Legal Opinion

Bank of Maine, N.A. v. Weisberger

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 6, 1984PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McKUSICK, Chief Justice.

This appeal in a mortgage foreclosure case raises questions of the meaning and enforceability of the provision of a promissory note setting interest at “prime + 1%.” In the Superior Court, defendant borrower argued that the interest provision is unenforceable and that accordingly plaintiff Bank of Maine is entitled to no more interest than the 6% maximum set by 9-B M.R. S.A. § 432(1) (1980). The Superior Court rejected that argument and so do we. We, however, vacate the Superior Court’s award of attorney’s fees to the Bank, since we can find neither contractual nor…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Maine v. ThiboutotSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Thiboutot v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
  3. Topline Equipment, Inc. v. Stan Witty Land, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1982
  4. Vance v. SpeakmanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1979
  5. Ocean National Bank of Kennebunk v. OdellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1982

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Chadwick-BaRoss, Inc. v. T. Buck Construction, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1993
  2. Federal Deposit Insurance v. ProiaSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1995
  3. William S. Walters, Jr. v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A. MemphisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
  4. City of Portland v. Fisherman's Wharf Associates IISupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1988
  5. Hunzinger Construction Co. v. Granite Resources Corp.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API