Legal Opinion
McConnell v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
California Supreme Court
Decided May 19, 1983No. L.A. 31675PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOSK, J.
Section 2 of the Usury Law provides in part that “interest shall not be compounded . . . unless an agreement to that effect is clearly expressed in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith. ” The issue in this case is whether, in an action alleging violation of the section, parol testimony of the borrower, and written communications sent by the lender to the borrower, may be utilized to explain the meaning of a written agreement that does not, on its face, clearly provide for compounding. We conclude that the language of section 2, the purposes of the Usury Law,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Green v. ObledoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Fletcher v. Security Pacific National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. SperlCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- McConnell v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Robertson v. DodsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
3Cited by20 opinions
- People v. ToomeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Curry v. MoodyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Westbrook v. FairchildCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- McConnell v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.