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

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 23, 2016·No. No. 4D15-2271·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

Pincite

204 So. 3d 167 (Gonzalez v. Onewest Bank, FSB) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related