Merban Corp. v. Patton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Merban Corp. v. Patton

386 So. 2d 1229, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17462

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 8, 1980

DocketNo. 79-2286

StatusPublished

This text of 386 So. 2d 1229 (Merban Corp. v. Patton) 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

Merban Corp. v. Patton, 386 So. 2d 1229, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17462 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a summary final judgment which construed an attorney’s opinion that “under Florida law the second mortgage is valid and non-usurious under its terms” so that it did not express an opinion that the transaction for which the second mortgage was subsequently used was not an usurious transaction. The opinion was given at the request of the attorney for the lender by the attorney for the borrower. The transaction was closed in another state using additional documents not submitted to the attorney for the borrower.

We agree that the trial judge did apply the correct rules of law and that he did not misconstrue the limited terms of the opinion. See Hamilton Const. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 65 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla. 1953); All-Dixie Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Moffatt, 212 So.2d 347 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Bay Management, Inc. v. Beau Monde, Inc., 366 So.2d 788, 791 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). He correctly found that the appellee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the second mortgage was not usurious under its terms.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a summary final judgment which construed an attorney’s opinion that “under Florida law the second mortgage is valid and non-usurious under its terms” so that it did not express an opinion that the transaction for which the second mortgage was subsequently used was not an usurious transaction. The opinion was given at the request of the attorney for the lender by the attorney for the borrower. The transaction was closed in another state using additional documents not submitted to the attorney for the borrower.

We agree that the trial judge did apply the correct rules of law and that he did not misconstrue the limited terms of the opinion. See Hamilton Const. Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 65 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla. 1953); All-Dixie Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Moffatt, 212 So.2d 347 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Bay Management, Inc. v. Beau Monde, Inc., 366 So.2d 788, 791 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). He correctly found that the appellee was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the second mortgage was not usurious under its terms.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 So. 2d 1229, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merban-corp-v-patton-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack