ETHEL EHRLICH, APPELLANT,
v.
METRO REALTY, INC., 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.
Ethel Ehrlich appealed a trial court judgment finding that a promissory note she held against Metro Realty was usurious and unenforceable. The key factual dispute was whether a $300 payment from Metro Realty represented advance interest (making the effective rate exceed Florida's 25% usury limit) or a correction to the loan amount.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial judge's factual findings that the $300 was an advance interest payment and the note was therefore usurious were entitled to a presumption of correctness and were adequately supported by the evidence.
“It is upon resolution of this issue of fact that the case turns. If appellant's version is accepted, then the note is not usurious, if the appellee's version is accepted the note is usurious.”
Establishes that the entire appeal hinges on the factual characterization of the $300 payment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Ehrlich and appellee Metro Realty executed a transaction involving a $3,300 promissory note with no interest for 120 days but 15% per annum …
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 Action On A Note cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Ethel Ehrlich, was plaintiff and counter-defendant and appellee, Metro Realty, Inc., was defendant-counter-claimant in the trial court.
Appellee signed a note payable to appellant in the sum of $3,300 which provided for no interest for 120 days, but 15% per annum thereafter. At the same time, appellant gave appellee two checks totaling $3,300. As part of the same transaction appellee gave appellant its check for $300.
Upon default in payment by appellee, after demand, appellant instituted the instant action seeking recovery on the note. Appellee’s answer set up the defense of usury as a complete bar to recovery and counter-claimed for the recovery of $300 which it had paid to appellant for interest.
The case was tried without a jury and resulted in a finding in favor of appellee on the ground that the note was usurious because plaintiff had knowingly charged a rate of interest, on the loan to defendant in excess of 25% per annum. Appellee contended that the $300 check which it gave to appellant was an advance interest payment. Appellant maintained that this payment was to correct a mistake, in that the amount previously agreed to be loaned was $3,000, but that the note had been erroneously drawn for $3,300, therefore to avoid redrafting the note, appellee gave appellant its check so that the net balance payable would be the $3,000 previously agreed upon by the parties.
It is upon resolution of this issue of fact that the case turns. If appellant’s version is accepted, then the note is not usurious, if the appellee’s version is accepted the note is usurious.
The basic question in this appeal is whether the evidence presented at the trial, without a jury, sufficiently supports the judgment in favor of the defendant-counter-claimant. The findings of a judge sitting without a jury are entitled to the same presumption of correctness as a jury’s findings of fact.1 As we view this record ■that presumption of correctness is not overcome, and the trial judge’s findings have adequate evidentiary support.
We have considered appellant’s other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.