White v. Seitzman
California Court of Appeal
230 Cal. App. 2d 756 (1964)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Earl J. White (plaintiff) was unable to procure financing through conventional channels, so he concocted an unconventional scheme by which he mortgaged properties to Seitz (defendant). In return, Seitz loaned White a sum of money substantially below the face value of the mortgage notes. According to the notes, at maturity White would pay 10 percent interest, the maximum legal rate. When the notes came due, instead of repaying only the amount he actually received from Seitz, White paid Seitz the full face value of the notes, plus interest on that face value. Thus, White effectively borrowed money from Seitz at a usurious rate. White had employed similar schemes more than 1,000 times. This time, White invoked California’s usury law to sue Seitz for triple damages. The trial court and a lower appellate court both held that White and Seitz knew or should have known they were engaging in a usurious scheme, and that consequently White was not entitled to damages. White appealed to the state Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kingsley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
