Dikeou v. Dikeou

17 Citing cases

  1. Blooming Terrace No. 1, LLC v. KH Blake St., LLC

    446 P.3d 834 (Colo. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    C. Dikeou v. Dikeou ¶ 12 In 1996, the Colorado Supreme Court decided Dikeou v. Dikeou , 928 P.2d 1286 (Colo. 1996). Dikeou addressed whether a late payment charge in a nonconsumer loan was interest or an unenforceable penalty under Perino v. Jarvis , 135 Colo. 393, 312 P.2d 108 (1957).

  2. In re Marriage of Chalat

    112 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2005)   Cited 28 times
    Addressing effect of intervening statutory change on the parent's prior express agreement to pay college costs

    We will not read in a statutory exception to pre-1991 postsecondary education support order modifiability that the General Assembly opted not to include. See Dikeou v. Dikeou, 928 P.2d 1286, 1292-93 n. 4 (Colo. 1996). Rather, fulfilling our duty to construe statutes according to their plain meaning so as to best effectuate the General Assembly's intent and purpose, we apply subsection 14-10-115(1.

  3. Blooming Terrace No. 1, LLC v. KH Blake St., LLC

    444 P.3d 749 (Colo. 2019)   Cited 17 times

    Id. at ¶¶ 6, 20–22. Rejecting Blooming Terrace’s argument that the forbearance fee should be annualized during the period of forbearance alone, and not over the entire life of the loan, the majority concluded that Colorado’s usury statute and our opinion in Dikeou v. Dikeou , 928 P.2d 1286 (Colo. 1996), require courts to "determine whether the effective interest rate is usurious by retrospectively applying it to the entire principal over the life of the loan." Id. at ¶ 19.

  4. Rent-Rite Superkegs W., Ltd. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC (In re Rent-Rite Superkegs W. Ltd.)

    603 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2019)   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses

    In fact, the Colorado Usury Statute "applies only to nonconsumer loans." Dikeou v. Dikeou , 928 P.2d 1286, 1293 (Colo. 1996). Violation of the Colorado Usury Statute is a criminal offense.

  5. Rent-Rite Superkegs W., Ltd. v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC (In re Rent-Rite Superkegs W., Ltd.)

    Bankruptcy Case No. 16-10407 TBM (Bankr. D. Colo. May. 17, 2019)

    In fact, the Colorado Usury Statute "applies only to nonconsumer loans." Dikeou v. Dikeou, 928 P.2d 1286, 1293 (Colo. 1996). Violation of the Colorado Usury Statute is a criminal offense.

  6. In re Potts

    Case No. 11-22624 HRT (Bankr. D. Colo. Oct. 3, 2013)   Cited 2 times

    To the contrary, the single qualification under the language of the Notes is that the payment not be paid with 20 days of the date it is due. The language of the Notes contains no further requirement in order for the late payment fee to become due and payable. In Dikeou v. Dikeou, 928 P.2d 1286 (Colo. 1996) (en banc), the Colorado Supreme Court was faced with a note in the amount of $900,000.00 that provided for a $700.

  7. Trudgian v. LM Gen. Ins. Co.

    490 P.3d 944 (Colo. App. 2020)

    The statute does not contain an exception, and we eschew creating one out of thin air because "an exception not expressly made by the legislature should not be read into a statute by the courts." Dikeou v. Dikeou , 928 P.2d 1286, 1293 n.4 (Colo. 1996) ; see In re Marriage of Chalat , 112 P.3d 47, 57 (Colo. 2005) ("Straining the statute to read otherwise would ignore its plain language ... and read in a judicially created exception that the General Assembly did not include.").

  8. Schoenmann v. Carmel Fin., LLC (In re Mayacamas Holdings LLC)

    608 B.R. 522 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Under Colorado law, miscellaneous charges such as default charges and exit fees are permissible as long as the total amount of the interest and fees and charges to be paid is less than Colorado's usury rate of 45 percent. In Dikeou v. Dikeou, 928 P.2d 1286 (Colo. 1996) (en banc ), the Colorado Supreme Court held that late payment charges provided in a non-consumer loan agreement as a condition of credit being extended constituted "interest" within the meaning of the non-consumer usury statute as the numerical late charges were easily convertible to a percentage of the unpaid balance of the loan. Id. at 1293-94.

  9. In re Sweet

    369 B.R. 644 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Disallowing assignee from retroactively charging default rate interest when prior holder had not

    Colorado law allows default interest, as long as it is not usurious. See In re Wood Family Trust, Ltd., 135 B.R. 407, 409 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1989); see also Dikeou v. Dikeou, 928 P.2d 1286, 1289-90 (Colo. 1997) (late charges and default interest are enforceable under Colorado law). After reviewing the relevant legal authority noted above and the particular facts and circumstances herein, the Court finds, if a default exists in this case, default interest may be applied to the Note regardless of the applicability of Entz-White.

  10. Oasis Legal Fin. Grp., LLC v. Coffman

    361 P.3d 400 (Colo. 2015)   Cited 10 times
    Holding "that litigation finance companies that agree to advance money to tort plaintiffs in exchange for future litigation proceeds are making ‘loans’ subject to Colorado's [Uniform Consumer Credit Code] even if the plaintiffs do not have an obligation to repay any deficiency if the litigation proceeds are ultimately less than the amount due. These transactions create debt, or an obligation to repay, that grows with the passage of time."

    See § 5–1–102(2)(a)–(g). See generally Dikeou v. Dikeou, 928 P.2d 1286, 1293 (Colo.1996) (“[The UCCC] is designed to protect a typically unsophisticated borrower from a generally sophisticated lender.”).¶ 37 The somewhat amorphous goal of consumer protection leaves room for a reasonable disagreement about whether and how litigation finance agreements should be regulated. Amici advance arguments why litigation finance is or is not ultimately good for consumers.