Chapman

The trial court awarded damages, injunctive and declaratory relief to plaintiff and cross-complainants against the Frisones, defendants and cross-defendants, the appellants herein. It did so on the theory that the Frisones, through appellant Larry Frisone, loaned cross-complainants (the Farrs) $50,000 at usurious rates. Three months after judgment was entered below, the California constitutional section defining usury was amended by referendum to exclude from its operation “any loans made or arranged by any person licensed as a real estate broker by the State of California and secured in whole or in part by liens on real property, . . . . ”

The loan in question was secured by real property, and the court made a finding that Larry was a licensed real estate broker.

The decisive issue on this appeal is whether the constitutional amendment is retroactive in its effect. We conclude that it is and therefore reverse.

Orden v. Crawshaw Mortgage & Investment Co. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 141 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 162 ], appears to us to state the rule correctly: “The rule that statutes which repeal or modify usury laws are to be given retrospective effect to determine the scope of…