WILLIAM H. GOODFRIEND, PETITIONER,
v.
ELBERT J. DRUCK, RESPONDENT
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.
In this promissory note collection case, the Florida Supreme Court held that when reviewing a judgment on appeal, courts must apply the law in effect at the time of appellate disposition rather than at the time the obligation was incurred. The Court reversed the District Court's decision to impose 15% interest on an individual guarantor, applying a 1965 statute that limited such guarantors to 10% interest.
The Court held that appellate courts must apply the law in effect at the time of appellate disposition, not at the time the obligation was created. Therefore, Florida Statute § 687.11(1), which limits individual guarantors to 10% interest regardless of when the obligation was incurred, applies to this case. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, reducing the interest rate applicable to the guarantor from 15% to 10%.
[1] An appellate court must apply the law prevailing at the time of its disposition, even if it differs from the law at the time of the trial court's judgment.
[2] Actions predicated upon remedies provided by usury statutes create no vested substantive rights, only enforceable penalties.
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 intelligence“an appellate court, in reviewing a judgment on direct appeal, will dispose of the case according to the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition”
Establishes the foundational rule that courts apply the law at time of appellate review, not at time of obligation creation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTransportation Management Co. executed a $10,000 promissory note in 1962, guaranteed by Goodfriend. The note bore 10% annual interest with deferred in…
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 Guarantor Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
McCAIN, Justice.
This cause arose on a petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, alleging conflict jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, § 3(b)(3), of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. This action involves a suit on a $10,000 promissory note made by Transportation Management Co. in 1962 and guaranteed by the petitioner, Goodfriend, individually. The note bore interest at a rate of 10% per annum and with deferred interest of 15% per annum from maturity until paid. Respondent sought a judgment for the amount of the promissory note, $10,000 together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from June 4, 1966 through the date of the judgment.
Between April, 1962 and June, 1966, interest payments of $83.33 per month (10% per annum) were paid to the respondent. In addition, petitioner contends that $8,000 was paid which if not characterized as payments toward the principal, would constitute usurious interest as defined in Fla. Stat. §§ 687.03 or 687.071 (1971), F.S.A. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff /respondent, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $10,000 plus interest at the rate of 15% per annum, plus attorney’s fees. The District Court affirmed in part and reversed on the issue of the amount of attorney’s fees. We granted certiorari.
The first question raised by the petitioner, whether the petitioner has sustained the burden of proof as to the question of usu ry, has been adequately addressed by the District Court, and we find no error with their determination.
Petitioner’s second contention is that an individual guarantor of a corporate promissory note cannot be liable for interest at the rate of 15% per annum upon maturity or acceleration of the note by the holder. Florida Statutes § 687.11(1) (1971), F.S.A. states:
“687.11 Interest rates; individuals secondarily liable on corporate obligations.
“(1) No individual secondarily liable as endorser, guarantor, surety, or otherwise on any corporate obligation shall be required, in any proceeding for collection of interest in the courts of this state, to pay any interest in excess of ten (10%) per cent per annum, and any interest claimed therein against such individual in excess of ten (10%) per cent per an-num shall be forfeited; and no corporation, in any such proceeding in the courts of this state where the interest is proven to exceed fifteen (15%) per cent per annum, shall be required to pay any interest, and in such event all interest shall be forfeited.”
As to this contention, the District Court held:
“ . . . As to appellant’s contention that F.S. Section 687.11(1), F.S.A. limits his liability as a guarantor, this must fail because that statute became law in 1965 and could not affect appellant’s liability incurred in 1962.” 1
This is clearly error. This Court held in Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (1966) that an appellate court, in reviewing a judgment on direct appeal, will dispose of the case according to the law prevailing at the time of the appellate disposition. The reason for this is that an action predicated upon remedies provided by usury statutes created no vested substantive rights, only enforceable penalties. Such penalties or forfeiture are not immune from statutory repeal or modification.2
Since the law changed between the execution of the promissory note and the appellate review, the appellate court was bound by the interest rate set forth in Florida Statute § 687.11(1) (1971), F.S.A. For this reason, we affirm in part and reverse in part on the issue of the interest rate charged against the petitioner. It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J„ and ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur. . Transportation Management Co. v. Druck, 279 So. 2d 88, 90 (Fla.App.1973).
. Tel Service Co. v. General Capital Corp., 227 So. 2d 667 (Fla.1969); Wilensky v. Fields, 267 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Ryter v. Brennan, 291 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…es v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1971). . Resmondo v. International Builders of Florida, Inc., 265 So. 2d 72 (1 Fla.App.1972). . Ingerson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 272 So. 2d 862 (3 Fla.App.1973). See also Goodfriend v. Druck, Fla., 289 So. 2d 710, Opinion filed January 10, 1974. . Pertinent parts of the release are as follows : “ . . . That the said and undersigned Gerald Brennán, for and in consideration of the sum of Forty Thousand Dollars does hereby remise, release and forever discharge…
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Curtiss, 327 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…aetion pending at the time of its passage” involving rights of contribution “and to cases thereafter filed.” Although the parties did not raise the question and we do not decide it, we have considered whether authorities such as Goodfriend v. Druck, 289 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1974), require us to apply the Florida Act to this case because the Act is now effective. Irrespective, however, of whether Liberty Mutual’s “cause of action” for contribution persisted at the time of the “passage” of the Contribution Act, notw…
-
MacCabee Invs., Inc. v. Markham, 311 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…-133 and sec. 196.25 and their applicability to the facts herein, a similar result would obtain based solely upon a consideration and application of see. 196.25. Cf. Straughn v. Camp, Fla.1974, 293 So. 2d 689; see also Goodfriend v. Druck, Fla.1974, 289 So. 2d 710. . The parties have seemingly engaged in a semantical dispute over the description of the contractual arrangement between the plaintiff-producer and the Parker Theatre, Inc. the City’s lessee. The plaintiff refers to this arrangement as “an agreeme…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Rouse, 194 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1966)
- TEL Serv. Co., Inc. v. Gen. Cap. Corp., 227 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1969)
- Wilensky v. Fields, 267 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- Transp. Mgmt. Co. v. Elbert J. Druck, 279 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)