Midstate Sales & Supply Co. v. V.F. Air Systems, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Midstate Sales & Supply Co. v. V.F. Air Systems, Inc.

454 So. 2d 762, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1843, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14764

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2128

StatusPublished

This text of 454 So. 2d 762 (Midstate Sales & Supply Co. v. V.F. Air Systems, Inc.) 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

Midstate Sales & Supply Co. v. V.F. Air Systems, Inc., 454 So. 2d 762, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1843, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14764 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals a final summary judgment order which was rendered in favor of the defendants on the ground that the service charges which the plaintiff sought to collect from the defendants in 1981 were usurious and, hence, forfeited.

Reviewing the record on appeal, including the deposition of Walter Ware, the plaintiff’s president and sole stockholder, in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must, the defendants and the plaintiff entered into separate agreements in 1978, 1980 and 1981. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the 1981 service charges were assessed under the 1980 or 1981 agreement, in which event they may not have been usurious, cfi Carter v. Leon Loan & Finance Co., 108 Fla. 567, [763]*763146 So. 664 (1933), or assessed pursuant to the 1978 agreement, as the trial court inappropriately determined in its final summary judgment order, in which case the service charges were indeed usurious.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the final summary judgment order and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals a final summary judgment order which was rendered in favor of the defendants on the ground that the service charges which the plaintiff sought to collect from the defendants in 1981 were usurious and, hence, forfeited.

Reviewing the record on appeal, including the deposition of Walter Ware, the plaintiff’s president and sole stockholder, in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must, the defendants and the plaintiff entered into separate agreements in 1978, 1980 and 1981. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the 1981 service charges were assessed under the 1980 or 1981 agreement, in which event they may not have been usurious, cfi Carter v. Leon Loan & Finance Co., 108 Fla. 567, [763]*763146 So. 664 (1933), or assessed pursuant to the 1978 agreement, as the trial court inappropriately determined in its final summary judgment order, in which case the service charges were indeed usurious.

Accordingly, we REVERSE the final summary judgment order and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 So. 2d 762, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1843, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midstate-sales-supply-co-v-vf-air-systems-inc-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack