MOVIEMATIC INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND IRA GELBER AND HAROLD GELBER, 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.
MIC's appeal of a foreclosure judgment and adverse counterclaim ruling was affirmed because MIC failed to demonstrate the trial court's findings regarding Metropolitan's role as mortgage broker, absence of usury, and lack of corrupt intent were clearly erroneous.
A mortgage broker's loan is not usurious and the broker did not breach its duty or act with corrupt intent merely because the borrower disputes the transaction terms.
[1] A mortgage broker acting on behalf of a borrower in securing a loan does not violate the RICO statute absent a showing that the broker acted with corrupt intent.
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 intelligenceMIC borrowed money from Metropolitan Mortgage Company, which acted as a mortgage broker. MIC later sued for foreclosure damages, alleging breach of co…
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 Contractual Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Moviematic Industries Corporation [MIC] appeals an adverse final judgment of fore closure and final judgment entered on its counterclaim seeking damages for breach of contract, usury, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act [RICO], chapter 895, Florida Statutes (1983). We affirm.
The trial court found that Metropolitan Mortgage Corporation [Metropolitan] was acting on MIC’s behalf in its capacity as mortgage broker and that the loan was not usurious. MIC has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s findings were clearly erroneous. North Am. Mortgage Investors v. Cape San Blas Joint Venture, 378 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1979); Sumner v. Inv. Mortgage Co. of Fla., 332 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So. 2d 327 (Fla.1977). Further, MIC has not shown that Metropolitan acted with corrupt intent, Dixon v. Sharp, 276 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1973); Gergora v. Goldstein Professional Ass’n Defined Benefits Pension Plan & Trust, 500 So. 2d 695 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); Rollins v. Odom, 519 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Sumner, or that Metropolitan breached any duty it had toward MIC under their contract. Thus, finding that the evidence supports the trial court’s rulings, we affirm the final judgment of foreclosure and the final judgment against MIC on its counterclaim.
Appellant’s remaining points lack merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Polakoff v. State, 586 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)….See Dixon v. Sharp, 276 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1973); Clark v. Grey, 101 Fla. 1058, 132 So. 832 (1931). See abo North American Mortg. Inv. v. Cape San Blas Joint Venture, 378 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1979); Moviematic Industries Corp. v. Metropolitan Mortg. Co., 560 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Antonelli v. Neumann, 537 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Rollins v. Odom, 519 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 529 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1988); Gergora v. Goldstein Professional Ass’n. Defined Benefits Pension Plan and Tr…
Authorities Cited
- Dixon v. Sharp, 276 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1973)
- Campbell v. Campbell, 332 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- N. Am. Mortg. Invs. v. Cape SAN Blas Joint Venture, 378 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1979)
- Gergora v. Goldstein Prof'l Ass'n Defined Benefits Pension Plan & Tr., 500 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Rollins v. J.D. Odom, Jr., 519 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)