Rodriguez v. Figueroa
Opinion
Without reaching any of the other, substantial contentions advanced by the appellant-former husband, we reverse the trial court’s order sustaining exceptions to the report of the general magistrate that the instant transaction was not usurious. Such a factual determination, and particularly one involving that aspect of the law of usury which requires a “corrupt intent,” see Jersey Palm-Gross, Inc. v. Paper, 658 So.2d 531, 534 (Fla.1995), cannot be overturned in the absence of a transcript of the testimony below, which the former wife was required to provide but did not. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.490(d)(4),(f), (g);1 see also Brill v. Brill, 905 So.2d 948, 954-55 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), review denied, 917 So.2d 191 (Fla.2005). The order under review is therefore reversed with directions to approve the report and enter judgment accordingly.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
958 So. 2d 1041 (Rodriguez v. Figueroa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.