the Installment Loan Act was applicable. Since the loan had been repaid in full before the action was *183commenced, there could be no recovery of interest paid, even if it had been usurious under the general interest statute. The plaintiff attempted to recover on the theory that the Installment Loan Act was applicable. The majority opinion correctly holds that the Installment Loan Act has no application to a transaction of this nature.
The Installment Loan Act authorizes persons licensed under the act to loan not to exceed $3,000 at rates in excess of 9 percent per annum in accordance with the requirements and conditions specified in the act. The act contemplates a “small” loan where the risk is great and the expense under conventional rates prohibitive. The act was never intended to apply to nonlioensees who make loans in the traditional manner at conventional rates such as amortized real estate loans. Pattavina v. Pignotti, 177 Neb. 217, 128 N. W. 2d 817.
Although the act applies to loans made by nonlicensees at rates which would be authorized if the lenders were licensed under the act, it has no application to loans made by a nonlicensee which are not within the scope or contemplation of the act.
Clinton, J., joins in this concurrence.