1. Ideal Loan claims the trial court erred by requiring that it introduce proof of damages because, on its face, the action was a suit on a contract for liquidated damages. OCGA 9-11-55 (a). The default judgment shows that the trial court did not require Ideal Loan to introduce evidence before the court to establish the amount of damages. This enumeration is without merit.

2. In enumerations of error two and three, Ideal Loan claims that the trial court erroneously calculated that the rate of interest charged on the note was usurious, and erroneously concluded in the default judgment that Ideal Loan forfeited any right to the award of interest because the note was usurious.

Although we need not address whether or not the trial court correctly calculated the rate of interest charged on the loan, we note that the "Annual Percentage Rate" referred to in the court's judgment is not simple interest by which usury is measured. Norris v. Sigler Daisy Corp., 260 Ga. 271, 273 (392 SE2d 242) (1990).

In any event, in entering the default judgment, the trial court was not authorized to raise the defense of usury on behalf of Little. See OCGA 9-11-54 (c); 9-11-55. "The defense of usury is personal to the debtor . . . [and] may not be urged save by the borrower or his privies." Clark v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals, 156 Ga. App. 251, 252 (274 SE2d 648) (1980). 1 The trial court erred to the extent it excluded the award of interest in the default judgment on the basis that the loan contract was usurious.