Legal Opinion

Paulman v. Filtercorp

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 11, 1994No. 32366-1-IPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaker, J.

— Henry Paulman filed suit to collect money due him under a promissory note given by Filtercorp. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Filtercorp, finding that the note was usurious. On appeal, Paulman contends that a usury defense is not allowed in commercial transactions. Filtercorp cross-appeals the trial court’s denial of setoffs against the note. We hold that Filtercorp is barred from asserting the defense of usury because of its status as a corporation and because the loan was for commercial purposes. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment.

I

Filtercorp is a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Topline Equipment, Inc. v. Stan Witty Land, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1982
  2. State v. BilalCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1989
  3. Brown v. GigerWashington Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Paulman v. Filtercorp, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Paulman v. Filtercorp, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Paulman v. Filtercorp, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API