KATE HOLMES HOPKINS, AS EXECUTRIX,
v.
ANNIE OTTO, 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.
This case concerns whether a mortgage lien is enforceable when the loan contains usurious elements, specifically a bonus paid to the lender's employee and a title insurance charge. The court determined that the loan was indeed usurious.
Yes, the mortgage loan was usurious. The bonus paid to the lender's employee, combined with the interest charged, exceeded the legal rate, making the loan usurious.
“Usury was a defense. A commission of $75.00 was paid from the amount of the note to an employee in the lender's office which the Chancellor in effect held was in the nature of a bonus to the lender.”
This quote establishes the core factual basis for the usury defense, identifying the bonus payment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe borrower received $1,425.00 from a $1,500.00 mortgage loan, with a $75.00 commission paid to the lender's employee, which the court considered a b…
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.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing a suit to enforce a mortgage lien, the note and mortgage being for $1,500.00 due in three years with interest at 8% per annum payable semi-annually. Usury was a defense. A commission of $75.00 was paid from the amount of the note to an employee in the lender’s office which the Chancellor in effect held was in the nature of a bonus to the lender. Only $1,425.00 was received by the borrower, even if the lender should not have paid a charge of $30.00 for title insurance on the mortgaged property.' Foreclosure was begun at the end of two years under the acceleration provision of the mortgage.
Without the charge of $30.00 for title insurance on the *866mortgaged property, the $75.00 bonus reserved together with the interest charged rendered the loan usurious.
In Wilson v. Connor, 106 Fla. 6, 142 So. 606, the first year’s interest and the bonus were both reserved when the loan was made.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Iola v. Brumick, 131 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1938)…the deed. It is contended that defendant charged plaintiffs a rate of interest prohibited by law and cites Sections 6936-6937 C. G. L. as authority for the unlawful charge with Mason v. Cunningham, 111 Fla. 200, 149 Sou. Rep. 331; Hopkins v. Otto, 118 Fla. 865, 160 Sou. Rep. 203. Opposing counsel cites Wilson v. Connor-Knight Const. Co., 106 Fla. 6, 142 Sou. Rep. 606, to the effect that a person willfully violating the usury law must forfeit the entire interest charged or contracted for and must in additi…
-
Pushee v. Johnson, 123 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1936)…ell as for title insurance, and the costs of closing the transaction even though such payments when added to the interest contracted for exceed the maximum interest allowed by law. Wilson v. Conner, 106 Fla. 6, 142 Sou. 606; Hopkins v. Otto, et al., 118 Fla. 865, 160 Sou. 203. So the only question left for our determination is whether or not in the transaction as above set forth the lender by accepting a part of the commission, which had theretofore been agreed to be paid to the broker without placing any…
-
Enstrom v. Dunning, 124 Fla. 571 (Fla. 1936)…ful rate of interest to be exceeded, even though it is made without the actual knowledge or authority of the creditor, the case standing upon exactly the same footing as if. the exaction were made by the creditor himself.” See also Hopkins v. Otto, 118 Fla. 865, 160 So. 203. While the question presented is not free from difficulty, our view is that, under the language of our usury statute the Special Master’s conclusions on the law of the case were correct. The result is that the decree appealed from must…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. Conner, 106 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1932)