AMERICAN AIRMOTIVE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ARON ELLMAN, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a foreclosure decree, upholding the lower court's finding that the lender did not knowingly charge usurious interest, despite the high annual interest rate.
No, the lower court did not err. The appellate court affirmed the foreclosure decree, deferring to the chancellor's findings of fact that the lender did not knowingly charge usurious interest.
“The findings of the chancellor, based on conflicting evidence, absolved the lender of knowingly charging usurious interest.”
This quote establishes the factual finding by the lower court that was central to the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Airmotive Corporation (appellant) appealed a foreclosure decree granted to Aron Ellman (appellee). The defense argued that the loan was usuri…
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 Chancellor's Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a foreclosure decree in favor of the plaintiff, in a suit tried before the chancellor, on the complaint, the answer and counterclaim, the reply to the counterclaim and the evidence submitted by and on behalf of the parties.
The defense was a claim of usury (interest at the rate of 31.9% per annum) in violation of Section 687.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The findings of the chancellor, based on conflicting evidence, absolved the lender of knowingly charging usurious interest.
After hearing oral argument, and after extensive study and consideration of this appeal, it is the opinion of this court that on the case as it was pleaded and tried in the circuit court, and giving the required effect to the chancellor’s findings thereon, the decree should be, and it hereby is affirmed, on authority of Maule v. Eckis, 156 Fla. 790, 24 So.2d 576.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DU Pont Plaza, Inc. v. Samuel Kipnis Fam. Found., 132 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…ed upon conflicting evidence, an appellate court is not warranted in disturbing his conclusion unless it is clearly erroneous. See Clausi v. Casner Motors, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 587; and cf. American Airmotive Corp. v. Ellman, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 834; Silverstein v. Wakefield, supra. The remaining questions raised and argued by the appellants have been duly considered and found to be without merit. Accordingly, the decree appealed is affirmed. . Forfeiture of the entire sum, both principal an…
-
Am. Airmotive Corp. v. Ellman, 105 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1958)…Certiorari denied. 101 So. 2d 834.…
Authorities Cited
- Maule v. Eckis, 156 Fla. 790 (Fla. 1946)