Court Opinion

ID: 9593101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:19:31.547073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:07.085825
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion. I was concerned that another rule of statutory *496construction, not cited in that opinion, may be applicable, i.e., we will construe statutes to avoid an absurd and ludicrous result. E.g., Larson v. Wells County Water Resource Bd., 385 N.W.2d 480 (N.D.1986). Although it may seem absurd to prohibit the compounding of interest when that compounding does not result in a rate in excess of that prohibited by the usury statutes, there apparently are some instances in which the courts, as a matter of public policy, have determined compounding of interest is invalid. 45 Am.Jur.2d 70, Interest and Usury, Sec. 77; 37 A.L.R. 325, 327. There may be reasons other than the amount of interest charged which would cause the Legislature to prohibit compounding of interest, such as clearly identifying for the borrower the amount of interest required to be paid under the agreement. The result reached by the majority opinion is therefore not an absurd result.
LEVINE, J., concurs.