MBAFB Federal Credit Union v. Jenrette

Supreme Court of South Carolina

MBAFB Federal Credit Union v. Jenrette

294 S.E.2d 431, 278 S.C. 274, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 419

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 23, 1982

Docket21780

StatusPublished

This text of 294 S.E.2d 431 (MBAFB Federal Credit Union v. Jenrette) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MBAFB Federal Credit Union v. Jenrette, 294 S.E.2d 431, 278 S.C. 274, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 419 (S.C. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Lewis, Chief Justice:

Appeal is taken from a judgment of foreclosure entered upon a Master’s Report which denied appellant’s claim of usury. Both the trial judge and master-in-equity found the appellant’s defense of usury to be without merit. We affirm.

The appellant was granted two substantial loans by the respondent credit union which loans he secured by the mortgages at issue. There is no dispute concerning appellant’s default on the debt, but he asserts the defense of usury by way of counterclaim. In asserting usury, of course, appellant assumes the entire burden of proving that defense. Jones v. Godwin, 187 S. C. 510, 524, 198 S. E. 36; Cohen v. Williams, 164 S. C. 499, 502, 162 S. E. 758; 47 C. J. S. Interest and Usury, Section 227. This Court indulges no presumptions in such cases and on the contrary demands strict proof that a usurious rate was imposed. Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. Johns, 208 S. C. 428, 38 S. E. (2d) 387; Jones, supra.

The rate of interest to be charged by the respondent is governed by the provisions of 12 U. S. C. 1757(5)(A). There is no suggestion upon the record of this appeal that either of the loan instruments was usurious on its face. At trial, the appellant relied upon the method of collection used by the respondent as the sole evidence of usury. He advanced three specific occasions when an allegedly excessive charge was posted. These instances were considered and rejected by both the master and trial judge, with ample evidence to sustain their conclusions. These findings are, therefore, [276]*276sustained. Paul v. Boone, 276 S. C. 452, 279 S. E. (2d) 608. We have, moreover, examined the entire record of these loans, a study made difficult by appellant’s sporadic and casual method of payment. We find no evidence that appellant at any time paid unlawfully excessive interest.

The remaining issues raised by this appeal are without merit and are dismissed under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court.

Judgement affirmed.

Littlejohn and Gregory, JJ., and James E. Moore, Acting Associate Justice, concur. Ness, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lewis, Chief Justice:

Appeal is taken from a judgment of foreclosure entered upon a Master’s Report which denied appellant’s claim of usury. Both the trial judge and master-in-equity found the appellant’s defense of usury to be without merit. We affirm.

The appellant was granted two substantial loans by the respondent credit union which loans he secured by the mortgages at issue. There is no dispute concerning appellant’s default on the debt, but he asserts the defense of usury by way of counterclaim. In asserting usury, of course, appellant assumes the entire burden of proving that defense. Jones v. Godwin, 187 S. C. 510, 524, 198 S. E. 36; Cohen v. Williams, 164 S. C. 499, 502, 162 S. E. 758; 47 C. J. S. Interest and Usury, Section 227. This Court indulges no presumptions in such cases and on the contrary demands strict proof that a usurious rate was imposed. Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. Johns, 208 S. C. 428, 38 S. E. (2d) 387; Jones, supra.

The rate of interest to be charged by the respondent is governed by the provisions of 12 U. S. C. 1757(5)(A). There is no suggestion upon the record of this appeal that either of the loan instruments was usurious on its face. At trial, the appellant relied upon the method of collection used by the respondent as the sole evidence of usury. He advanced three specific occasions when an allegedly excessive charge was posted. These instances were considered and rejected by both the master and trial judge, with ample evidence to sustain their conclusions. These findings are, therefore, [276]*276sustained. Paul v. Boone, 276 S. C. 452, 279 S. E. (2d) 608. We have, moreover, examined the entire record of these loans, a study made difficult by appellant’s sporadic and casual method of payment. We find no evidence that appellant at any time paid unlawfully excessive interest.

The remaining issues raised by this appeal are without merit and are dismissed under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court.

Judgement affirmed.

Littlejohn and Gregory, JJ., and James E. Moore, Acting Associate Justice, concur. Ness, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 S.E.2d 431, 278 S.C. 274, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mbafb-federal-credit-union-v-jenrette-sc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack