CRATON ENTERTAINMENT, LLC
v.
MERCHANT CAPITAL GROUP LLC
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.
A transaction is not indicative of a loan where the repayment obligation is contingent or dependent upon the success of the underlying venture rather than absolute.
[1] A transaction in which repayment is contingent upon the success of an underlying venture, rather than absolute, is not a loan subject to usury statutes where a portion of…
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 intelligence“When the principal sum lent or any part of it is placed in hazard, the lender may lawfully require, in return for the risk, as large a sum as may be reasonable, provided it is done in good faith.”
Diversified Enterprises, Inc. v. West, establishing the principle that lenders may recover amounts proportional to risk when principal is placed in jeopardy.
Craton Entertainment, LLC appealed a circuit court judgment in Miami-Dade County involving a transaction with Merchant Capital Group LLC. The transact…
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
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Saralegui v. Sacher, Zelman, Van Sant Paul, Beily, Hartman & Waldman, P.A., 19 So. 3d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (reasoning that transaction is not indicative of a loan where repayment obligation is not absolute, but rather contingent or dependent upon the success of the underlying venture); Oregrund Ltd. P’ship v. Sheive, 873 So. 2d 451, 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (observing that “transactions in which a portion of the investment is at speculative risk” are “excluded from the usury statutes”); Hurley v. Slingerland, 461 So. 2d 282, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding that where “a portion of appellee’s investment was at risk . . . the transaction was not usurious”); Diversified Enters., Inc. v. West, 141 So. 2d 27, 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (“When the principal sum lent or any part of it is placed in hazard, the lender may lawfully require, in return for the risk, as large a sum as may be reasonable, provided it is done in good faith.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Diversified Enters., Inc. v. West, 141 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Raymond S. Hurley and related interests v. Slingerland, 461 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Saralegui v. Sacher, 19 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Oregrund Ltd. P'ship v. Sheive, 873 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)