United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner

619 P.2d 1156, 228 Kan. 633, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 364
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedDecember 6, 1980
Docket50,807
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 619 P.2d 1156 (United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner, 619 P.2d 1156, 228 Kan. 633, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 364 (kan 1980).

Opinions

Per Curiam:

This appeal is before the Supreme Court following the granting of a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner, 4 Kan. App. 2d 662, 610 P.2d 116 (1980).

This action was brought by the United Kansas Bank and Trust Company, plaintiff-appellant, against Richard Rixner and Daniel S. Frackowiak, defendants-appellees, to recover on a promissory note. Frackowiak filed a counterclaim alleging violations of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) and praying that the note be declared void as usurious, for the allowance of the statutory penalty, attorney fees, and a refund of payments made. The district court voided the agreement and awarded attorney fees to Frackowiak’s attorney. The district court declined to impose any statutory penalty, award a refund of payments made, or award attorney fees to Rixner’s attorney. All parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The facts of the case are set forth in detail in the excellent opinion by Meyer, J. We have carefully examined the record and the opinion of the Court of Appeals and have concluded that the issues raised on appeal by the various parties are set forth and disposed of by the Court of Appeals in a clear [634]*634and concise manner in accordance with established principles of law. We approve the opinion of the Court of Appeals and affirm its judgment in all respects. The result reached in this case is required by express statutory provisions designed to discourage the practice of usury in this state. The judgment of the district court should be affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings in harmony with the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

The motion to tax attorney fees as costs on the appeal filed by the attorney for Frackowiak is considered and that attorney is awarded the total sum of $1500 for his services on appeal in the Court of Appeals and in this court. The motion to tax attorney fees on the appeal filed by the attorney for Rixner is considered and that attorney is awarded the sum of $500 for his services on the appeal in both courts. The attorney fees awarded shall be paid by the appellant.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings in harmony with the opinion of the Court of Appeals in United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner, 4 Kan. App. 2d 662, 610 P.2d 116 (1980).

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

Related

Pilcher v. Direct Equity Lending
189 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (D. Kansas, 2002)
Topeka Datsun Motor Co. v. Stratton
736 P.2d 82 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1987)
Farmers State Bank v. Haflich
699 P.2d 553 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1985)
Morris v. Marshall
305 S.E.2d 581 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1983)
McAlister v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
662 P.2d 1203 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1983)
United Kansas Bank & Trust Co. v. Rixner
619 P.2d 1156 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 P.2d 1156, 228 Kan. 633, 1980 Kan. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-kansas-bank-trust-co-v-rixner-kan-1980.