First Mutual Corp. v. Grammercy Maine, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Selengut v. Ferrara

    203 N.J. Super. 249 (App. Div. 1985)   Cited 13 times

    At the same time, while loans to corporations are sheltered from the act's coverage by the exception in N.J.S.A. 17:11A-35(a), lenders cannot engage in a "deliberate scheme designed to circumvent full compliance with the Secondary Mortgage Loan Act" by, for example, designing individual loans to look like loans to corporations. First Mutual Corp. v. Grammercy Maine, Inc., 176 N.J. Super. 428, 439 (Law Div. 1980). Corporations which are nominal borrowers and serving merely as "cloaks for individual loans" must be disregarded, and such loans are covered by the Act.

  2. Williams v. Security Savings Loan Ass'n

    120 Wis. 2d 480 (Wis. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 24 times

    11 Am. Jur. 2d Bill and Notes, § 588 (1963).See First Mut. Corp. v. Grammercy Maine, Inc., 423 A.2d 680, 686 (N.J.Super.Ct. 1980); Raby v. Commercial Banking Corp., 220 A.2d 659, 661 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1966).See 9 W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Corporations § 4290 (rev. vol. 1976); Annot., 63 A.L.R.2d 924, 929 (1959):

  3. Stuchin v. Kasirer

    237 N.J. Super. 604 (App. Div. 1990)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that since the "showing of fraud was marginal at best, and the amendment would only have protracted litigation," there was no abuse of judicial discretion in denying the amendment

    Yet it is clear from the context in which this argument was presented to the trial judge that the claim of usury also included a claim that the increase was an impermissible penalty. In defendants' brief accompanying their notice of motion for summary judgment, they quoted from First Mutual Corp. v. Grammercy Maine, Inc., 176 N.J. Super. 428 (Law Div. 1980), where Judge Haines stated: On some occasions courts have refused to enforce an agreed interest rate on the ground that it is penal and unconscionable, even though the borrower was a corporation not entitled to the defense of usury. [ Id. at 439-440].

  4. Central Penn National Bank v. Stonebridge Ltd.

    185 N.J. Super. 289 (Ch. Div. 1982)   Cited 66 times
    Requiring a DeMarco hearing following reentry of a judgment of foreclosure on a second mortgage

    [Emphasis supplied] In First Mut. Corp. v. Grammercy Maine, Inc., 176 N.J. Super. 428 (Law Div. 1980), the court noted that where mortgage loans were made for the purpose offinancing acquisition of property for a casino site, the lenders were not required to foreclose before seeking entry of judgment by confession on the notes secured by the mortgage, because the debt was incurred "for a business or commercial purpose" which precluded any application of the "foreclosure first requirement." Id. at 440.