ANTHONY CLAUSI, JR., DOING BUSINESS AS AUTO WHOLESALER, APPELLANT,
v.
CASNER MOTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 the trial court's judgment, finding no basis to disturb the findings of fact based on conflicting evidence.
Appellant sued appellee for charging usurious interest rates. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found no usury and entered judgment for the app…
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
This was a law action by the appellant to recover sums of money on which it was alleged that usurious rates were charged in violation of § 687.07, Fla.Stat, F.S.A. The appellee generally denied the material allegations of the complaint and counterclaimed for a money judgment for sums advanced to the appellant but not repaid.
Upon agreement of counsel for the parties, the cause was tried before the court without a jury. The trial judge rendered final judgment against the appellant on his complaint, and in favor o.f the appellee on its counterclaim, finding that the appellant had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the transactions were tainted with usury, and further, that appellee had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant was indebted to the appellee for sums of money advanced by the appellee. It is from this final judgment that the appeal was taken.
The appellant presents two questions for review, both of which challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial judge’s finding. The trial of the cause resulted in a sharp conflict in testimony as to the intentions of the parties regarding the multiple business transactions between them. It was the duty of the trial judge, sitting in the place and stead of the jury, to reconcile these conflicts. The fact that he reconciled the conflicts adverse to appellant presents little basis for review by this court.
The sum and substance of the record presented reflects the court’s findings of fact based upon conflicting evidence. The parties stipulated to a hearing before the trial judge without the assistance of a jury. An appellate court would not be warranted in disturbing the findings of the trial judge unless they were clearly erroneous. See Marek v. Patterson, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 808; First Atlantic National Bank of Daytona Beach v. Cobbett, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 870; In re Thompson’s Estate, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 911; Holland v. Gross, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 255, 63 A.L.R.2d 920.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pokress v. Josephart, 152 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…es to be drawn therefrom failed to prove the plaintiff’s case under the issues made by the pleadings. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . Bittner v. Walsh, Ma.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 799; Clausi v. Oasner Motors, Ma.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 587.…
-
DU Pont Plaza, Inc. v. Samuel Kipnis Fam. Found., 132 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…e record and conclude that where, as here, the chancellor’s finding is based 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 decre…
-
Lilianan Guelman and Lidia Guelman v. Elba Formente de Guelman, 453 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…foreign jurisdiction, even though such expert opinion may be in dispute. In Re: Evers’ Estate, 160 Fla. 225, 34 So. 2d 561 (1948); Mori v. Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, 380 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Clausi v. Casner Motors, Inc., 112 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). A marriage is presumed valid. Teel v. Nolen Brown Motors, Inc., 93 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1957); In Re Estate of Lee, 360 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Grace v. Grace, 162 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Accord: In Re Estate of Mard…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- First Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Daytona Beach v. Olive S. Cobbett, 82 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1955)
- Bernardo de la Pena v. SC Mota Assocs. Ltd. P'ship (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1956)
- Matter of the Estate of Lizzie Thompson v. Silver Squarcia, 84 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1955)
- Marek v. Patterson, 75 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1954)