Wells v. Freedman
| Citation | 342 So.2d 983 |
| Decision Date | 01 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | 76--89,Nos. 75--1985,s. 75--1985 |
| Parties | Louise J. WELLS, Appellant, v. Irvin FREEDMAN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman and David J. White, Miami, for appellant.
Leo Greenfield, North Miami, for appellees.
Before HANDRY, C.J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.
By these consolidated appeals, Louise Wells, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals from an adverse summary final judgment in favor of the defendants, Irvin Freedman, Outrigger Club, Inc. and Biscayne West, Inc. Defendants appeal the trial court's denial of their petition for an award of attorney's fees.
Plaintiff sued on a promissory note executed by the defendants in the sum of $150,000.00. Defendants responded to the complaint alleging affirmative defenses, inter alia, that the note sued upon was usurious and unenforceable under Sections 687.02, 687.03 and 687.071(7), Florida Statutes. In support of this contention, defendants alleged that the original loan bore interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent (10%) per annum; that plaintiff demanded and received $7,521.00 as an additional bonus for the $150,000.00 loan, which sum was evidenced by a promissory note executed on the same date as the original loan; that plaintiff and defendants Irvin Freedman and Outrigger Club, Inc., entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff would forbear from collecting the $150,000.00 note on its due date, February 4, 1974, and extend the term of the loan until May 30, 1974; 1 that for this extension and forbearance, plaintiff required an additional $12,000.00.
Plaintiff replied to the affirmative defenses, denying the validity of the forbearance agreement and alleging that the $7,521.00 represented back taxes owed to the plaintiff by defendant Freedman.
The trial court found no genuine issues of material fact and entered summary final judgment declaring plaintiff's $150,000.00 note unenforceable under Section 687.071(7), Florida Statutes. A judgment for the defendants was entered against plaintiff in the sum of $21,042.00, which represented a penalty of double interest pursuant to Section 687.04, Florida Statutes, together with a judgment for plaintiff on defendants' counterclaim for attorney's fees under Section 687.04, Florida Statutes.
In reviewing the record, which is comprised of depositions, affidavits and exhibits, plaintiff's affidavits allege mutual fraud and mistake by defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oregrund Ltd. Partnership v. Sheive
...West Intern. Corp., 429 So.2d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Although the determination of usury is one for the fact finder, Wells v. Freedman, 342 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); where there is no conflict in the material facts, it is one of law for the court. Rebman v. Flagship First National Bank......
-
Bell v. Bailey, 93-2305
...was charged in this case, thereby precluding summary judgment. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); Wells v. Freedman, 342 So.2d 983, 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 881 (Fla.1978); First Mortgage Investors v. Boulevard Nat'l Bank, 327 So.2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); ......
-
Blaine v. Cichocki, 79-1766
...per. Before HENDRY, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Delgado v. Strong, 360 So.2d 73 (Fla.1978); Wells v. Freedman, 342 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sharp v. Dixon, 252 So.2d 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Stewart v. Nangle, 103 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA Affirmed. ...
- Freedman v. Wells