C. I. T. Corp. v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 04 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41081,41081 |
| Citation | 418 P.2d 685 |
| Parties | C.I.T. CORPORATION, Plaintiff in Error, v. Paul C. EDWARDS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The usury statutes of this state do not apply to sales of merchandise, but only to loans of money.
2. Whether a transaction constitutes a sale or a loan of money is a question of fact and not one of form. If money is loaned to a borrower to enable him to purchase or to complete the purchase of merchandise, the transaction remains one for the loan of money and this is so even though the evidence of debt may be made payable to the vendor and by him assigned to the person lending the money.
3. Where a party does not give reasonable notice to an adverse party either in its pleadings or by written notice given ten days before trial of the intent to rely upon the law of another state, judicial notice can not be taken of such law under the provisions of the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act in an action brought in this state. 12 O.S.1961, §§ 541--547.
4. Where the law of another state is not properly placed in issue, it will be presumed to be the same as the law of the forum.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Robert D. Simms, Judge.
Action to recover the balance due on a conditional sales contract and counterclaim for usurious interest. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on the contract and for the defendant on the counterclaim. The plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Jay C. Baker, Baker & Baker, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Charles A. Whitebook, Windell D. Knox, Tulsa, for defendant in error.
The action was instituted by the plaintiff, the C.I.T. Corporation, to recover the balance due on a conditional sales contract to which the defendant, Paul C. Edwards, filed a counterclaim based on usury. The trial court rendered judgment for both parties on their claims and the plaintiff appeals.
The petition of the plaintiff alleged that on June 8, 1960, the defendant entered into a conditional sales contract with the A.B.C. Building Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma by which he purchased a 1959 Aero Commander airplane, that the conditional sales contract was thereafter assigned to the plaintiff, and that in January, 1962, the defendant became delinquent in making the payments as provided in the contract. Next the petition alleges that the plaintiff repossessed the aircraft and that there was then due and owing a balance of $55,180.40 in addition to interest and attorney fees. It is further alleged that the aircraft was sold at a public sale for $28,000.00, and that after deducting the costs of repossession the aircraft, attorney fees, and cretain other expenses, the defendant was credited with the sum of $16,110.70 on the contract. The petition prays for a deficiency judgment against the defendant in the amount of $39,069.70 with interest thereon at the rate of 10% Per annum.
The answer and counterclaim of the defendant denied the allegations of the petition and alleged that the purported conditional sales contract was a 'sham and a scheme to cloak and evade a loan of money at usurious interest', that interest at a rate greater than 10% Per annum was charged, and that, under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, the defendant is entitled to recover double the amount of the entire interest charged. The defendant admitted the execution of the conditional sales contract.
The reply of the plaintiff denied the allegations of the defendant's answer and specifically denied the defendant's counterclaim by asserting that the interest charged by the contract did not exceed 10% Per annum.
A jury was waived by the parties and the case was tried to the court. The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $39,069.70. The court further found that a greater interest rate than 10% Was charged on the transaction, constituting usury, and entered an offset of twice the amount of such interest or $25,404.78 in favor of the defendant, reducing the amount of the plaintiff's judgment to $13,664.92. The plaintiff prosecutes this appeal from the order of the trial court overruling its motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff first asserts that the transaction involved in this case constituted a sale of merchandise to which usury does not attach. It has proviously been determined that the usury laws of this state do not apply to sales but only to loans of money. Pierce v. C.I.T. Corp., 170 Okl. 633, 41 P.2d 481; Mondie v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 178 Okl. 584, 63 P.2d 708.
It is apparently the theory of the plaintiff that the A.B.C. Building Company sold the Aero Commander to the defendant on a credit basis to be paid out in installments over a period of time. The plaintiff then argues that the conditional sales contract entered into by these parties was purchased by it at a discount from the A.B.C. Building Company for $50,000.00. We recognize that the form of the transaction, as reflected by the conditional sales contract and the assignment to plaintiff attached thereto, is consistent with this analysis. But the form in which the transaction is carried out is not determinative. Whether a particular transaction constitutes a sale or a loan of money is a question of fact and the decision of the trier of fact upon this issue will not be disturbed on appeal if reasonably supported by the evidence. Cobb v. Baxter, Okl., 292 P.2d 389. This view is expressed in the following language in the leading case of United Tire & Inv. Co. v. Trone, 189 Okl. 120, 113 P.2d 977:
An examination of the testimony of the defendant, the only witness, discloses the nature of the transaction in this case. The defendant testified that he contracted the plaintiff on various occasions concerning a loan of money prior to entering into the contract of purchase with the A.B.C. Building Company. The defendant stated that he informed the plaintiff in their discussions that he 'wanted to borrow $50,000.00 on the Aero Commander' in order to (1) pay the existing mortgage on an Apache airplane that was to be used as a trade-in on the Aero Commander, (2) pay the A.B.C. Building Company the agreed cash difference between the two airplanes, and (3) provide $4,300.00 for use in his business. The defendant testified unequivocally that the plaintiff agreed to lend him this money with interest at the rate of 6% Per annum on the loan. According to their agreement, the plaintiff was to pay off the existing lien on the Apache airplane, and send the remainder of the loan to the A.B.C. Building Company which would retain the purchase price of the Aero Commander and distribute the balance of the money to the defendant. The plaintiff offered no evidence, other than the documents pertaining to the form of the transaction, to contradict the testimony of the defendant or to establish its theory of the case. Aside from the documents, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the plaintiff did not make the loan to the defendant or to show that the A.B.C. Building Company intended to sell the Aero Commander to the defendant on time for a credit price rather than for cash as the defendant testified. In such circumstances, the trial court was compelled to conclude that the plaintiff loaned money to the defendant to enable him to purchase the Aero Commander, and to provide $4,300.00 for use in his business, if the court attached credibility to defendant's testimony. The credibility of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Catron v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Tulsa, 40475
...inconsistent testimony are matters primarily for determination by the trial court. Thompson v. Smith, Okl., 420 P.2d 526; C.I.T. Corp. v. Edwards, Okl., 418 P.2d 685. There is considerable evidence to refute the existence of the alleged partnership. In wills executed in 1947, 1949, 1951, an......
-
Ky. Bluegrass Contracting, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
...jurisdiction presents a question of fact and must be pleaded and proved before it could be considered by the trial court." C.I.T. Corp. v. Edwards, 1966 OK 180, ¶ 12, 418 P.2d 685, 688 ; Gray v. Martin, 1952 OK 96, ¶ 0, 206 Okla. 167, 242 P.2d 698. More recently, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ......
-
Pate v. Alian
...Texas." However, the parties have not invoked any foreign law and, therefore, the law of Oklahoma is deemed to govern. C.I.T. Corp. v. Edwards, 1966 OK 180, 418 P.2d 685. 2. They attached evidentiary materials to their brief, which included a hospital toxicology lab report, indicating that ......
-
R.L. Clark Drilling Contractors, Inc. v. Schramm, Inc.
...must have their rights determined by the law of Oklahoma"). The Oklahoma case most analogous to the one on appeal is C.I.T. Corp. v. Edwards, 418 P.2d 685 (Okla.1966). 4 C.I.T. Corp. was a contract action. One issue was whether the interest charged on an underlying loan was usurious. Oklaho......