Alston v. Goodwin

California Court of Appeal Sep 24, 1959 No. Civ. 23484Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a borrower's claim for usury constitutes a single cause of action that cannot be split between multiple lawsuits, and because the plaintiff voluntarily asserted a portion of that claim in a prior action, they are barred from pursuing the remainder in a subsequent suit.

Issues

Did the usurious transaction give rise to only a single cause of action?
Could the cause of action be split by recovering a portion of the usurious payments in one action and seeking the remainder in another?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A single cause of action cannot be split either as to relief demanded or grounds on which recovery is sought and two or more actions brought thereon”

“But one wrong having been committed, namely, the exaction of usurious interest and bonus, Fleming could not pursue one remedy in one lawsuit and a second remedy for the same wrong in another suit.”

“Plaintiff was not required to assert usury in the $40,000 transaction in Goodwin’s action based upon the $65,000 transaction. His action in so doing was voluntary and the cause of action he now seeks to further prosecute is barred”

SHINN, P. J.

The present action was commenced in Los Angeles County June 8, 1949, for the recovery of $34,634.70, being treble the amount of interest and a usurious bonus paid by plaintiffs to H. T. Goodwin in repayment of a loan. March 8,1948, Goodwin loaned plaintiffs $40,000 and took as security a crop mortgage of Alston and wife and an assignment by M. A. Fleming, Josie Bell Fleming and James M. Fleming of a note of the Alstons in the amount of $50,000 secured by a trust deed upon real property in Riverside County. Thereafter and prior to September 11, 1948, plaintiffs paid to Goodwin $51,544.90 of which $1,544.90 was interest on $50,000 and $10,000 was a bonus which Goodwin exacted as consideration for the loan of $40,000. Eleven thousand five hundred forty-four dollars and ninety cents was a usurious exaction ; $34,634.70 was sought as treble the amount of the usurious payments.

Further facts are that when the $50,000 debt was paid to Goodwin he reassigned the security and Fleming negotiated another loan from Goodwin of $65,000. The Flemings again assigned to Goodwin the $50,000 note and trust deed and the Alstons also gave Goodwin as security a $20,000 note secured by a trust deed and a crop mortgage for $70,000.

On October 13, 1949, Goodwin brought suit in Riverside

[18]

County against plaintiffs herein to foreclose the $50,000 trust deed. The Flemings appeared and filed numerous pleadings. The only one we are concerned with is an answer and counterclaim of the Flemings which alleged the same facts and sought the same relief as in the complaint in the present action, namely, treble the amount of usurious payments exacted in the amount of $34,634.70. This amount was awarded M. A. Fleming at the trial. Goodwin appealed and the judgment was reversed

(Goodwin

Alston,

114 Cal.App.2d 713 [250 P.2d 722]) upon the ground that more than a year had expired between payment of the loan and action filed by the borrowers for treble the amount of usurious payments and that the counterclaim for treble damages was barred by section 3 of the Usury Law. (2 Deering’s Gen. Laws, 1944, Act 3757, p. 1350.) The action was retried. Fleming was allowed $18,261.65 as an offset to his debt to Goodwin of $65,000. Goodwin appealed again and the judgment in favor of Fleming was modified to $13,902.48

Alston v. Goodwin

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief