Medford v. Wholesale Elec. Supply Co., Inc., 85-48
| Decision Date | 24 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-48,85-48 |
| Citation | 691 S.W.2d 857,286 Ark. 327 |
| Parties | Sonny MEDFORD d/b/a Medford Electric, Inc., Appellant, v. WHOLESALE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Daggett, Van Dover, Donovan & Cahoon by Robert J. Donovan, Marianna, for appellant.
W. Frank Morledge, Forrest City, for appellee.
Appellee, Wholesale Electric Supply Co., Inc., filed suit on an open account against appellant, Sonny Medford, d/b/a Medford Electric, Inc. Appellant countered that the interest charges were usurious. The trial court held that the charges were valid because of provisions in the Monetary Control Act of 1980. 12 U.S.C. § 86a. We affirm. This Court has jurisdiction to decide cases involving usury. Rule 29(1)(e).
The open account is for a series of purchases of electrical materials which occurred between April 1981 and December 1982. The materials were resold by appellant through his electrical contracting business. Before December 2, 1982, appellee charged 5/6 of 1% per month or 10% per year, on the open account. On December 2, 1982, appellee started charging simple interest of 1.25% per month, or 15% per year. The rate of interest amounted to five percent in excess of the Federal Reserve discount rate for 90 day commercial paper at the time. On December 2, 1982, the date the interest rate on the account was increased to above 10 percent, the entire principal balance of the account was due. It amounted to over $10,000.00.
Neither party argues that Amendment 60 is applicable to the case, and we do not address that issue. Appellant argues that the appellee failed to meet its burden of proving a "loan in the amount of $1,000.00 or more" which would cause the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 86a to be applicable.
Prior to the federal Monetary Control Act of 1980, and prior to the adoption of Amendment 60 to the Arkansas Constitution, the 1982 Interest Rate Control Amendment, there was a maximum fixed rate of interest applicable to Arkansas loans. Article 19, Section 13 of the Constitution of Arkansas. With the provision for a maximum fixed rate of interest, a contract was either usurious or not usurious on its face. We held that if it was usurious on its face, the holder had the burden of proving its validity, but if it was not usurious on its face, the borrower had the burden of proving its invalidity. See Knox v. Goodyear Stores, 252 Ark. 530, 479 S.W.2d 875 (1972); Nineteen Corp. v. Guar. Fin. Corp., 246 Ark. 400, 438 S.W.2d 685 (1969). However, we no longer have a maximum fixed rate. Now, under either federal or state law, the maximum rate of interest is a variable one--whatever rate equals five percent in excess of the Federal Reserve discount rate on 90 day commercial paper. Therefore, a contract no longer can be usurious on its face and, as a result, the borrower will always have the burden of proving usury. Consequently, the appellant had the burden of proving usury in this case.
Both parties agree that the Monetary Control Act of 1980 is the act which governs this case. The pertinent part of the Act, Section 86a, provides that business or agricultural loans in the amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First American Bank & Trust v. Windjammer Time Sharing Resort, Inc.
...state interest-rate limits have been preempted by the 1980 Act. See, e.g., Quiller, supra; Nelson, supra; Medford v. Wholesale Electric Supply Co., 286 Ark. 327, 691 S.W.2d 857 (1985); Bank of Evening Shade v. Lindsey, 278 Ark. 132, 644 S.W.2d 920 (1983); Vickery v. Mobile Home Industries, ......
-
Trail Dr., LLC v. Silver Hill Fin., LLC
...of a contract, the borrower must show that the lender intended to exact a usurious interest rate. See Medford v. Wholesale Electric Supply Co., Inc., 286 Ark. 327, 691 S.W.2d 857 (1985). And, because the penalty for a usurious transaction is heavy, the burden is on the plaintiff to show usu......
-
Smith v. MRCC Partnership
...v. Credit, 274 Ark. 66, 621 S.W.2d 855 (1981). The party asserting usury has the burden of proof. Medford v. Wholesale Electric Supply Co., Inc., 286 Ark. 327, 691 S.W.2d 857 (1985). The proof must be sustained by clear and convincing evidence. Commercial Credit Plan, Inc. v. Chandler, 218 ......
-
Venture Properties, Inc. v. First Southern Bank, 95-1819
...shift the burden of proof to First Southern because the transaction was not usurious on its face. Medford v. Wholesale Elec. Supply Co., 286 Ark. 327, 691 S.W.2d 857, 858-59 (1985). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in framing the jury instruction about discounting o......