Nesbitt v. Citicorp Savings of Florida

514 So. 2d 371, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11887
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 1, 1987
DocketNo. 86-1381
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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.

Bluebook
Nesbitt v. Citicorp Savings of Florida, 514 So. 2d 371, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 11887 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Blaine v. Marmor
555 So. 2d 1241 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Eurovest, Ltd. v. Segall
528 So. 2d 482 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.