Thomassen

Appellants contend that the transaction which led to judgment against them was usurious. In this action plaintiffs and defendants ask determination of their rights and duties.

Facts

In 1961, the Thomassens, appellants, having much confidence in Hoyt Kelley, who was then their son-in Jaw, and who as a real estate speculator had made good deals for them, “left everything right in his hands,” to quote Mr. Thomassen. Actually, Kelley was in poor financial condition. Later he became bankrupt. The Thomassens advanced $30,000 to Kelley. By a complicated series of transactions, Kelley bought a parcel of land on The Alameda in San Jose. The Thomas-sens did not realize that the lot was subject to a deed of trust to a Mrs. Mainero. Kelley devised a plan to have an office building constructed on the lot. He asked Mrs. Mainero to subordinate to a certain construction loan, but she refused, Kelley then made every effort for months to get construction money and finally was successful in getting a loan of $18,500 from the Carrs, respondents. The Mainero lien was paid off from the proceeds.

But Carr had agreed only after much negotiation. He did not know about the Thomassens ’ interest in the…