JURITEXT000006955239 Généré par l'IA

Usury in Original Loan Vitiating Subsequent Refinancing

Numéro de cause JURITEXT000006955239

Autorité / Tribunal Cour de cassation

Juridiction

France (FR)

Date de la décision 1961-01-04

Issue du litige annulled

Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

An individual, having obtained a loan from a financial institution secured by a mortgage on property, subsequently sought to have the mortgage contract declared null and void on the ground that the initial loan agreement stipulated an interest rate higher than the legal maximum, which, although the initial agreement was later replaced by a second agreement with a lower, legal rate, rendered the original contract usurious and thus voidable; the court quashed the lower court's decision because, despite the subsequent regularization of the interest rate, the fundamental issue was the illicit nature of the interest charged in the initial contract, which could still invalidate the entire transaction, especially since the lower court failed to sufficiently establish that the entirety of the debt was genuinely extinguished and not merely transformed.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Usury in Original Loan Vitiating Subsequent Refinancing: An individual, having obtained a loan from a financial institution secured by a mortgage on property, subsequently sought to have the mortgage contract declared null and void on the ground that the initial loan agreement stipulated an interest rate higher than the legal maximum, which, although the initial agreement was later replaced by a second agreement with a lower, legal rate, rendered the original contract usurious and thus voidable; the court quashed the lower court's decision because, despite the subsequent regularization of the interest rate, the fundamental issue was the illicit nature of the interest charged in the initial contract, which could still invalidate the entire transaction, especially since the lower court failed to sufficiently establish that the entirety of the debt was genuinely extinguished and not merely transformed.