EASTLAND INVESTMENT COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
THOMPSON S. BAKER ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Appellants Eastland Investment Company and Palmetto Associates challenged a summary judgment and foreclosure judgment on a mortgage note, raising affirmative defenses of usury and negligent disbursements. The court affirmed, finding no genuine issues of material fact and no merit to appellants' defenses.
No genuine issues of material fact existed, and appellees were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The affirmative defenses of usury and negligent disbursements lacked sufficient evidentiary support.
[1] Summary judgment is precluded when genuine issues of material fact remain unresolved.
[2] A party asserting usury must provide supporting calculations to raise a material issue of fact, rather than merely stating a conclusion.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In light of the terms of the construction loan agreement which specified that appellants would insure that the project was completed timely and in accordance with specifications, we find no merit in appellants' barren allegation that appellees were negligent in not inspecting the construction site before disbursing funds in reliance upon appellants' certification of draw requests.”
Establishes that appellants' duty under the loan agreement negates the negligent disbursement defense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees, as trustees of Barnett Mortgage Trust, sued to foreclose on a mortgage and note executed by Eastland Investment Company and assumed by Palm…
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 Construction Loan Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Chief Judge.
Appellants, defendants below, bring this consolidated appeal from two judgments of the trial court, to-wit: a partial summary judgment and a final judgment of foreclosure.
The only question presented for our determination is whether there remained genuine issues of material fact left unresolved, precluding the entrance of summary judgment and subsequent final judgment and foreclosure.
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: Appellees, trustees of Barnett Mortgage Trust, instituted suit to foreclose upon a mortgage and note executed by appellant Eastland Investment Company and assumed by appellant Palmetto Associates, Ltd. Appellants filed an answer raising the affirmative defenses of usury and negligent disbursements of construction loan funds.
At summary judgment hearing, it was uncontroverted that the principle and interest due on the loans had not been paid, the construction project had been halted and taxes were in arrears. It was also uncon-tradicted that, pursuant to the loan agreement, appellants had undertaken the responsibility of being their own supervising architect and had the duty to insure the quality of workmanship at the construction project before certifying draw requests to appellee for additional disbursements of the construction loan.
Appellants filed affidavits in opposition to summary judgment based upon their aforementioned affirmative defenses. The trial judge was of the opinion that the affidavits and affirmative defenses of appellees were insufficient to preclude entrance of summary judgment. We agree with the trial judge and affirm.
In light of the terms of the construction loan agreement which specified that appellants would insure that the project was completed timely and in accordance with specifications, we find no merit in appellants’ barren allegation that appellees were negligent in not inspecting the construction site before disbursing funds in reliance upon appellants’ certification of draw requests. Cf. Rice v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Lake County, 207 So. 2d 22 (Fla.2d DCA 1968).
In addition, appellants’ affidavit alleging usury was devoid of any independent calculations evidencing the conclusions expressed therein, as requested by the trial judge. Without such calculations, the affidavit amounted to a bare conclusion and was thus insufficient to generate an issue of material fact, in view of the abundance of evidence furnished by appellees showing a non-usurious interest rate. Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1965).
In conclusion, after reviewing the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel, we are convinced that no genuine issue of material fact remained and that appellees were entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. Pratt v. Lavender, 319 So. 2d 88 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leviton v. Philly Steak-Out, Inc., 533 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…nterclaim. See Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979); Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780, 783 (Fla.1965); James v. Naumann, 464 So. 2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985); Eastland Inv. Co. v. Baker, 344 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 354 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1977). Third, the remainder of the points raised on appeal have no merit and require no discussion. See Tesini v. Zawistowski, 479 So. 2d 775, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Central Nat’l Bank v.…
-
Illescas v. Baris, 211 So. 3d 270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…nclusively refuted in the record. The note on its face is not usurious, and appellant’s affidavit which merely states that the note was usurious without any calculations is insufficient to raise an issue of material fact. Eastland Inv. Co. v. Baker, 344 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA1977). Affirmed. Warner and Gross, JJ., and Singhal, Raag, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Adv. 3 D v. Auto Owners Ins. (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (finding upon examining the record that genuine issues of fact existed which should have precluded the entrance of a summary judgment as to the issue of reasonableness of the hospital's charges); Eastland Investment Co. v. Baker, 344 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (finding appellant’s affidavit in opposition to summary judgment alleging usury was insufficient due to the affidavit’s lack of calculations). In conclusion, when evaluating a motion for summary judgment, including the pleadi…
Authorities Cited
- Holland Paving Co., Inc. v. Dann, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Ocie M. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1965)
- Raleigh W. Rice et ux. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Lake Cnty., 207 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Arno Pratt and Ernestine Pratt v. Lavender, 319 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)