Before and during his decade-long divorce proceedings, Piterman made monthly payments on two promissory notes to his friend Korchemny, who then with Piterman’s encouragement and aid sued Piterman, his former wife and her trust to collect on the notes.  This opinion affirms a judgment against Korchemny on the complaint.  The first promissory note charged interest in excess of 10% and actual payments on both notes exceeded 10% interest.  Since the loans were usurious, Korchemny could not collect any interest and all sums paid on the notes reduced principal, resulting in this case in nothing still owed to Korchemny.  The attorney fee award to wife and her trust is also affirmed, as well as the judgment against Piterman on his indemnity cross-complaint since there was nothing owing to Korchemny other than what Piterman through his support of Korchemny instead of defending the case, ended up owing.