Century National Bank v. Williams

422 So. 2d 1065, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21824
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 1, 1982·No. No. AK-302·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

In determining that the promissory note in question capped the interest rate payable at “the maximum permitted by applicable law” existing when the note was executed, rather than as applicable law may have existed from time to time during the 10-year life of the note, the trial judge gave the contract language a permissible meaning resolving the ambiguity against the party responsible for it. Planck v. Traders Diversified, Inc., 387 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 394 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1981); MacIntyre v. Green’s Pool Service, Inc., 347 So.2d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Regardless, then, that the bank might have contracted for a higher interest cap, 12 U.S.C. § 85, it did not do so.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Century National Bank v. Williams, 422 So. 2d 1065, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21824 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

422 So. 2d 1065 (Century National Bank v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Green
478 So. 2d 583 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1985)
Finberg v. Herald Fire Insurance Co.
455 So. 2d 462 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Smith v. State
422 So. 2d 1065 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)