INDIANAPOLIS MORRIS PLAN CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
RAUL PORTELA AND VIVIAN PORTELA, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1978-11-28
No. 78-207
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.
364 So. 2d 840 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1978) Negative Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that a lender with unclean hands due to usury cannot foreclose a mortgage in equity, but a money judgment for the loan amount less penalties may be entered.


Headnotes

[1] A court of equity may refuse to enforce a mortgage when usury is found, as the lender lacks clean hands.

[2] A mortgage contract found to be in violation of civil usury laws may be denied enforcement as against public policy.

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellant-lender sought to foreclose a mortgage. The trial court found civil usury, refused foreclosure, but entered a money judgment for the loan amo…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-lender seeks review of a final judgment in equity, refusing foreclosure of a mortgage but entering a money judgment for the amount of the loan less civil usury penalties. The appellees cross-assign error as to the entry of the judgment for the balance due. We affirm.

The appellant came, into a court of equity. The record supports a finding of usury and, therefore, he was without clean hands and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to lend equity powers to enforce the mortgage. Dale v. Jennings, 90 Fla. 234, 107 So. 175 (1925); Sahler v. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206, 17 So. 2d 105 (1944); Brenner v. Smullian, 84 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1955); Bella Isla Construction Corporation v. Trust Mortgage Corporation, 347 So. 2d 649 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Continental Mortgage Investors v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 354 So. 2d 67 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).

The court also would have been right in declining to enforce the mortgage as being against the public policy of this State, having found civil usury. Sherbill v. Miller Manufacturing Company, 89 So. 2d 28 (Fla.1956); Davis v. Ebsco Industries, Inc., 150 So. 2d 460 (Fla.3d DCA 1963); Bond v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 246 So. 2d 631 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). We have not overlooked the case of Staros v. Avalon Shores, Inc., 249 So. 2d 448 (Fla.1st DCA 1971), but by its very decision it indicates that a chancellor has the discretion to deny foreclosure.

We find no merit to the appellant’s assignments of error. We cannot reach the merit of the cross-assignment filed by the appellees because no point on appeal was filed in support thereof and, therefore, it is considered abandoned. Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So. 2d 333 (Fla.2d DCA 1960); Time Insurance Company v. Arnold, 319 So. 2d 638 (Fla.1st DCA 1975); Florida First National Bank of Jacksonville v. Dent, 350 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); Florida Rules Appellate Procedure 3.7 i.

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Colucci v. Greenfield, 547 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
    …l judgment must be affirmed. Florida Ass’n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Dentistry, 500 So. 2d 324, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 509 So. 2d 1117 (Fla.1987); Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v. Portela, 364 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Florida First Nat’l Bank v. Dent, 350 So. 2d 481, 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). I recognize that the appellants in their reply brief filed by counsel raise certain points on appeal which the court agrees [*226] with in its opin…
  • Lamb v. Pike, 659 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
    …a. 3d DCA 1995) (Schwartz, C.J., specially concurring) (summary judgment in foreclosure action precluded by “substantial, unresolved defenses that ... the action was barred under the clean hands doctrine”); Indianapolis Morris Plan Corp. v. Portela, 364 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (plaintiff “was without clean hands and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to lend equity powers to enforce the mortgage”); Campbell v. Werner, 232 So. 2d 252, 256-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (“foreclosure on…
  • OFS Equities, Inc. v. Lou Conde, 421 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
    …s a court of this state, as part of its power to do equity, to disregard the parties’ express or constructive choice to have rights under a mortgage note determined by the laws of another state, e.g., Indianapolis Morris Plan Corporation v. Portela, 364 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Continental Mortgage Investors v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 354 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), reversed, 395 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1981); Bella Isla Construction Corporation [*654] v. Trust Mortgage Corporation, 347 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 19…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (15 total)

View all 15 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw