HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA, F.S.B., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GARY S. GOLDSTEIN AND BARBARA GOLDSTEIN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 trial court's summary judgment for borrowers on Truth in Lending Act violations is reversed and remanded because the court failed to specify which violations it found, and at least one alleged violation (exclusion of Florida intangible tax) is now resolved by controlling precedent in favor of the lender.
The Florida intangible tax is excludable from the finance charge under TILA if the creditor itemizes and discloses the tax to the customer, and summary judgment for borrowers on TILA violations must be reversed when the trial court fails to identify which specific violations it found.
[1] The Florida intangible tax is excludable from the finance charge under the Federal Truth in Lending Act if the creditor itemizes and discloses the tax separately to the c…
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 intelligenceHome Savings of America, a lender, furnished credit disclosure statements to borrowers Gary and Barbara Goldstein. The borrowers alleged five specific…
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 Violation Of Truth In Lending Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court determined that the appel-lees/borrowers were entitled to summary judgment on the ground that there were in fact violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act in the required credit disclosure statements furnished by appellant/lender. See Federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1601 et seq. (West 1982 & Supp. 1995) (TILA). While five specific TILA violations were alleged by appellees, the trial court affirmatively refused to specify what violations it found in the documents. Our review is hampered by this failure.
One of the TILA violations alleged was the exclusion of the Florida intangible tax from the finance charge. Since the entry of the summary judgment, our court has decided Pignato v. Great Western Bank, 664 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), reh’g, reh’g en banc and certified questions denied, 1/10/96, (jurisdiction pending Fla. no. 87,335), in which we held that the Florida intangible tax is excludable from the finance charge under TILA so long as the creditor itemizes and discloses the intangible tax to the customer. As the trial court seems to have relied on the contrary decision of Rodash v. AIB Mortgage Co., 16 F. 3d 1142 (11th Cir.1994), we reverse and remand. As to the other violations alleged, we find that there are material issues of fact and law remaining. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985). We elaborate no further as the trial court did not determine which matters it considered to be TILA violations.
Reversed and remanded.
GUNTHER, C. J., and WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- Pignato v. Great W. Bank, 664 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Rodash v. AIB Mortg. Co., 16 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir. 1994)