DocketNumber: No. CV91-504817
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 3265, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 461
Judges: SATTER, STATE TRIAL REFEREE
Filed Date: 4/2/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff asserts that its claim for deficiency judgment cannot be contested by the invocation of the usury CT Page 3266 statutes because the mortgage at issue here, being in excess of $5,000, is unaffected by the usury statutes under C.G.S.
The provisions of Sections
37-4 (see supra),37-5 and37-6 shall not affect . . . (3) any bona fide mortgage of real property for a sum in excess of $5,000. C.G.S.37-9 .
The plaintiff is right that his mortgage is exempt from the usury statutes. But there is a distinction between plaintiff's rights under the mortgage and under the note secured by the mortgage. As the Supreme Court noted in Atlas Realty Corp. v. House,
"A note and a mortgage given to secure it are separate instruments, executed for different purposes and in this State action for foreclosure of the mortgage and upon the note are regarded and treated in practice, as separate and distinct causes of action, although both may be pursued in a foreclosure suit."
Our courts have interpreted the exemption in C.G.S.
The question here is whether or not
". . . the deficiency judgment procedure, although procedurally a part of the foreclosure action, serves the separate function of providing for CT Page 3267 recovery of the balance of the note which is not satisfied by the strict foreclosure. . . . The deficiency judgment procedure is the functional equivalent of a suit on the note to which the usury statutes would apply. We conclude, therefore, usury is a defense in a deficiency judgment proceeding, and that the trial court was in error in precluding it."
Maresca at 696.
Plaintiff contends further, that even if usury is a defense to a deficiency judgment, it lacks the unlawful intent required under Connecticut law to constitute a violation of C.G.S.
As mentioned above, Maresca notes that "in some circumstances, a lender can evade the usury bar by showing that he had no intent to extract more than the lawful rate of interest." Maresca at 696 (citing Mutual Protective Corp. v. Palatnick,
If a law, which applies to this loan and which sets maximum loan charges, is finally interpreted so that the interest or other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with this loan exceed the permitted limits, then: (i) any such loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and (ii) any sums already collected from me (the borrower) which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to me (the borrower). (parentheticals added).
While this disclaimer or "savings clause" appears to negate any intent to extract a usurious rate of interest at the time the note was drafted, the plaintiff's subsequent actual demand and acceptance of the 12.5% rate of interest reveals a different intent after the note was executed. Its Affidavit of Debt at the time of foreclosure calculates the amount due at the usurious rate. This may be excusable as to the foreclosure, because C.G.S.
The Golden court held that even if a creditor had no unlawful intent to commit usury when the note was originally signed, when the same creditor actually accepted payments in excess of those allowed by law, his action was per se usurious and "cannot be condoned by any declaration of lack of intent to violate the law." Golden, supra, at 27 (citing Atlas Realty Corporation v. House,
Connecticut courts have not confronted the question whether a savings clause such as the one at issue here will protect a creditor from usury sanctions after the creditor has in fact made a demand or charge for usurious interest.
Other jurisdictions are divided over whether the existence of a usury savings clause will insulate the lender from usury sanctions in such a situation. Texas courts have repeatedly acknowledged the validity of usury savings clauses and enforced such clauses to defeat a violation of the usury laws. Woodcrest Assoc., Ltd. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp.,
On the other hand, the North Carolina Supreme Court recently held in Swindell v. Federal Nat'l Mortgage Assoc.,
This court finds the reasoning in Swindell persuasive. CT Page 3269 Connecticut's usury statute has the same basis in public policy, namely to protect borrowers. Golden v. Lyons, clearly implements that policy by holding that when a lender "actually charged, demanded or accepted interest in excess of the legal 12 percent, his action was per se usurious and cannot be condoned by any declaration of lack of intent to violate the law."
Here, plaintiff demanded interest at usurious rate in this deficiency judgment procedure. That was usury, and the savings clause in the note does not excuse the offense.
This interpretation has particular force in a case such as this where the creditor has already received title to the property, which was appraised at more than the original debt cited in the plaintiff's complaint.2 Therefore, the plaintiff only forfeits its rights to a deficiency consisting almost entirely of post-litigation costs. While the usury statutes in Connecticut are particularly severe,3 this Court believes that the interpretation that an actual charge or demand for usurious interest after the mortgage foreclosure, reveals a usurious intent and bars a deficiency judgment, notwithstanding the existence of a savings clause in the contract.
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby denies the plaintiff's motion for Deficiency Judgment.
Robert Satter State Trial Referee
Golden v. Lyons , 151 Conn. 21 ( 1963 )
Mutual Protective Corporation v. Palatnick , 118 Conn. 1 ( 1934 )
Tanner Development Co. v. Ferguson , 561 S.W.2d 777 ( 1977 )
Swindell v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n , 330 N.C. 153 ( 1991 )
Atlas Realty Corp. v. House , 123 Conn. 94 ( 1937 )