G. F. LLOYD, ET VIR,
v.
JESSIE COPPS, MIKE COPPS, JR., NELLIE STILL, 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.
The appellants sought to foreclose a mortgage on a $400 note, but the defendants raised a usury defense, claiming the lender exacted $80 in advance interest while only delivering $320, constituting an illegal 25% interest charge. The lower court dismissed the complaint and taxed costs against J. L. Lloyd, which the appellants appealed.
The court affirmed the Chancellor's dismissal of the complaint, finding ample legal evidence supported the usury defense. The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction to tax costs against J. L. Lloyd because he was the husband of the complainant and was necessarily joined as a party, and as he had control of the litigation on behalf of his wife, costs could be properly taxed against him.
“It is alleged that the money loaned was from the funds of J. L. Lloyd and the note was made payable to his wife at the direction of J. L. Lloyd with intent on his part to evade the usury laws of the State of Florida.”
Establishes the defendants' usury defense allegations regarding intent to circumvent usury statutes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants filed suit to foreclose a mortgage securing a $400 note. The defendants asserted that the transaction was usurious, alleging the lender…
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 Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants filed suit to foreclose a mortgage securing the payment of a note in the sum of $400.00.
The amended answer set up as a defense that the transaction constituting the basis for the mortgage and note was usurious. It averred that the lendor has exacted and received the sum.of $80.00 in advance as interest and had only delivered to the borrower $320.00 and had thereby charged and received 25% interest. It is alleged that the money loaned was from the funds of J. L. Lloyd and the note was made payable to his wife at the direction of J. L. Lloyd with intent on his part to evade the usury laws of the State of Florida.
Testimony was taken before the Chancellor. The Chancellor found in favor of the defendants, dismissed the bill of complaint and taxed the costs in the sum of $24.00 against J. L. Lloyd.
It is contended that the court erred in taxing the costs against J. L. Lloyd, and that the court erred in entering final decree dismissing the bill of complaint.
There is ample legal evidence to support the findings of the Chancellor. The contention that costs could not be taxed against J. L. Lloyd because he was not a party to the suit in his individual capacity is not tenable. The suit was brought in the name of G. F. Lloyd joined by her next friend and husband, J. L. Lloyd. It being shown by the record that J. L. Lloyd was the husband of G. F. Lloyd, it was necessary to join him as a party to this suit and as he, in the capacity in which he was sued, had control of the litigation on behalf of the complainant, the Court had the power to tax costs against him. The Court had jurisdic*717tion of him for the purpose of taxing costs against him in a suit instituted by him for his wife. So the decree should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Terrell, Brown, Buford and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Potter Palmer IV v. Mallory H. Horton Ad Litem of Gordon Palmer O'Neil and Sandra Potter O'Neil, 469 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…rney’s fees,2 $1,250 in guardian fees3 and $430.55 in costs, to be paid by Palmer. We note at the outset that we reject Palmer’s contention that the trial court was without jurisdiction to assess fees against him as next friend. See Lloyd v. Copps, 126 Fla. 715, 171 So. 673 (1936) (court has jurisdiction over next friend for purposes [*905] of assessing costs). We find, however, that on the facts of this case, the trial court abused its discretion in assessing fees and costs against Palmer. First, once th…