Court Opinion

ID: 9684944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:19:04.031761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:17.216394
License: Public Domain

SPEARS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
With this opinion, the court has approved what the jury correctly found was a device or subterfuge to evade the laws prohibiting usury. That it was a subterfuge is not and cannot be denied. This court has previously allowed fees of all sorts to be charged, saying they were not “interest.” See Stedman v. Georgetown Savings & Loan Ass’n, 595 S.W.2d 486 (Tex.1979) (Spears dissenting). In no other area of the law but usury do the courts approve a subterfuge to evade the law. But here they do, and the majority goes to great pains (and indeed they must) to justify the fiction.
KILGARLIN, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.