Yaffee v. International Co.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1955 |
| Citation | 80 So.2d 910 |
| Parties | Hyman YAFFEE, Individually and as Trustee, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Caldwell, Parker, Foster & Wigginton, Tallahassee, J. M. Flowers, Miami, and Royal Flagg Jonas, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Patton & Kanner, Miami, for appellee.
The appeal is from a final declaratory decree entered in favor of the plaintiff below upon the following facts:
Prior to the effective date of Chapter 28170, Laws of Florida 1953, F.S.A. § 608.01 et seq., the statutes of the state prescribed the maximum legal rate of interest that might be charged on borrowed money and provided penalties for usurious loans. Chapter 687, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A. However, as to corporate transactions involving the payment of interest in excess of the legal rate the statutes provided, 'No corporation shall interpose the defense of usury in any action in any court in this state.' Section 612.62, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A. On April 1, 1953, the International Company, Inc., a corporation, borrowed from the appellant Yaffee the sum of $440,000. To evidence and secure the indebtedness the borrower gave to the lender its note and mortgage int he principal sum of $440,000, agreeing therein to pay annually, in advance, the sum of $40,000 as interest on the loan. At the closing of the transaction the lender, with the consent of the borrower, delivered to the borrower the sum of $360,000 and retained as a 'bonus,' and as the annual interest agreed to be paid in advance for the first year of the loan, the sum of $80,000.
After the transaction had been closed, Chapter 28170, Laws of Florida 1953, containing a section repealing section 612.62, supra, became effective. Subsequently, the borrower brought the present suit to determine the legal effect of the repealing statute upon the loan made prior to the effective date of the 1953 act; and at final hearing the trial court found and decreed that the repeal by the legislature of section 612.62, Florida Statutes 1951, had the effect of making the defense of usury available to the corporation in respect to the loan.
On this appeal, the lender submits that the decree entered in favor of the corporate borrower was erroneous because it gave to the repealing statute a retrospective operation in regard to a loan that was legal when made, in violation of constitutional provisions against the passage of laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Section 10, Article I, Federal Constitution; section 17, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. The borrower contends, in opposition to this position, that the repealing statute should be given a retrospective operation in respect to the loan, because when entered into the loan transaction was in violation of the general usury laws of the state and hence illegal, and, except for the existence of the procedural bar of section 612.62, supra, would have been subject to the penalties of the usury laws in a suit brought by the lender to enforce it; that inasmuch as the transaction was unlawful at its inception, the parties were on notice that the procedural bar could be removed at any time without violating constitutional guaranties against impairment of contracts, since such guaranties extended only to legal and valid contracts.
We think that the contention of the appellee must be rejected on any one of several grounds.
Firstly, the contention of the appellee overlooks the fact that the general rule, to the effect that repealing statutes should be given a retrospective operation, is based upon, and confined to, the situation where a right or remedy has been created wholly by statute; it being held, in such event, that when the statute is repealed the right or remedy created by the statute falls with it. Kemp v. Day & Zimmerman, 239 Iowa 829, 33 N.W.2d 569. 82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 434, pp. 1008, 1009. While the repeal of a statute creating defenses of usury has been held to render valid a contract that was subject to the defenses of the statute when made, the converse of the proposition does not obtain, it being the uniform ruling of the courts that parties to contracts executed when there are no usury statutes have accrued rights that cannot be impaired or taken away by the subsequent enactment of usury statutes. Annotation 87 A.L.R. 462, at page 465. Section 10, Article I, United States Constitution; Mix v. Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co., 103 Ky. 77, 44 S.W. 393; Adams v. Shirk, 7 Cir., 117 F. 801; Kelsey v. Burgis, 24 Conn. 446; Newton v. Wilson, 31 Ark. 484; Association for Relief of Respectable Aged Indigent Females in City of New York v. Eagleson, 60 How. Prac., N.Y., 9; 12 Am.Jur. 65, 66. Accord Myrick v. Battle, 5 Fla. 345.
Secondly, the contention of the appellee overlooks the fact that the defense of usury was unknown at the common...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Capital Corp. v. Tel Service Co.
...68 So.2d 882; Matlack Properties, Inc. v. Citizens & Southern National Bank, 1935, 120 Fla. 77, 162 So. 148; and Yaffee v. International Company, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 910. And the general rule is in accord. 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 255, p. 1247, et seq.; Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U.S. 143, 2 ......
-
Beck-Ford Constr., LLC v. TCA Global Credit Master Fund, LP
...the privilege of setting up, or waiving, affirmative defenses of usury in respect to such contracts." Id. (citing Yaffee v. Internat'l Co., Inc. , 80 So.2d 910, 912 (Fla. 1955) ). Thus, assuming any of the transactions were usurious under Florida law, Plaintiffs were capable of waiving such......
-
Continental Mortg. Investors v. Sailboat Key, Inc.
...the obligor the personal privilege of setting up ... affirmative defenses of usury in respect to such contracts." Yaffee v. International Co., 80 So.2d 910, 912 (Fla.1955). The cases cited by the district court are not strong support for its invocation of public policy. Bond v. Koscot Inter......
-
Viridis Corp. v. Tca Global Credit Master Fund, LP
...held that usury may be waived in a civil case. Gunn Plumbing, Inc. v. Dania Bank, 252 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1971) (citing Yaffee v. Int'l Co., Inc., 80 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1955)). In Gunn Plumbing, after the borrowers had failed to repay a loan and the defendant bank brought suit, the borrowers ra......
-
Contract cases
...535 (Fla. 1995). §3:100.5 Related Matters 1. Common Law: The defense of usury was unknown at the common law. Yaffee v. International Co ., 80 So.2d 910, 912 (Fla. 1955). 2. Substance over Form: It is the substance of a transaction, rather than its form, that must be scrutinized in ascertain......