Mart v. Leibman, 72--1275
| Decision Date | 21 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--1275,72--1275 |
| Citation | 281 So.2d 367 |
| Parties | Alfred MART and Adelaide Mart, his wife, Appellants, v. Joseph LEIBMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellants.
Bakerman, Shapiro & Marcus, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
The appellants were defendants in an action to foreclose a trust deed on real property. Their defense was that the whole transaction was usurious because it had its inception in a usurious loan which the appellee and another made to the defendant, Alfred Mart. The trial court, in its final judgment, found against the defendants upon the issue of an alleged usurious transaction. On this appeal, the single question presented is, 'Can the final judgment in this cause be sustained against the appellants' claim of usury in the transaction?' In essence, appellants' argument is that the trial judge misconceived the legal effect of the evidence before him. In other words, the appellants contend that the evidence of a usurious transaction was so clear that a finding that it did not exist is not supportable by competent evidence. Our review of the record convinces us that the manner in which the transactions were handled was sufficient to raise a suspicion of usury, but that appellant's testimony as defendant was so vague and indefinite and in fact contradictory, that the record will support a finding upon the conflicting evidence that usury was not proved. As was stated in In re Estate of Hobein, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 497:
'It is also fundamental that an order of a . . . court rendered in the exercise of its lawful discretion is clothed with a presumption of correctness, and will be disturbed on appeal only upon a clear showing that it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, the burden being on the appellant to make error clearly appear.'
Accordingly, the judgment appeal is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ball v. Papp, 74--98
...Court must affirm the judgment appealed from. Punkar v. King Plastic Corporation, 290 So.2d 505 (2nd DCA Fla.1974); Mart v. Leibman, 281 So.2d 367 (3rd DCA Fla.1973); Manis v. Prudhomme, 278 So.2d 292 (4th DCA Fla.1973); Mitchell v. Morse Operations, Inc., 276 So.2d 248 (3rd DCA Fla.1973); ......
-
Wohl v. Harry Rich Corp., 79-2084
...247 So.2d 782 (Fla.4th DCA 1971); CIC Leasing Corp. v. Dade Linen and Furniture Co., 279 So.2d 73 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Mart v. Leibman, 281 So.2d 367 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Ball v. Papp, 317 So.2d 801 (Fla.4th DCA ...
-
Mori v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America
...evidence, although conflicting, is not found to be clearly erroneous, the trial court's findings will not be disturbed. Mart v. Leibman, 281 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Cic Leasing Corp. v. Dade Linen and Furniture Co., 279 So.2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Harbor Yacht Repair, Inc. v. Sanger,......
-
Ostreyko v. B. C. Morton Organization, Inc., 74-895
...evidence unless the court's determinations are clearly erroneous. E. g., Morrison v. Smith, Fla.App.1972, 257 So.2d 623; Mart v. Leibman, Fla.App.1973, 281 So.2d 367. The record before us reveals testimony by the plaintiff, Mrs. Hamel (Ostreyko), that she had handled the family finances for......