From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hopkins v. Otto

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A
Mar 21, 1935
160 So. 203 (Fla. 1935)

Opinion

Opinion Filed March 21, 1935.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Worth W. Trammell, Judge.

William A. Lane and John J. Lindsey, for Appellant;

Botts Field, for Appellees.


This appeal is from a decree dismissing a suit to enforce a mortgage lien, the note and mortgage being for $1,500.00 due in three years with interest at 8% per annum payable semi-annually. Usury was a defense. A commission of $75.00 was paid from the amount of the note to an employee in the lender's office which the Chancellor in effect held was in the nature of a bonus to the lender. Only $1,425.00 was received by the borrower, even if the lender should not have paid a charge of $30.00 for title insurance on the mortgaged property. Foreclosure was begun at the end of two years under the acceleration provision of the mortgage.

Without the charge of $30.00 for title insurance on the mortgaged property, the $75.00 bonus reserved together with the interest charged rendered the loan usurious.

In Wilson v. Connor, 106 Fla. 6, 142 So. 606, the first year's interest and the bonus were both reserved when the loan was made.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and BROWN and DAVIS, J. J., concur.

ELLIS, P. J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.


Summaries of

Hopkins v. Otto

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A
Mar 21, 1935
160 So. 203 (Fla. 1935)
Case details for

Hopkins v. Otto

Case Details

Full title:KATE HOLMES HOPKINS, as Executrix, v. ANNIE OTTO, et al

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Division A

Date published: Mar 21, 1935

Citations

160 So. 203 (Fla. 1935)
160 So. 203

Citing Cases

The Richter Jewelry Co. v. Schweinert

I do not think Wicker v. Trust Co., 109 Fla. 411, 147 So. 586, or Mason v. Cunningham, 149 So. 331, 111 Fla.…

Pushee v. Johnson

It is also well settled in this jurisdiction that the borrower may legitimately agree with the lender to pay…