KK-PB FINANCIAL, LLC
v.
SALAZAR LAW, LLP, ET AL.
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.
Summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid contract with the defendants.
[1] To prove the existence of a contract under Florida law, a party must establish offer, acceptance, consideration, and sufficient specification of essential terms.
[2] Mutual assent is an absolute condition precedent to contract formation and may be evidenced by a signed contract or shown through other means such as acts or conduct of t…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKK-PB Financial, LLC appealed a summary judgment order entered by the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in favor of Salazar Law, LLP and other defen…
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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 21, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D25-0317 Lower Tribunal No. 20-10393-CA-01 ________________ KK-PB Financial, LLC, Appellant, vs. Salazar Law, LLP, et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Zink, Zink, and Zink Co., L.P.A, and Larry A. Zink (Hillsboro Beach), for appellant. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Scott A. Cole and Francesca Stein, for appellees. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
3 (2013) (for amounts or values exceeding $500,000, it is not usurious or unlawful unless the interest rate exceeds the rate prescribed in section 687.071(2), which is 25% per annum); § 687.01, Fla. Stat. (2013) (provides that “[i]n all cases where interest shall accrue without a special contract for the rate thereof, the rate is the rate provided for in s. 55.03.”) (emphasis added); WPB, Ltd. v. Supran, 720 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (finding a “special contract” is “always an express contract, ‘one whose provisions are expressed and not dependent on implication.’”); Home Loan Co., Inc. of Boston v. Sloane Co. of Sarasota, 240 So. 2d 526, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (“A party opposing a motion for summary judgment will not be permitted to alter the position of his previous pleadings, admissions, affidavits, depositions or testimony in order to defeat a summary judgment.”); Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015, 1018 (Fla. 1984) (“[W]hen the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to [grant summary judgment].”) (quoting Prosser, Law of Torts § 41 (4th Ed. 1971)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gooding v. Univ. Hosp. Bldg., Inc., 445 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1984)
- Gibson v. Garth Courtois and Sally Courtois, 539 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1989)
- Gateway Cable T.V., Inc. v. Vikoa Constr. Corp., 253 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Integrated Health Servs. OF Green Briar, Inc. v. Lopez-Silvero, 827 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Cefco v. Odom, 278 So. 3d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Home Loan Co. Inc. OF Boston v. The Sloane Co. OF Sarasota, 240 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- WPB, Ltd. v. Supran, 720 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Eglin Fed. Credit Union v. Baird, 400 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
- Ferguson v. Carnes, 125 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)