Usury Defense

77 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• AETNA Life Ins. Co. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Great Nat'l Corp.
  818 F.2d 19· 8th Cir.· 1987-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Texas law applied to the loan agreement, precluding Great National's usury defense under Arkansas law, because Texas had a substantial connection to the contract.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Julius Richman, Inc.
  666 F.2d 780· 2d Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant's guarantee of the corporation's debt was enforceable, as the corporation was the principal debtor and the defendant admitted the corporation's default.
• Warren v. Lopatin
  475 F.2d 1329· D.C. Cir.· 1973-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if the appellee was a holder in due course, requiring a remand for further factual development.
• Petrof Trading Co. v. Intermountain Research & Eng'g Co., Inc.
  424 F.2d 704· 10th Cir.· 1970-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the contract provision for an increased price per pound was a bona fide part of the sale, not usurious interest, and that the contract language was clear and not subject to reformation.
• Williamson v. Clark
  98 So. 2d 813· Fla. 2d DCA· 1957-12-11 ·cited 4×
  In this mortgage foreclosure case, appellants sought summary judgment to foreclose first and second mortgages on property owned by the Clarks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and denial of a cross-defendant's motion to dismiss, finding ge
• Powell v. Receiver
  69 Fla. 12· Fla.· 1915-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's dismissal of a usury defense raised by subsequent purchasers of mortgaged property. The court held that parties who expressly assume mortgage payments as part of their purchase price are estopped from defending foreclosure on usu
• Stanley v. Sumpter Thompson
  62 Fla. 576· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a foreclosure decree, holding that the evidence supported the lower court's finding that the defense of usury was not sustained. The court emphasized that appellate courts should not reverse trial court decisions on factual matters unless the ev
• Hopfenspirger v. West
  949 So. 2d 1050· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-12-15 ·cited 3×
  Hopfenspirger lent Cambridge Energy $800,000 with a personal guarantee from its CEO West up to $150,000. After Cambridge defaulted, the trial court entered judgment against Cambridge but not West. The appellate court reversed, holding that West cannot raise a usury defense under
• Jodhi Valliappan v. Cruz
  917 So. 2d 257· Fla. 4th DCA· 2005-12-14 ·cited 3×
  Valliappan appeals a $150,000 judgment for conspiring with his wife to defraud his friend Cruz by falsely claiming to invest the money in an aviation parts business deal while actually using it for other purposes. The court affirms, finding sufficient evidence of conspiracy to de
• McTIGUE v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Fla.
  344 So. 2d 254· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-03-18 ·cited 3×
  A trustee appealed a foreclosure judgment, claiming that a mortgage loan was usurious because the lender claimed excessive interest during bankruptcy proceedings, even though the loan's terms and the ultimate foreclosure judgment did not exceed the lawful 15% maximum rate. The co
• 759 Riverside Ave., Inc. v. Marvin
  109 Fla. 473· Fla.· 1933-04-18 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to strike an affirmative defense of usury and fraud from a mortgage foreclosure action. The court held that a corporation chartered under Florida law cannot interpose a usury defense and cannot defend against enforceme
• L'Arbalete, Inc. v. Zaczac
  474 F. Supp. 2d 1314· S.D. Fla.· 2007-02-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Delaware law applied to the 2003 transaction, rendering the usury defense inapplicable, and that even under Florida law, the special member interest was an investment, not a loan, thus not subject to usury laws.
• Davidson OIL Country Supply Co., Inc. v. Klockner, Inc.
  917 F.2d 185· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court granted rehearing for DOCS, finding that the exclusion of substantial evidence created a prejudicial atmosphere requiring a full retrial of all issues, including usury claims.
• Spinney v. Winter Park Bldg. & Loan Ass'n
  122 Fla. 318· Fla.· 1936-01-03 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a mortgage foreclosure decree, holding that the building and loan association substantially complied with governing laws and that the defense of usury was not available, referencing a prior related decision.
• IOU Cent. Inc. v. Pezzano Contracting & Dev., LLC
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2020-11-13
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney's fees to the borrowers, finding they were the prevailing parties in the underlying litigation. However, the court reversed the trial court's amended final judgment, which had sought to clarify the original judgment
• Blanco v. Kinas
  936 So. 2d 31· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-07-05
  The Blancos appealed an order denying their motion to vacate a final foreclosure judgment on their grandmother's property. The court affirmed, holding that the Blancos failed to establish lack of notice and that they were estopped from raising the usury defense based on their gra
• Cook v. Desantis
  679 So. 2d 58· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-09-04
• Resolution Tr. Corp. for Meridian Sav. Ass'n v. Oaks Apts. Joint Venture
  966 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-24
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine's applicability to the partners' liability limitation defense could not be determined without further factual findings regarding the filing of the guaranty. The court also held that the note was not a negotiable instrument, thus pre
• Earle LEE Butler, P.A. v. Target, Inc.
  601 So. 2d 1276· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-07-01
  Attorney Butler sued his former client Target for unpaid legal fees totaling $18,663.78. The trial court improperly allowed Target to raise a usury defense to a professional fee agreement, which is not a loan and therefore cannot be usurious. The appellate court reversed and rema
• Centrust Sav. Bank v. Springs Cmty. Ass'n, Inc.
  580 So. 2d 654· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-05-09
  Where a contract provides for compound interest at 18 percent per annum, which exceeds the maximum allowed contractual interest rate, the creditor forfeits all interest and may recover only the principal amount.
• Lamm v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  873 F.2d 194· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-24
  The court held that income realized from a foreclosure sale is includible in the tax year when a contest regarding the debt's validity is resolved, not when the sale occurs if the appeal could have voided the transaction.
• Foreign Commerce v. Tonn
  789 F.2d 221· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-30
  The court held that the Virgin Islands usury statute, when interpreted in light of its historical context and analogous statutes, should include the time-price differential doctrine, requiring disclosure of credit charges in sales transactions.
• Sils v. Steinman
  471 So. 2d 194· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-06-18
• Beatty v. Franklin Inv. Co., Inc.
  319 F.2d 712· D.C. Cir.· 1963-05-16
  The court held that the transaction was a cash sale accompanied by a usurious loan, not a bona fide credit sale, and thus the lender could not recover interest.
• Shaffran v. Holness
  9 Fla. Supp. 138· Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1956-03-13
  In a mortgage foreclosure action, the court found that the lender and his agent, a mortgage company, violated Florida usury statutes by charging interest rates exceeding legal limits and making undisclosed deductions from loan proceeds. The court voided the mortgage and note, can
• Grimmer v. Brown
  146 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1945-01-09
  The court held that the cash surrender value of the bankrupt's life insurance policies was exempt from the trustee's claims because the settlement agreement discharged prior debts, and the new agreement was made after the effective date of the exemption statute.
• Magee v. Crown Corp.
  151 Fla. 422· Fla.· 1942-05-19
  In this mortgage foreclosure surplus distribution case, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's determination that no usury infected Crown Corporation's mortgage on Parcel B and that prior encumbrances on Parcel A exceeded its market value, thereby entitling Crown Cor