Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Mack 10

Gets Totally Screwed in Court

1/22/2012 5:35 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF

Mack 10
Rapper Mack 10 has been victimized by the courts ... a judge is requiring him to pay a creditor a debt which includes interest that is totally illegal.

Mr. Mack borrowed $35,000 from Tadayuki Ito back on April 24, 2010. Under the terms of the deal, Mack was required to pay Ito $70,000 by August 31, 2010 -- in other words, 100% interest for a 3-month loan. That squarely violates California law, which prohibits "usury" -- i.e., excessive interest on loans.

On April 28 -- 4 days after getting the first loan -- Mack borrowed $65,000 from Ito, and agreed to pay back $130,000 by September 30, 2010 -- again, squarely violating the usury law.

Under California law, a creditor who charges interest that violates the usury law is entitled to NO interest from the debtor.

But here's what happened. Ito sued Mack, and Mack did not show up in court. The judge entered a default judgment -- presumably after looking at the 2 contracts -- in the amount of $229,668.86 -- which includes the exorbitant paybacks, as well as additional interest and attorney's fees.

It's baffling the judge enforced what is clearly an illegal agreement.


No Avatar

Cheryl A.    

Poor fella must have been VERY hard up to take a loan under those interest rates. Too bad the court enforced the loan. I hope he can appeal this.

1007 days ago


Mack must not have thought it was unreasonable or he would have been in court. When you don't show, it's because you know you lose. He must have believed he owed it. If I had been in his shoes, I would have been in front of that judge early.

1007 days ago


I directed the Mac 10 Vid in Long Beach last year, he paid me!!

1007 days ago


I say he got macked in 2010 how re\re could you get 100% interest

1007 days ago

Mumra the Ever Living    

The ruling in court has nothing to do with interest rate. The aggrieved party will be awarded the penalty times 2. Add in attorney fees, and all the other crap and you come up the final figure. Perhaps this is what happened.

The more important point is why didn't the man show up for court. Only an idiot would not show up when this much money is at stake.

1006 days ago


heres a novel within your means!!!!

1006 days ago


Does this dude ever smile?

1006 days ago

Mumra the Ever Living    

The man's bad! He don't got to go to no court date! He named himself after a bad-a$$ GUN man, he don't have to follow NO RULES man. He's MAC 10 baby, don't you know he's above the law? He raps about bytches, he raps about VODKA, he raps about GETTING PAID! He's MAC 10 don't ya know - ain't NO judge going to mess with him, 'cause he's BAD. HE's MAC 10 !!!!!

Actually, he's just some idiot who blew off his own court date, and now has to pay the penalty. What a douche.

1006 days ago


Every one shows up to court stupid ! oh who's mac 10 ? don't tell me don't really care...sounds like a loser

1006 days ago


In all jurisdictions, you get a default judgment if the other side fails to show up. The judge never even gets to look at the facts; if you fail to show, you lose. The judge had no legal recourse except to find the way he did. It's not baffling at all, what is baffling is that TMZ apparently makes no attempt to find out how the system works.

1006 days ago


Oh no, he's going to have to pull out his Mack 10 and go bust a cap. lol.

1006 days ago


It went by default - he did not show up or file an answer or anything. Judge had no choice. If he had appeared in the lawsuit and filed an answer fighting the interest, the end result would have been different. He evidently thought that if he ignored this it would go away. He should have responded.

1006 days ago


California law clearly states if you do not show up in court, the suing party wins period! The fact of the interest being illegal then becomes nuke and void.

1006 days ago


well these check into cash places do it all the time and it's illegal, but they are allowed to do it any way - explain that!

1006 days ago

Charlie Sheen's Watch    

TMZ is right - The Court should NOT have entered a default judgment simply because the guy defaulted - Why? Because the Court is granting a judgment for a contract that is clearly illegal.

This is like going into court and suing your drug dealer because he failed to come up with your drugs on an agreed upon date. As a result he breached. You sue and the judge grants you a default judgment because your drug dealer didn't respond to your Complaint.

The Court may think they had no choice in granting the default judgment but the judge was wrong. He cannot and SHOULD HAVE NOT granted a judgment that upholds something that is clearly illegal - just like he shouldn't grant a judgment to you because your drug dealer failed to provide you your drugs.

1005 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web