OPINION
Aрpellants challenge a summary judgment dismissing their claim alleging re *622 spondent charged usurious interest rates. They assert the triаl court erred because respondent was limited to charging interest rates permissible under Minn.Stat. § 334.-011 (1982). We affirm.
FACTS
Between January 16, 1981 and October 17, 1983, appellants Eldon H. Dahl and Jeanette M. Dahl obtained 14 agricultural loans from respondent Lanesboro State Bank, a state-chartered, federally-insured bank. The principal on each promissory note was less than $100,000 and interest rates ranged from 15% to 21%.
In September 1985, appellants sued respondent, alleging the interest rates were usurious, and seeking damages of twice the interest paid. Cross motions for summary judgment were heard in May 1986. By order filed June 9, 1986, the trial court denied appellants’ motion and granted respondent summary judgment. Judgment was entered June 18, 1986, from which this appeal is taken.
ISSUE
Did the trial court err in ruling the rate of interest charged was not usurious?
ANALYSIS
Appellants claim the allоwable interest rate on agricultural loans of less than $100,000 is exclusively determined by Minn. Stat. § 334.011 (1982). That statute states:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary a person may, in the case of a contract for the loan or forbearance of money, goods, or other things in action in an amount of less than $100,000 for business or agricultural purposes, charge interest at a rate of not more than four and one-half percent in excess of the discount rate on 90 dаy commercial paper in effect at the Federal Reserve bank in the Federal Reserve district encоmpassing Minnesota.
Minn.Stat. § 334.011, subd. 1. The trial court found, and the parties agree, respondent charged in excess of that rаte on each of appellants’ loans. Given this fact, appellants seek damages “equal to twice thе amount of interest paid.” Id. subd. 2.
Respondent argues it properly charged rates permissible under Minn.Stat. § 53.04 pursuant to the mоst favored lender doctrine. That statute gives industrial loan and thrift companies:
The right to extend credit or lend money and to collect and receive charges therefor as provided by chapter 334, or in lieu thereof to charge, collect, and receive interest at the rate of 21.75 percent per annum.
Minn.Stat. § 53.04, subd. 3a(a) (Supp.1983). All interest rаtes charged by respondent to these appellants anyway were less than 21.75%.
Appellants argue respondеnt is not entitled to charge the higher rate because (1) state-chartered, federally-insured banks such as respondеnt are not granted most favored lender status under 12 U.S.C. § 1831d (1982), (2) even if granted most favored lender status, the higher rates to not apply to agricultural loans, and (3) even if permitted to charge section 53.04 rates, respondent did not meet the licensing and lending requirements under chapter 53.
1. Most Favored Lender Status.
This court recently held state-chartered, federally-insured banks are granted most favored lender status.
See First Bank East v. Bobeldyk,
2. Section 53.01/.
“The ‘most favored lender' doctrine allows a lender to charge only the highest permissible rate within the same class or type of lоan or credit.”
Bobeldyk,
Appellants claim section 53.04 permits industrial loan аnd thrift companies to charge 21.75% interest on loans made pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 334.01 assigning a general usury rate, but not on loans made pursuant to section 334.011 which they claim exclusively establishes rates on agricultural loans. Appellants insist no lender may charge in excess of section 334.011 rates on agricultural loans.
To establish the exclusiveness of section 334.011, аppellants rely on the supreme court’s decision in
Citizen’s National Bank of Willmar v. Taylor,
Section 334.011 applies “[Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary.” That statute was enacted in 1976 and last amended in 1981. Section 53.04, subd. 3a(a), which states 21.75% interest may be charged “in lieu” of chapter 334 rates, was enacted in 1981 and amended in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985.
By its clear wording, section 53.04, subdivision 3a applies to all of chapter 334. Industrial loan and thrifts may therefore charge 21.75% interest on agricultural lоans as could respondent under the most favored lender doctrine.
While we are mindful of the economic reаlities facing today’s farmers, we are bound to apply the law as it is written. It is the role of the legislature to expressly dеtermine if agricultural loans are to be excepted from the higher interest rates which may be charged by industrial loаn and thrifts and most favored lenders.
3. Licensing and Lending Requirements.
Appellants argue respondent must comply with the licensing and lending requirements set forth in Minn.Stat. chapter 53 before charging interest rates authorized by that chapter. Section 53.04 states, “Nothing in this subdivision is deemed to supersede, repeal, or amend any provision of section 53.05.” Minn.Stat. § 53.04, subd. 3a(a). Appellants claim respondent did not comply with the section 53.05 requirements and therefore could not charge the 21.75% rate.
Banks operating under the most favored lender doctrine need not adhere to state-imposed licensing and lending requirements.
See Evans v. National Bank of Savannah,
DECISION
The trial court properly determined the interest rates charged were not usurious.
Affirmed.