Cunningham v. Koon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cunningham v. Koon

762 So. 2d 572, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8269, 2000 WL 873670

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 5, 2000

DocketNos. 4D99-2322, 4D99-3773

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 762 So. 2d 572 (Cunningham v. Koon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cunningham v. Koon, 762 So. 2d 572, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8269, 2000 WL 873670 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sued for legal malpractice. Only one point raised by appellant has merit. Central to the plaintiffs theory was that appellant drafted a note which violated the criminal usury statute, section 687.071, Florida Statutes (1999). Whether the transaction was criminally usurious was a question of fact to be decided by the jury. The charge to the jury on criminal usury was deficient, in that it allowed a finding of criminal usury if the plaintiff/clients “intended to get more than twenty-five percent per year in interest” on the loan in question. Section 687.071(2) makes it a second degree misdemeanor to “willfully and knowingly charge, take, or receive interest ... at a rate exceeding 25 percent per annum but not in excess of 45 percent per annum, or the equivalent rate for a longer or shorter period of time, whether directly or indirectly.” The charge to the jury devalued and minimized the state of mind requirement imposed by the statute. See Jersey Palm-Gross, Inc. v. Paper, 658 So.2d 531 (Fla.1995).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was sued for legal malpractice. Only one point raised by appellant has merit. Central to the plaintiffs theory was that appellant drafted a note which violated the criminal usury statute, section 687.071, Florida Statutes (1999). Whether the transaction was criminally usurious was a question of fact to be decided by the jury. The charge to the jury on criminal usury was deficient, in that it allowed a finding of criminal usury if the plaintiff/clients “intended to get more than twenty-five percent per year in interest” on the loan in question. Section 687.071(2) makes it a second degree misdemeanor to “willfully and knowingly charge, take, or receive interest ... at a rate exceeding 25 percent per annum but not in excess of 45 percent per annum, or the equivalent rate for a longer or shorter period of time, whether directly or indirectly.” The charge to the jury devalued and minimized the state of mind requirement imposed by the statute. See Jersey Palm-Gross, Inc. v. Paper, 658 So.2d 531 (Fla.1995).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

GUNTHER, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

762 So. 2d 572, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 8269, 2000 WL 873670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-koon-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack