GEORGE PASTERNAK, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LEE BROOK, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court affirmed that a note and mortgage with interest exceeding 25% under Florida's criminal usury statute is unenforceable even against a bona fide purchaser.
A note and mortgage with interest exceeding the 25% criminal usury limit is unenforceable in Florida courts regardless of whether the holder is a bona fide purchaser.
[1] Under Florida's criminal usury statute, an extension of credit exceeding the 25% interest limit is unenforceable in state courts regardless of the creditor's bona fide pu…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“No extension of credit made in violation of any of the provisions of this section shall be an enforceable debt in the courts of this state.”
Florida Statute § 687.071(7) defining the legal effect of criminal usury violations.
The trial court found that the interest rate reserved in a note and mortgage exceeded the 25% limit set by Florida's criminal usury statute.…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Usury cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The record in this case, which was tried to the court following the reversal of a summary judgment for the plaintiff in Brook v. Pasternak, 498 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), supports the factual finding that the rate of interest reserved in the note and mortgage sued upon exceeded the twenty-five per cent limit provided by the criminal usury statute. § 687.02, Fla. Stat. (1985). The legal effect of that determination, as the trial court also correctly held, and as section 687.071(7), Florida Statutes (1985)1 provides, is to preclude outright the enforceability of the obligation, even by a bona fide purchaser such as the appellants claim to be. See American Acceptance Corp. v. Schoenthaler, 391 F. 2d 64 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 928, 88 S.Ct. 2287, 20 L.Ed.2d 1387 (1986); North Am. Acceptance Corp. v. Warren, 451 S.W. 2d 921 (Tex.Civ.App.1970); compare § 687.04, Fla. Stat. (1985) (precluding forfeiture of interest against b.f.p. on civilly usurious transaction involving interest less than twenty-five per cent). Accordingly the judgment below is
Affirmed.
. 687.071 Criminal usury, loan sharking; shy-locking.
(7) No extension of credit made in violation of any of the provisions of this section shall be an enforceable debt in the courts of this state.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arouza v. Goldin C. Arouza, 670 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…sary expenditure of fees, Nash v. Nash, 624 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), cause dismissed, 617 So. 2d 322 (Fla.1993); Sutter v. Sutter, 578 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Elenewski v. Elenewski, 528 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), provided that “such an award is limited, as in the usual domestic situation, by that party’s financial ability to respond.” Elenewski, 528 So. 2d at 1355; accord Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 5…
-
Steinfeld v. Steinfeld, 565 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…eritorious, baseless motions and actions.... [and that] [w]hen such conduct occurs, the courts of this state have recognized that the victimized spouse is entitled to attorney’s fees, regardless of economic status. We find Elenewski v. Elenewski, 528 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), instructive on this point. In Elenewski, the court opined: In cases such as Jaffee, 394 So. 2d at 447, in which there is no question of the ability to pay of the spouse who has maintained an unwarranted claim for modification, t…
-
Pyszka v. Mullin, 602 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ecessary expense in seeking discovery to determine her husband’s interest in the law firm or in complying with this court’s order to file a response to the petition. See Eisner v. Markovich, 585 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Elenewski v. Elenewski, 528 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Meloan v. Coverdale, 525 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Sutter v. Sutter, 578 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) and cited cases. Accordingly, we deny the husband’s motion for rehearing. JORGENSON, J., concurs. . The husband had f…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Colorado v. Franc, 392 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1968)
- Am. Acceptance Corp. v. Schoenthaler, 392 U.S. 928 (U.S. 1968)
- Am. Acceptance Corp. v. Schoenthaler, 391 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Brook v. Pasternak, 498 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)