Nesbitt v. Citicorp Savings of Florida
This text of 514 So. 2d 371 (Nesbitt v. Citicorp Savings of Florida) 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.
Opinion
Although usury in the underlying obligation is a valid defense to a mortgage foreclosure, the defense is not available to [372]*372a subsequent owner of the property who is not a party to the allegedly usurious contract and who took the encumbered property subject to the mortgage. Spinney v. Winter Park Bldg. & Loan Ass’n., 120 Fla. 458, 162 So. 899 (1935); Zimmerman v. Hill, 100 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Nothing in the usury statutes, chapter 687, Florida Statutes (1985), supports the argument of the appellants that the controlling cases have been legislatively overruled.
We affirm the final judgment of foreclosure.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
514 So. 2d 371, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesbitt-v-citicorp-savings-of-florida-fladistctapp-1987.