JAMES E. WHARTON, ET UX., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THE FIRST, F.A., A CORPORATION, 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.
In this mortgage foreclosure appeal, the court reversed summary judgment because the promissory note's interest rate provision was ambiguous and created a genuine issue of material fact requiring resolution before final judgment could be entered.
The court held that the interest rate provision in the note was ambiguous and raised a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved by further evidence before summary judgment could be entered. The precise interest rate computation is essential because it affects both potential deficiency judgments against the borrowers and surplus payments owed to them.
[1] A genuine issue of material fact exists when a party disputes the exact rate of interest charged on a promissory note, particularly when the note's terms are ambiguous or…
[2] Summary judgment is inappropriate when a party raises factual questions regarding the existence, definition, or application of a referenced interest rate, such as a "Prim…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 affidavit of appellant raises a fact issue as to the interest rate which must be resolved by the taking of further evidence. What exactly is the rate of interest? Is there a short term commercial prime rate? Is it published in the Wall Street Journal? Can it be computed daily and then applied to this loan and this judgment?”
Establishes that unresolved factual questions regarding the interest rate computation preclude summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Wharton and others obtained a loan from The First, F.A., secured by a mortgage. The promissory note contained a variable interest rate provision…
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 Affidavit Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure case.
The issue on appeal is whether there was a genuine issue of material fact left unresolved by the summary judgment. We find there was. The issue involves the exact rate of interest charged by the bank on the promissory note.
The note says:
The Interest Rate is:
( ) A FIXED RATE OF _ per cent per annum simple interest; or (XX) A VARIABLE RATE OF L50 per cent per annum simple interest in excess of the “Base Rate”. The BASE RATE is:
(X) The Prime Rate (the term “Prime Rate” means the interest rate announced from time to time as the Prime Rate) in effect at:
( ) The Payee: or ( X ) The First commercial prime, which is based on New York prime interest rate for short term commercial loans as published in the Wall Street Journal.
( ) Other _ and the variable rate applied to this loan will be adjusted: ( ) from time to time as the Base Rate changes; or ( ) monthly based on the Base Rate in effect at the beginning of each calendar month; or (X) Other Daily, with any prime rate change.
Appellant filed an affidavit disputing that of appellee regarding the computation of the interest rate. Appellant says appel-lee’s affidavit is ambiguous and in conflict with appellee’s proposed final judgment. He further says there is no such thing as “The First Commercial prime which is based on New York prime interest rate for short term commercial loans as published in the Wall Street Journal.”
The affidavit of appellant raises a fact issue as to the interest rate which must be resolved by the taking of further evidence. What exactly is the rate of interest? Is there a short term commercial prime rate? Is it published in the Wall Street Journal? Can it be computed daily and then applied to this loan and this judgment? How much is it? The record does not reveal that these questions were answered below. They must be answered because appellee will be able to seek a deficiency judgment against appellants even after they take the security for the defaulted loan, if the security does not satisfy the payment of the note and other costs and charges. Also, if the security at the foreclosure sale is sold for more than the total indebtedness then appellants will be due the excess. A precise interest figure is required if appellee seeks to collect it. The summary judgment leaves that question still unanswered. We must reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watson v. Truman Hahn, 664 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…DCA 1986). . Bell v. Bailey, 639 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); McCone v. Butts, 616 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Edenfield v. Martin County, 583 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), approved, 609 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1992); Wharton v. The First, F.A., 554 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).…