Court Finds Failure To Obtain Finance Lenders' License Does Not Render Commercial Loan Unenforceable, Illegal Contracts

Allen Matkins
Contact

Allen Matkins

The California Financing Law provides that “[n]o person shall engage in the business of a finance lender or broker without obtaining a license from the commissioner.”   Cal. Fin. Code § 22100(a).  The CFL further provides that if any provision of the CFL is "willfully violated in the making or collection of a loan, whether by a licensee or by an unlicensed person subject to this division [i.e., the CFL], the contract of loan is void, and no person has any right to collect or receive any principal, charges, or recompense in connection with the transaction".   That is is a very draconian result.  However, it is important to note that the legislature placed this statute in Article 2, Chapter 4 of the CFL which concerns consumer loan penalties.  Commercial loans, as defined in Section 22502, are not subject to Article 2, Chapter 4.  Cal. Fin. Code § 22001(c).

Nonetheless, commercial borrowers will from time to time attempt to claim that their loans are illegal contracts based on the unlicensed status of their lenders.  See Court Of Appeal Finds No Private Right Of Action Against Unlicensed Lender.  In a recent ruling, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick has also rejected the argument that a commercial loan from an unlicensed lender is an unenforceable, illegal contract:

The context in which the defendants' argument is offered is of no consequence; its defect is that the defendants have not shown that the California Financial Code provides for the voiding of unlicensed commercial loans in the manner that the defendants describe. That Side failed to register as a licensed lender in California does not render the Restated Agreements illegal.

Side, Inc. v. Off. Partners New York, LLC, 2025 WL 81576 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2025).  In support of this ruling, Judge Orrick cites two earlier federal court decisions: Cent. Valley Ranch, LLC v. World Wide Invs., LLC II, 2012 WL 217685, report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 487046 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2012) and  WF Capital, Inc. v. Barkett, 2010 WL 3064413 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 2, 2010).

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Allen Matkins

Written by:

Allen Matkins
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Allen Matkins on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide