GUIDO ECHEVARRIA, APPELLANT,
v.
REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK, APPELLEE
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.
Echevarria appealed a judgment for fraud and related claims brought by Republic National Bank, challenging the calculation of default interest, the punitive damages award, and the compensatory damages amount. The court affirmed the judgment and remanded for correction of a scrivener's error in the compensatory damages award.
The court held that default interest should be computed on the full loan principal because the quit claim deed was part of a fraudulent scheme and the parties did not intend it to extinguish the debt; the $1,000,000 punitive damages award is justified by Echevarria's willful, wanton, and malicious fraudulent conduct and is not excessive; and the compensatory damages award contains a scrivener's error requiring correction from $680,000 to $580,000.
[1] A judgment may be remanded for correction of a scrivener's error in the amount of compensatory damages.
[2] The value of collateral conveyed to a bank is not deductible from the amount owed for the purpose of computing default interest when the conveyance was part of a scheme t…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the deed was part of a scheme to defraud the bank. Oswald Morales, a bank official who had been bribed by Echevarria, testified on cross-examination at trial that it was not the intent of the parties that the delivery of the quit claim deed extinguish the debt to the extent of the land value.”
Establishes that the quit claim deed should not reduce the amount owed for interest computation purposes because it was part of a fraudulent scheme.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEchevarria engaged in a scheme to defraud Republic National Bank involving bribery of bank official Oswald Morales. On April 27, 1983, Echevarria conv…
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 Economic Castigation cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
On the concession of the appellee, that the compensatory damages award of $680,-000 is a scrivener’s error and the correct amount is $580,000, we remand the case to the trial court for a correction of the judgment.
As to the remaining points no reversible error is shown. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the amount owed to the bank — for the purpose of computing default interest — should not have been reduced by the value of collateral conveyed to the bank by an April 27, 1983, quit claim deed.
The evidence demonstrated that the deed was part of a scheme to defraud the bank. Oswald Morales, a bank official who had been bribed by Echevarria, testified on cross-examination at trial that it was not the intent of the parties that the delivery of the quit claim deed extinguish the debt to the extent of the land value. That testimony is unrefuted1 and is corroborated by new agreements between the parties — executed after the quit claim deed was delivered — extending the time for repayment.
Furthermore, Echevarria had encumbered the property with two mortgages fraudulently backdated so as to appear superior to the bank’s mortgage. In fact, the land was unmarketable until the bank reestablished its superior position by voiding the fraudulent mortgages in a quiet title action. For those reasons, the trial judge’s assessment of interest on the principal amount of the loan after April 27, 1983, through the date the fraudulent mortgages were extinguished in the quiet title action, is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Findings of fact by a trial judge in a nonjury case will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Echevarria’s “willful, wanton and malicious conduct” justified the assessment of $1,000,000 in punitive damages. See Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (Fla.1936) (a legal basis for punitive damages exists where a tort is fraudulent and wanton). There is no clear showing that the punitive damage award amounts to economic castigation, that the tort committed lacked the degree of wantonness or malice necessary to sustain the amount of the award, or that the punitive damages award is excessively disproportionate to the compensatory damages. Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978).
Affirmed and remanded for correction of the judgment as to the compensatory damages award.
. Although Echevarria raised the sufficiency of the evidence to support the factual findings by a motion for rehearing, he did not testify at trial and asserted his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to deposition interrogation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ira Sands v. Blando, 575 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…the statute of limitations requirement. We find no basis under which the requirements of the statute could be tolled in this case. We note that this is one of two appeals which appellant has brought before this [*1307] court. In Sands v. Diliberto, 546 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), cause dismissed, 553 So. 2d 1166 (Fla.1990), appellant also appealed an adverse summary judgment on the basis of the statute of limitations. In that case, appellant also claimed fraud and discrepancies in records. Appellant alleg…
-
Haight v. Hall, 625 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…t there was substantial competent evidence to support that finding. A finding of fact by a trial judge in a nonjury case will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Echevarria v. Republic Nat’l Bank, 546 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Affirmed.…
-
Vasco v. Keyes Inv. Grp., Inc., 575 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Sands v. Diliberto, 546 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).…
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308 (Fla. 1936)
- Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)