NAPLES CAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CARL FERRIS, 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.
Naples Cay Development Corporation appeals a summary judgment dismissing its usury claim against Carl Ferris. The contract at issue provided for repayment of principal plus interest, costs, and compensation for services, and the court held that Naples Cay failed to present evidence that the substance of the transaction constituted usury despite the form of the contract.
The court affirmed summary judgment for Ferris, holding that the contract was not usurious on its face and that Naples Cay bore the burden of proving by clear and satisfactory evidence that the substance of the transaction constituted usury. Because Naples Cay presented no evidence to contradict the contract's express terms or to show Ferris acted with corrupt intent to charge illegal interest, summary judgment was proper.
[1] A contract is not usurious on its face when it expressly provides for repayment of borrowed sums, plus costs and compensation for services rendered, without itemizing the…
[2] A party asserting usury bears the burden to affirmatively plead and establish by clear and satisfactory evidence that the substance of a transaction, rather than its form…
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“Appellant was free to demonstrate to the trial judge, and indeed had the burden to affirmatively plead and establish by clear and satisfactory evidence, that the substance of the transaction rather than the form of the contract should prevail and that the substance showed that the additional sums being repaid by appellant represented usurious interest.”
Establishes that the borrower bears the burden of proving usury by clear and satisfactory evidence and may overcome a contract's form by showing the substance of the transaction is usurious.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNaples Cay and Ferris entered into a contract whereby Ferris loaned money to Naples Cay with repayment terms that included the original principal, int…
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 Usury Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges a final summary judgment in which the court determined that a contract between appellant and appellee was not usurious. The contract specifically provided for the repayment of monies loaned to appellant by appellee, together with interest, costs and compensation for services rendered by appellee. We affirm.
The contract now challenged but freely entered into by appellant expressly recognized that a portion of the sums to be repaid by appellant, in addition to the sums originally borrowed from appellee, was compensation for services rendered appellant by appellee. The contract did not identify what part of the additional sum to be repaid represented interest or what part of that sum represented costs advanced and compensation for services rendered. On its face, therefore, the contract was not usurious. Appellant was free to demonstrate to the trial judge, and indeed had the burden to affirmatively plead and establish by clear and satisfactory evidence, that the substance of the transaction rather than the form of the contract should prevail and that the substance showed that the additional sums being repaid by appellant represented usurious interest. Kay v. Amendola, 129 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Rollins v. Odom, 519 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 529 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1988); May v. United States Leasing Corp., 239 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
However, appellant came forward with no evidence at the hearing on the motions for summary judgment that could refute appellee’s evidence that the contract was clear and unambiguous, that appellee did provide services and did advance costs for appellant for which compensation was to be paid, and that there was no evidence available to demonstrate that the amount being repaid solely as interest was usurious in amount. No such evidence was offered, nor did appellant demonstrate that any evidence could be forthcoming, to show that appellee acted with the corrupt intent to charge more than a legal rate of interest that is necessary to establish usury. Rebman v. Flagship First National Bank of Highlands County, 472 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Without the offer of any such evidence or an indication that such evidence was available to contradict the express provisions of the contract, appellee was entitled to summary judgment. See Swanson v. Gulf West International Corp., 429 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Davanzo v. Miami National Bank, 301 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA. 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1975); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966).
We, therefore, affirm the summary judgment for appellee.
RYDER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. Bailey, 639 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Wells v. Freedman, 342 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 366 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1978); First Mortgage Investors v. Boulevard Nat’l Bank, 327 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); see also Naples Cay Dev. Corp. v. Ferris, 555 So. 2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1990). To avoid this inevitable result, the trial court struck the plaintiffs affidavit upon a finding that it was contrary to the plaintiffs sworn deposition. We disagree. The plaintiff i…
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- KAY v. Amendola, 129 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Rebman v. Flagship First Nat'l Bank OF Highlands Cnty., 472 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- MAY v. United States Leasing Corp., 239 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Vito Davanzo v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 301 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Swanson v. Gulf W. Int'l Corp., 429 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Rollins v. J.D. Odom, Jr., 519 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Chivers v. Argyros, 315 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1975)
- Vito Davanzo v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 315 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1975)