Fifth Circuit· 7/14/2004

Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd.

Citations

378 F.3d 433
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 14406
2004 WL 1567110

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that, to establish a usury claim, a plaintiff must prove “the exaction of a greater compensation than allowed by law for the use of the money by the borrower” (quoting First Bank v. Tony's Tortilla Factory, Inc., 877 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Tex. 1994))
describing the patchwork of rules developed under pre-CSO Act caselaw relating to brokerage fees
“The usury statutes and CSOA work in harmony, permitting a CSO to charge a brokerage fee in connection with its services.”
“The codification of Texas usury law and the enactment of CSOA governing loan brokers as credit services organizations (CSOs) has overruled by implication those cases interpreting brokerage fees of the type alleged here as potentially usurious interest.”
“CSOA authorizes a CSO to charge a ‘credit service fee’ by complying with certain requirements . . . . A fee may not be charged if any of these requirements is not met . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jolly, Jones, Barksdale

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.