CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Irving Bank & Trust Co. v. Second Land Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a temporary injunction that restrained a trustee's sale of land. The injunction was sought by Fowler Brothers Sand & Gravel, its partners, and Second Land Corporation against Irving Bank & Trust Company, alleging that notes secured by deeds of trust on the property were usurious, thereby negating the right to foreclose. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to issue the temporary injunction, preserving the status quo until the merits of the usury claims could be fully litigated. The court declined to decide the usury questions on interlocutory appeal, finding that the appellees made a sufficient showing of probable right to recovery and probable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court also determined that a suit for usury penalties was not an adequate legal remedy given the potential loss of real estate and business interruption, which would not be adequately compensated by money damages.

Temporary InjunctionUsuryDeeds of TrustForeclosureProbable RightProbable InjuryAdequate Legal RemedyInterlocutory AppealStatus QuoSupersedeas Bond
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esparza v. Nolan Wells Communications, Inc.

Thomas Esparza, Jr. appealed a trial court's judgment regarding his usury counterclaim against Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. The central dispute revolved around the applicability of a 'bona fide error' defense under Texas usury law, stemming from an employee's unauthorized charge of interest on Esparza's account. The appellate court clarified that intent to charge usurious interest is immaterial if such interest was, in fact, charged through a unilateral act within implied authority, and that mistakes of law do not fall under the 'accidental and bona fide error' exception. The court found that Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. had charged $93.60 in usurious interest. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment, awarding Esparza a forfeiture of $390.40 and $6,000.00 in attorney's fees as an offset against Nolan Wells' original claim, thus affirming the modified judgment.

Usury LawStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Error DefenseImplied AuthorityDebtor-Creditor RelationsAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesTexas Civil StatutesCommercial TransactionsInterest Rates
References
8
Case No. 06-09-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2010

Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc., and Dennis Walker, D/B/A Walker and Associates Construction v. Royce Roberts

Royce Roberts hired Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc. (WAS) and Dennis Walker d/b/a Walker and Associates Construction (WAC) to extend a horse training racetrack, leading to a dispute over construction requirements. WAS filed a mechanic's lien and suit, while Roberts counterclaimed for fraudulent lien and usurious interest. The appellate court partially affirmed the usury finding under Texas Finance Code Section 305.003 but remanded damages for recalculation. The fraudulent lien summary judgment was reversed and remanded due to a fact question on intent to cause financial harm, and the claim for usury under Section 305.004 was reversed. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment, including the jury's findings on WAC's breach of contract and quantum meruit.

Horse Racetrack ConstructionMechanic's LienFraudulent LienUsury LawTexas Finance CodeQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
65
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02113
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

Piccirilli v. Benjamin

This case involves cross-appeals from a judgment and an appeal from an order related to a personal loan and consulting agreement between Luciano Piccirilli (plaintiff) and Ronald R. Benjamin (defendant), an attorney. Defendant secured a $200,000 loan from plaintiff with a 15% interest rate, and a separate $15,000 consulting agreement. Defendant failed to make payments. A jury found that defendant intended to defraud plaintiff and that the loan was usurious. Supreme Court awarded plaintiff $200,000 (principal) with 9% interest from the verdict date, denying full interest due to usury but acknowledging the fraud. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for both fraud and usury, and dismissed the appeal from the order, agreeing with the Supreme Court's equitable decision to award only the principal due to the dual fault of both parties.

Fraudulent InducementUsuryPromissory NoteLoan AgreementBreach of ContractEquitable ReliefJury VerdictAppellate ReviewAttorney EthicsInterest Rate
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc. v. Roberts

This case involves a dispute between Royce Roberts (property owner) and Walker & Associates Surveying, Inc. (WAS) and Dennis Walker d/b/a Walker and Associates Construction (WAC) (collectively, the Walker Group) over the construction of a horse racetrack. The Walker Group sued Roberts for payment, and Roberts counterclaimed for fraudulent lien and usury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that WAS charged usurious interest under Section 305.003 of the Texas Finance Code but reversed and remanded the damages calculation. The court also reversed the summary judgment against WAS for fraudulent lien and usury under Section 305.004, remanding for trial on the merits for the fraudulent lien and rendering judgment that Roberts take nothing on the 305.004 claim. The court affirmed the jury's findings related to WAC's breach of contract, non-substantial performance, and the award of quantum meruit to WAC for $13,200. Additionally, the court upheld the proper admission of evidence and the refusal to award eighteen percent interest on the quantum meruit recovery.

Contract disputeConstruction contractRacetrack constructionMechanic's lienFraudulent lienUsuryTexas Finance CodeQuantum meruitBreach of contractSubstantial performance
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kevin F. v. Erickson (In re Kevin F.)

This case addresses whether liens held by creditor Eugene Erickson against debtors Kevin and Sue Higgins are avoidable under bankruptcy law. The Higginses, who borrowed $150,000 and $50,000 from Erickson secured by a mortgage and confession of judgment on their home, defaulted on their notes. They sought to avoid Erickson's liens as preferences and to protect their homestead exemption, also claiming usury on one note. Erickson attempted to challenge the dischargeability of his claim. The court determined that the Higginses lacked standing to avoid transfers as preferences but could avoid the Confession of Judgment lien under § 522(f)(1)(A) as it impaired their homestead exemption. Furthermore, the court found the usury defense waived by the Higginses' signing of the Confession of Judgment and deemed Erickson's challenge to dischargeability time-barred.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionJudicial LienPreference AvoidanceUsury DefenseDischargeabilityConfession of JudgmentPromissory NoteMortgageLien Impairment
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tyson v. ASSOCIATES INVESTMENT COMPANY

Associates Investment Company initiated a lawsuit against Kenneth Ray Tyson to recover an alleged balance on a $2,300 note. Tyson counter-sued, alleging usury, Anti-Trust Statute violations, and insurance overcharges, naming Morris Robinson Motor Company, Emmco Insurance Company, and Associates Investment Company (Indiana) as cross-defendants. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Associates was initially granted, but after further proceedings, including a jury trial, a new trial was ordered. This appellate decision reversed the summary judgments against Associates Investment Company (Texas) and Emmco Insurance Company (Indiana), remanding the cause for further proceedings due to unresolved issues of usury and anti-trust violations. However, the dismissal of Associates Investment Company (Indiana) for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed.

UsurySummary JudgmentAnti-Trust LawsConsumer FraudChattel MortgageInstallment NoteContract DisputeVehicle RepossessionCross-ActionAppellate Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pryor v. Fisher (In Re Dimino)

The Chapter 7 trustee for Joseph T. Dimino sought to recover $55,000 and an additional $10,000 in pre-petition transfers made by the Debtor to Justin Fisher and Gary Donnelly. The Trustee argued these transfers were fraudulent conveyances made to satisfy legally deficient mechanic's liens and for no consideration, or in violation of usury laws. The Court found that while the mechanic's liens were defective, the transfers were not recoverable because the Debtor received reasonably equivalent value for valid antecedent debts owed to Fisher (a loan) and Donnelly (reimbursement for materials). The Court dismissed all of the Trustee's five causes of action, including claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 541, 544, 548(a) and New York Debtor Creditor Law § 273, as well as claims regarding usury under New York General Obligations Law.

BankruptcyFraudulent ConveyanceMechanic's LiensUsuryAntecedent DebtReasonably Equivalent ValueChapter 7TrusteeDebtor Creditor LawNew York Law
References
29
Case No. Bankruptcy No. 00 B 14390(ASH). Adversary No. 00-3004A.
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2001

In Re Higgins

The debtors, Kevin and Sue Higgins, initiated an adversary proceeding against creditor Eugene Erickson concerning the avoidability of mortgage and confession of judgment liens, usury claims, and Erickson's attempt to challenge debt dischargeability. The Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York, ruled that the Higginses lacked standing to avoid pre-petition transfers as preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547. However, the court granted the Higginses' request to avoid the confession of judgment lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), finding it impaired their homestead exemption. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Higginses had waived their usury defense but held that Erickson's right to contest the dischargeability of his claim was time-barred. This resulted in a mixed outcome, largely favorable to the debtors regarding lien impairment and discharge.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionLien AvoidanceJudicial LienPreference AvoidanceUsury DefenseConfession of JudgmentDischargeabilityEquitable TollingEquitable Estoppel
References
68
Case No. A-06-CA-100-LY
Regular Panel Decision

Umbrella Bank, FSB v. Jamison

The district court granted Umbrella Bank's motion to stay judgment pending appeal and modified the supersedeas bond amount. The bank appealed a bankruptcy court's judgment finding it liable for violating Texas usury laws and other claims, leading to a substantial damages award. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(f) and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 52.006, the court determined that punitive usury penalties, amounting to $1,384,646.79, should be excluded from the supersedeas bond calculation. The bond was reduced from $1,672,891.80 to $167,780.84, reflecting only compensatory damages, estimated appeal interest, and costs, in deference to the Texas Legislature's intent. Therefore, the court affirmed the stay of judgment pending appeal with the reduced bond amount.

supersedeas bondappealbankruptcy judgmentTexas usury lawRule 62(f)compensatory damagespunitive damagesstay of executionfederal jurisdictionstate law application
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 23 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational