Legal Opinion

Pandiscio v. Atkinson

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided April 11, 2002No. 00-P-289PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoerfer, J.

This case arises out of a dispute between the parties over amounts due under the terms of a promissory note which had a clause prohibiting prepayment for five years. The plaintiff took the position that the defendants, CBG Nominee Trust (CBG), had accelerated the note and lost their right to a prepayment penalty. In the circumstances described below, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The plaintiff *483subsequently claimed that the amounts payable under the settlement agreement amounted to interest on the note at a rate that violated the criminal usury statute, G. L. c. 271, § 49,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Town Planning & Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Amesbury Specialty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  2. Margolies v. HopkinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
  3. Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. v. Taunton Pearl Works, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1970
  4. Ferreira v. YaredMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1992
  5. Richardson v. Department of RevenueMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Vasconcellos v. Arbella Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
  2. H.L. Turner Group, Inc. v. City of MethuenDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API