Holland v. Gross
| Decision Date | 13 June 1956 |
| Citation | 89 So.2d 255,63 A.L.R.2d 920 |
| Parties | George R. HOLLAND, and We Sell Office Equipment Co., a Florida corporation, and All Florida Surety Co., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Harriet GROSS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John P. Booth and George S. Okell, Sr., Miami, for appellants.
James M. Flowers, Miami, for appellee.
The appellants, George R. Holland and We Sell Office Equipment Company, a Florida corporation, sued Harriet Gross, seeking to have decreed null and void a note in the amount of $12,000, and a bond given as security therefor on the ground that the note was usurious under the provisions of F.S. § 687.07, F.S.A.; and that the defendant has forfeited to the plaintiffs the entire sum of money received by the plaintiffs from the defendant plus $1,800 interest paid by the plaintiff Holland to the defendant, or in the alternative that the individual plaintiff recover judgment against the defendant in double the amount of interest so reserved, exacted, taken and paid to the defendant by the individual plaintiff, pursuant to F.S. § 687.03, and § 687.04, F.S.A.
The Complaint alleges that the loan evidenced by said note was actually made to the individual plaintiff and not to the corporate plaintiff as the maker of the note; that the use of the corporation was a trick and device employed by the defendant for the sole purpose of evading the aforesaid statutes in a manner not permitted by law. The defendant-appellee-lender answered and made counterclaim seeking the enforcement of the note and bond. The master found for the defendant-counter claimant-appellee whose findings the Court confirmed and entered a final decree against the plaintiffs from which the plaintiffs appealed.
The appellants rely on two points for reversal, first, that the loan made in form to the corporation was actually a loan to the individual plaintiff appellant which would make the loan usurious. Second, that the repeal of F.S. § 612.62, F.S.A., prohibiting a corporation pleading usury, made the usury statutes, F.S. § 687.07, F.S.A., applicable to the loan notwithstanding that the loan was made before the repeal of section 612.62, supra. We find neither point well founded and affirm the decree appealed from.
As to the first point that the loan was actually a loan to the individual plaintiff-appellee, the findings of fact by the master, which findings were adopted by the chancellor, were that the lender, Harriet Gross, acting by and through her husband Leonard Gross and her attorney-at-law, Ernest Kass, refused to loan to George R. Holland the money evidence by promissory note; that George R. Holland was the sole stockholder, and the President and Secretary of said 'We Sell Office Equipment Co.' and that the loan was one made to said corporation and not to George R. Holland.
66 C.J., Sec. 214, pp. 253, 254-255; 91 C.J.S., Usury, § 74. To the same effect is:
'* * * While the corporate entity may generally be disregarded where it is used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality, the corporate entity of a corporation organized merely for the purpose of executing a mortgage on terms usurious in the case of an individual may not be disregarded in order to let in the defense of usury, available to an individual, but not to the corporation * * *.' 55 Am.Jur Sec. 105, p. 396; also Jenkins v. Moyse, 254 N.Y. 319, N.E. 521, 74 A.L.R. 205.
It is the duty of the Chancellor to accept the findings of fact by the Master unless clearly erroneous, Harmon v. Harmon, Fla., 40 So.2d 209, and upon review the appellate court's duty is no different in that respect from the of the Chancellor.
The Chancellor adopted the findings of fact by the Master. A finding of fact by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coral Gables Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. City of Opa-Locka
...We disagree, finding instead that the trial court's final judgment is supported by substantial competent evidence. See Holland v. Gross, 89 So.2d 255, 258 (Fla.1956); Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So.2d 507, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); In re Estate of Donner, 364 So.2d 742, 748 ......
-
Florida Audubon Soc. v. Ratner
...modify its order to require the District to construct a one-lane bridge 2 over and across Levee 30 and Borrow Canal 30. See Holland v. Gross, 89 So.2d 255 (Fla.1956) (where weight of evidence is contrary to trial court's findings, appellate court may set aside findings); Dixson v. Kattel, 3......
-
In re Doe
...it is presented to a judge sitting without a jury. See Bradley v. Waldrop, 611 So.2d 31, 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Holland v. Gross, 89 So.2d 255, 258 (Fla.1956). Moreover, the presumption of correctness never requires an appellate court to disregard record evidence that disproves th......
-
Richards v. Dodge
...124 So.2d 892. However, misinterpretation of the legal effect of the facts so found can result in reversible error. Holland v. Gross, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 255, 63 A.L.R.2d 920. Finally, while it is true that when no findings of fact are made the appellate court must accept the facts most show......
-
Appellate standards of review.
...appellate court will reverse because the trial court has "failed to give legal effect to the evidence" in its entirety. Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255, 258-59 (Fla. Thus, because jury verdicts and nonjury findings unquestionably rest on factual determinations, appellate courts look to see ......
-
Appellate standards of review.
...your credibility. NEVER mislead the court. If you don't know the answer or are not sure--say so. (1) See generally Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255, 258 (Fla. 1956). (2) See CHILDRESS & DAVIS, 1 FEDERAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW [section]2.14, 276 (LEXIS Pub. 3d ed. 1999). (3) PADOVANO, STANDA......
-
Feng Shui Your Appeal: Create the Energy to Succeed.
...brief are also inadequate." See also Greenfield [upsilon]. Westmoreland, 156 So. 3d 1, 1-2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). (13) See Holland v. Gross, 89 So. 2d 255, 258 (Fla. (14) Kirkland's Stores, Inc. v. Felicetty, 931 So. 2d 1013, 1015-16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). (15) Anderson v. State, 841 So. 2d 390,......