Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. Tamerius, 41529
Decision Date | 10 May 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 41529,41529 |
Citation | 265 N.W.2d 847,200 Neb. 807 |
Parties | , 23 UCC Rep.Serv. 1127 EXCHANGE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee, v. Steven D. TAMERIUS, Dean Tamerius and Mrs. Dean Tamerius, a/k/a Bonnie Tamerius, Appellants. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A motion for summary judgment should be granted only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
2. Where a promissory note is made in one state, to be performed in another state, it is, ordinarily, to be regulated and governed by the laws of the place of performance, without regard to the place at which it was written, dated, or signed, unless it clearly appears that the parties intended that the contract should be governed by the law of the place where made.
3. Usury laws are not so distinctive a part of public policy of the forum that courts will, on the ground of public policy, decline to enforce any contract which would be invalid, if tested by them, although valid according to its proper law.
Thomas A. Wagoner, Grand Island, for appellants.
Joseph F. Chilen, of Denney & Chilen, Fairbury, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, CLINTON, BRODKEY and WHITE, JJ.
This is an action to collect the unpaid principal and interest thereon of a promissory note. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which was sustained. Judgment was entered for plaintiff in the sum of $8,840.60 with interest at the rate of 12.83 percent per annum from May 18, 1976, until paid. Defendants filed a motion for a new trial which was overruled and now appeal. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Defendants contend that it was error for the District Court to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment should be granted only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Randall v. Erdman, 194 Neb. 390, 231 N.W.2d 689 (1975). The District Court properly disposed of this case upon plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. No factual dispute existed. The sole questions were those of law: What were the obligations and liabilities of the parties under the note, and was the note governed by the laws of Texas, or those of Nebraska?
Defendants' next contentions deal with the rate of interest allowed by the District Court. The first one is procedural in nature. In its petition plaintiff alleged that the sum of $8,840.60 together with interest thereon at a rate of 12.83 percent per annum from May 18, 1976, was owed by defendants to plaintiff. A copy of the promissory note was attached to and incorporated into the petition. In their answer defendants alleged that the rate of interest pled by plaintiff was greater than is permitted under the laws of the State of Nebraska and that the loan was usurious and void under the laws of the State of Nebraska. In its reply, plaintiff alleged that the promissory note was governed by the laws of Texas.
Defendants contend that it was error to permit plaintiff to plead the laws of Texas in its reply. Defendants argue that by alleging the laws of Texas were applicable to the loan in its reply, plaintiff injected new matter, inconsistent with its petition and, further, amended its theory of the case.
Section 25-820, R.R.S.1943, provides: " * * * where the answer contains new matter the plaintiff may reply to such new matter, denying generally or specifically each allegation controverted by him; and he may allege, in ordinary and concise language, and without repetition, any new matter not inconsistent with the petition, constituting a defense to such new matter in the answer." The plaintiff cannot shift positions by means of the reply. Reed Bros. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Weeping Water, 46 Neb. 168, 64 N.W. 701 (1895). It is not the province of the reply to introduce new causes of action. Wigton & Whitham v. Smith, 46 Neb. 461, 64 N.W. 1080 (1895).
We fail to see any merit in defendants' contention. Defendants in their answer essentially pled the defense of public policy, and that the loan was usurious and void. Plaintiff was certainly entitled to reply to this contention, and it did, alleging that the note was governed by the laws of Texas and that the note was not usurious thereunder. This was not inconsistent with its petition; nor did plaintiff thereby alter or shift its theory of the case. The cause of action, one of contract, remained the same. There is no merit to this contention.
The next issue is whether the District Court was correct in allowing interest at the rate of 12.83 percent per annum upon the note.
In August 1972, the defendant Steven D. Tamerius corresponded with plaintiff, which is located in Dallas, Texas, requesting a loan for $13,500 to finance a business venture. The loan was subsequently consummated. Tamerius experienced financial difficulties and in May 1975, plaintiff corresponded with Tamerius concerning his delinquent payments. Enclosed in this correspondence was a new promissory note which refinanced the unpaid balance of the first note. This note, dated May 22, 1975, was executed by Tamerius at Grand Island, Nebraska, and guaranteed by his parents, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kronovet v. Lipchin
...Ferdie Sievers and Lake Tahoe Land Co. v. Diversified Mtg. Investors, 603 P.2d 270 (Nev.1979) (usury); Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. Tamerius, 200 Neb. 807, 265 N.W.2d 847 (1978) (usury); State ex rel. Meierhenry v. Spiegel, Inc., 277 N.W.2d 298, 299 (S.D.), appeal dismissed, --- U.S. ----, ......
-
Continental Mortg. Investors v. Sailboat Key, Inc.
...9, 174 A.2d 800 (1961); Big Four Mills, Ltd. v. Commercial Credit Co., 307 Ky. 612, 211 S.W.2d 831 (1948); Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. Tamerius, 200 Neb. 807, 265 N.W.2d 847 (1978); 45 Am.Jur.2d, Interest and Usury § 19 (1969). The few courts that do rely on a public policy exception in a ......
-
General Elec. Co. v. Keyser
...until the actual loan went through. See also, Anderson v. Tarus Financial Corp., 268 N.W.2d 486 (S.D.1978); Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. Tamerius, 200 Neb. 807, 265 N.W.2d 847 (1978); Moody v. Bass, supra; Bastian Bros. v. Brown, supra ; Annot., Conflicts of Law; What law governs validity a......
-
State ex rel. Meierhenry v. Spiegel, Inc.
...as to the validity of interest provided in promissory notes and payable outside of the forum state. See, Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. Tamerius, 1978, 200 Neb. 807, 265 N.W.2d 847; Grady v. Denbeck, 1977, 198 Neb. 31, 251 N.W.2d 864; First National Bank of Wibaux v. Dreher, 1972, N.D., 202 N......
-
Foreign Savings and Loan Associations Not Doing Business in Colorado
...757, 761 (S.D.Fla. 1975); Cessna Finance Corp. v. Morrison, 667 S.W.2d 580, 585 (Tex.App. 1984); Exchange Bank & Trust Co. v. Tamerius, 265 N.W.2d 847, 850 (Neb. 1978); Catchpole v. Narramore, 428 P.2d 105, 108 (Ariz. 1967). See, e.g., Scholes and Hay, Conflict of Laws (West Publ. Co., 1982......