Rodriguez v. Figueroa
This text of 958 So. 2d 1041 (Rodriguez v. Figueroa) 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
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
958 So. 2d 1041, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 8904, 2007 WL 1610150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-figueroa-fladistctapp-2007.