383 So. 2d 177 | Ala. Civ. App. | 1979
Defendant appeals from the dismissal of his counterclaim.
The dispositive issue is whether §
Plaintiff sued defendant for the balance due, after default, on two notes executed for the purchase of an automobile. Defendant denied liability and filed a counterclaim on a third note. The counterclaim was designated as a class action. Defendant alleged that the interest charged on this note was usurious because the automobile was purchased in a credit sale for business use and not for consumer use. Put another way, defendant argues that §
Section
(a) The maximum finance charge for any loan or forbearance and for any credit sale, except under open-end credit plans, may equal but may not exceed the greater of the following: (Emphasis supplied.)
Defendant, through able counsel, urges this court to hold §
The plain language of §
Some sections of the Mini-Code are expressly limited to what can be termed consumer or non-business transactions. On the other hand, a number of its sections, in addition to §
Analogously, this court recently decided that the Mini-Code applies to state-chartered credit unions. McCartha v. Iron andSteel Credit Union, Ala.Civ.App.,
In McCartha, supra, we were also faced with an inherent conflict between two statutes regulating interest rates. We there held that §
In deciding McCartha, we turned to Fletcher v. TuscaloosaFederal Savings Loan Ass'n.,
[T]he legislature intended the "finance charge" provision of the Mini-Code to be the sole indicia of what constitutes the maximum legal amount allowable for the use of money loaned thereunder . . .
294 Ala. at 178 ,314 So.2d at 55.
Clearly, the loan transaction in the instant case comes within the purview of §
Certain constitutional questions raised by one of the amicuscuriae are not properly before this court and will not be considered. *179
This case is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
WRIGHT, P.J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.