Legal Opinion
Stoneridge Parkway Partners, LLC v. MW Housing Partners III, L.P.
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 3, 2007No. C052082PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NICHOLSON, J.
A real property developer and borrower of money sued its lender, claiming the interest charged on the secured loan was usurious. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the lender, ruling the loan was exempt from the constitutional usury prohibition because it was negotiated and arranged by a licensed real estate broker. The developer argues the secured loan was not exempt because the broker was in effect the lender and was negotiating on its own behalf. We disagree and affirm the judgment because the broker, although an employee of an affiliate of the lender, acted as…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400California Supreme Court · 2001
- Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Winnett v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Creative Ventures, LLC v. Jim Ward & AssociatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Bock v. California Capital Loans, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- In re Arce Riverside, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · 2015
- 3MB, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 2019
- Bock v. Cal. Capital LoansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013