THEODORE CERAOLO
v.
MYRON A. SMITH
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decree regarding usury in a mortgage case, holding that the forfeiture for usury should be calculated differently. The court referenced a prior ruling to guide the correct calculation of forfeited amounts.
The court held that the forfeiture for usury should include double the amount reserved by the lender and double the amount paid as interest. This total forfeiture is to be deducted from the principal amount loaned.
“The amounts that under the statute should for the usury be forfeited and deducted from the amount actually loaned are double the $500.00 res'erved by the lender but included in the note, and also double the $1000.00 actually reserved by or paid to the mortgagee as interest, making a total of $3000.00 to be deducted from the $4500.00 actually loaned to and received by the mortgagor.”
Explains the calculation of forfeiture for usury.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA mortgagor appealed a decree rendered against them for $2700.00, claiming a larger forfeiture for usury was warranted. The dispute centered on the ca…
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 Interest Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
In proceedings to enforce a mortgage lien upon real estate given to secure the payment of a negotiable promissory note for $5000.00 payable in three years with interest at 8% per annum, the Chancellor found in effect that under Sections 6936 (4851), 6939 (4852), Compiled General Laws, 1927, the note secured by the mortgage is usurious in that the actual amount loaned was $4500.00, *400$500 having been reserved as a bonus'. Amounts totaling $1000.00 were reserved or paid as interest. The decree com tains the following:
“Amounts actually loaned by Smith to Ceraolo $4500.00
Attorney’s fees'__________________________ 250.00
$4750100
Less double the amount of interest actually paid by the Mortgagor------------------ 2000.00
net amount due $2750.00”
A decree was rendered against the mortgagor for $2700.00. Defendant appealed claiming a larger forfeiture for the usury.
The amounts that under the statute should for the usury be forfeited and deducted from the amount actually loaned are double the $500.00 res'erved by the lender but included in the note, and also double the $1000.00 actually reserved by or paid to the mortgagee as interest, making a total of $3000.00 to be deducted from the $4500.00 actually loaned to and received by the mortgagor. Sherman v. Myers, 108 Fla. 129, 146 So. 213. The opinion in Sherman v. Myers was filed in this Court after the decree herein was rendered in the circuit court.
The amount allowed for attorney fees should have appropriate relation to the amount recoverable.
Revers'ed for appropriate decree.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boatright v. The City of Jacksonville, 117 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1934)…Sou. Rep. 316; Poekel v. Dowling, 108 Fla. 582, 146 Sou. Rep. 662; Davant v. City of Brooksville, 107 Fla. 292, 144 Sou. Rep. 666; Gulf View Apartments v. City of Venice, 108 Fla. 41, 145 Sou. Rep. 842; Cochrane v. Town of Boca Raton, 112 Fla. 177, 150 Sou. Rep. 611; Ridgeway v. Peacock, 100 Fla. 1297, 131 Sou. Rep. 140; Ridgeway v. Reese, 100 Fla. 1304, 131 Sou. Rep. 136; Hackney v. McKenny (on rehearing), 113 Fla. 189, 151 Sou. Rep. 529. In the case last cited it was definitely held that under the laws of Flo…
-
Iola v. Brumick, 131 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1938)…must forfeit the entire interest charged or contracted for and must in addition double the amount of interest which has been reserved and decreed a penalty. [*58] See Sherman v. Myers, 108 Fla. 129; 146 Sou. Rep. 213; Ceraola v. Smith, 112 Fla. 399, 150 Sou. Rep. 611. In. Mason v. Cunningham, supra, the reservation of a broker’s commission did not make the transaction usurious. This was so held even though the broker acts for the lender. In the case of Wicker v. Trust Co. of Florida, 108 Fla. 411, 147 Sou. Rep.…
-
Penn-Florida Hotels Corp. v. The Atl. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 126 Fla. 344 (Fla. 1936)…eb, 105 Fla. 297, 140 Sou. Rep. 916; Williams v. Dunn, 105 Fla. 327, 141 Sou. Rep. 190; Porter Interests v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., 105 Fla. 550, 141 Sou. Rep. 741; Brush v. Barnett Natl. Bank, 110 Fla. 459, 140 Sou. Rep. 57; Ceraola v. Smith, 112 Fla. 399, 150 Sou. Rep. 611. The allowance of compensation to the Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville for its services as trustee have not been shown to be so unreasonably low as to warrant a reversal on its cross-appeal. So the orders appealed from, in…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sherman v. Myers, 108 Fla. 129 (Fla. 1933)