GIULIANA LLANSO
v.
SHEDDF2-FL3, LLC, ETC.
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.
Borrower Giuliana Llanso appealed summary judgment in favor of lender's assignee SHEDDF2-FL3, LLC in a lender liability action. Llanso claimed she and her original lender TotalBank had entered an enforceable credit agreement extending her loan's maturity date, and sought recovery of excess default interest, attorney's fees, and costs allegedly incurred when the lender failed to honor this agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that no valid written credit agreement was formed and that Florida's Banking Statute of Frauds barred her breach of contract claim.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the lender, holding that because the borrower did not timely comply with the conditions precedent, no written credit agreement was formed between the parties. Consequently, the borrower's breach of contract claim is barred by Florida's Banking Statute of Frauds, which requires that agreements to extend credit must be in writing, express consideration, set forth relevant terms and conditions, and be signed by both parties.
[1] A condition precedent to contract formation is an act or event, other than a lapse of time, that must occur before a binding contract will arise, and failure to timely co…
[2] Under the Banking Statute of Frauds, an agreement by a creditor to extend installments due under a prior credit agreement must be in writing, express consideration, set f…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“The Banking Statute of Frauds provides that a borrower may not maintain an action on an agreement by a creditor to take certain actions, such as entering into a new credit agreement, forbearing from exercising remedies under prior agreements, or extending installments due under prior credit agreements, unless the agreement is in writing, expresses consideration, sets forth the relevant terms and conditions, and is signed by the creditor and the debtor.”
Court quoting Bloch v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 755 F.3d 886, 890 (11th Cir. 2014), explaining the requirements of the Banking Statute of Frauds.
Borrower Giuliana Llanso obtained a loan from TotalBank, which was later assigned to SHEDDF2-FL3, LLC. Llanso allegedly agreed with TotalBank to exten…
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 Lender Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed May 18, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-783 Lower Tribunal No. 18-692 ________________
Giuliana Llanso,
Appellant,
vs.
SHEDDF2-FL3, LLC, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Lopez, Judge. Khullar Law, and Divya Khullar (Tamarac), for appellant. Agentis PLLC, and Christopher B. Spuches and Jason A. Martorella, for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
In this lender liability case, appellant Giuliana Llanso, the borrower and plaintiff below, appeals a final summary judgment in favor of appellee SHEDDF2-FL3, LLC, the lender’s assignee and defendant below. The gravamen of appellant’s claim is that she and her lender, TotalBank, the predecessor-in-interest of appellee, had entered into an enforceable credit agreement extending the maturity date of her loan. Appellant’s operative complaint asserts that appellee failed to honor the terms of this alleged agreement, resulting in appellant having to pay higher closing costs upon the sale of her residence. Specifically, appellant seeks to recover her payments related to a default interest rate considerably higher than the interest rate reflected in the alleged agreement, as well as allegedly excessive attorney’s fees and costs.
After its review of the summary judgment evidence, the trial court correctly concluded that, because appellant did not timely comply with the conditions precedent for forming the alleged agreement, a written credit agreement between the parties did not form. See Mitchell v. DiMare, 936 So. 2d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“A condition precedent is an act or event, other than a lapse of time, that must occur before a binding contract will arise.”). Because a written credit agreement did not form, the trial court also correctly determined that the applicable Banking Statute of Frauds precludes appellant’s breach of contract action. § 687.0304(2), Fla. Stat. (2017); Bloch
v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 755 F. 3d 886, 890 (11th Cir. 2014) (“The
Banking Statute of Frauds provides that a borrower may not maintain an action on an agreement by a creditor to take certain actions, such as entering into a new credit agreement, forbearing from exercising remedies under prior agreements, or extending installments due under prior credit agreements, unless the agreement is in writing, expresses consideration, sets forth the relevant terms and conditions, and is signed by the creditor and the debtor.”);
see Metro Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami, 919 So. 2d 595, 598 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2006).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. Dimare, 936 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Bloch v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 755 F.3d 886 (11th Cir. 2014)
- Metro Bldg. Materials Corp. & Manuel Celaya Alberni v. Republic Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 919 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)