Illescas v. Baris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Illescas v. Baris

211 So. 3d 270, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1170

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 1, 2017

DocketNo. 4D15-4781

StatusPublished

This text of 211 So. 3d 270 (Illescas v. Baris) 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

Illescas v. Baris, 211 So. 3d 270, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1170 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the summary judgment entered. Appellant contends that the issue of whether the note in question in this case was usurious was not conclusively refuted in the record. The note on its face is not usurious, and appellant’s affidavit which merely states that the note was usurious without any calculations is insufficient to raise an issue of material fact. Eastland Inv. Co. v. Baker, 344 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA1977).

Affirmed.

Warner and Gross, JJ., and Singhal, Raag, Associate Judge, concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm the summary judgment entered. Appellant contends that the issue of whether the note in question in this case was usurious was not conclusively refuted in the record. The note on its face is not usurious, and appellant’s affidavit which merely states that the note was usurious without any calculations is insufficient to raise an issue of material fact. Eastland Inv. Co. v. Baker, 344 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA1977).

Affirmed.

Warner and Gross, JJ., and Singhal, Raag, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 So. 3d 270, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illescas-v-baris-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack