Legal Opinion
Park Terrace Limited v. Teasdale
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 30, 2002No. G029283PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RYLAARSDAM, J.
This appeal is from summary judgments in consolidated actions wherein five real estate partnerships sought damages from and declaratory relief against a lender for loaning them money at allegedly usurious interest rates. The trial court granted summary judgment in all five actions, based on the exemption for loans arranged by a licensed real estate broker. (Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1, subd. (2); Civ. Code, § 1916.1.) We agree the exemption applies and affirm the judgment.
Facts
Plaintiffs, Park Terrace Limited, Colton General, Intervest Chino Investors, Ltd., IVR Peartree…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chapman v. FarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Winnett v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Stickel v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- In Re LaraCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Garcia v. WetzelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stoneridge Parkway Partners, LLC v. MW Housing Partners III, L.P.California Court of Appeal · 2007
- Bock v. California Capital Loans, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Bock v. Cal. Capital LoansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013