Legal Opinion
Wasserbauer v. Marine Midland Bank
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 22, 1977PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Lyman H. Smijth, J.
Plaintiffs’ underlying action attacks the time-honored methodology employed by banks to recover attorneys’ fees upon default judgments calculated as a percentage of the loan balances due from defaulting borrowers. Plaintiffs claim that the familiar provisions found in promissory notes and other instruments evidencing individual loans, which provide for percentage attorneys’ fees in the event of collection litigation, are illegal and unenforceable. Specifically, plaintiffs complain that the practice of defendant banks and their retained attorneys in…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Pimpinello v. Swift & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Burt v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Albano v. KirbyNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Equitable Lumber Corp. v. IPA Land Development Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Gair v. PeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- In Re Hyun-Bok ChungUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii · 1984
- In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Coastline Steel Products, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1978
- OMP v. Security Pacific Business Finance, Inc.District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1988
- First Trust & Deposit Co. v. AtkinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1979