Gonzalez v. Onewest Bank, FSB

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez v. Onewest Bank, FSB

204 So. 3d 167, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17578

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 23, 2016

DocketNo. 4D15-2271

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 204 So. 3d 167 (Gonzalez v. Onewest Bank, FSB) 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

Gonzalez v. Onewest Bank, FSB, 204 So. 3d 167, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17578 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment in all respects except one. We remand to the circuit court for a new trial on the interest rate to which the appellee bank is entitled. See Salauddin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 150 So.3d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Because the note required recalculation of interest on change dates, calculation of the interest amount was not a simple ministerial function. There was no testimony about the relevant LIBOR Index on any change date; the only competent evidence as to the interest charged after the first change date is that it was somewhere between 2.75% and 11.875%.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment in all respects except one. We remand to the circuit court for a new trial on the interest rate to which the appellee bank is entitled. See Salauddin v. Bank of Am., N.A., 150 So.3d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Because the note required recalculation of interest on change dates, calculation of the interest amount was not a simple ministerial function. There was no testimony about the relevant LIBOR Index on any change date; the only competent evidence as to the interest charged after the first change date is that it was somewhere between 2.75% and 11.875%.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 So. 3d 167, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-onewest-bank-fsb-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack