Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Comstock v. Steinbergh (masssuperct, 2004-12-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Comstock v. Steinbergh
Mass. Super. Ct. · 2004 · confidence medium
ANN. §687.03(4) (“If... a loan, . . . exceeds $500,000, then, for the purposes of this chapter, interest on that loan .. . shall not include the value of property charged, reserved, or taken as an advance or forbearance, the value of which substantially depends on the success of the venture in which are used the proceeds of that loan”); Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So.2d 861, 862 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1985).
examined Cited "see" In Re Transcapital Financial Corp. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr. S.D. Florida · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So.2d 861 (loan in excess of $500,000 with stated interest rate of 24.99% was not usurious&emdash;“profit participation” given by lender as additional consideration was not counted in calculating interest under § 687.03(4)).
discussed Cited "see" L'Arbalete, Inc. v. Zaczac
S.D. Fla. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(advance of funds was not a loan where “it was not payable at all if no profits were realized from the project”); Schwab v. Quitoni, 362 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)(same).
cited Cited "see" Oregrund Ltd. Partnership v. Sheive
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Valliappan v. Cruz
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
"A loan agreement is not usurious when payment depends upon a contingency." Kraft v. Mason, 668 So.2d 679, 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Schwab v. Quitoni, 362 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). [1] Second, Cruz did not have the corrupt intent to collect interest at a usurious rate. "[U]sury is largely a matter of intent, and is not fully determined by the fact that the lender actually receives more than law permits, but is determined by existence of a corrupt purpose in the lender's mind to get more than legal interest for the money lent.…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Video Trax, Inc. v. NationsBank, N.A.
S.D. Fla. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 472 So.2d 1180 (Fla.1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kraft v. Mason
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Bailey v. Harrington, 462 So.2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 472 So.2d 1180 (Fla.1985), and rev. denied sub nom., N-Site Associates v. Harrington, 472 So.2d 1181 (Fla.1985); Schwab v. Quitoni, 362 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank A. BAILEY, As a General Partner in N-Site Associates, a Florida General Partnership; Cuyahoga Equipment Corp.; Marvin Silverman, Samuel Berke, Jerome S. Morris, Harvey Kaiser, Herbert W. Brash, Clifford Bragman, Donald A. Ritholz, and William Dacy, As General Partners of 800 Ventura Associates, an Illinois General Partnership, Appellants, Cross Appellees, Cross Appellants,
v.
Leslie J. HARRINGTON, Paul Roepnack, John Dec, Charles B. Maddera, Andrew H. Warner, Carl Mayes, John W. Partridge, and Arthur Korfage, As Trustees of the Broward County Carpenter's Pension Fund, Appellees, Cross Appellants, Cross Appellees.
83-2383.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan 29, 1985.
462 So. 2d 861
Barkdull, Hubbart and Baskin.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

Cooper, Shahady, Frazier & Pugatch and Marshall Cooper, Fort Lauderdale, Lapidus & Stettin and Richard Lapidus, Miami, for appellants, cross appellees, cross appellants.

Cristol, Mishan & Sloto and Steven Mishan and Julie Feigeles, Miami, for appellees, cross appellants, cross appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The amended final judgment under review is reversed on the cross appeal only, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant a mortgage foreclosure in the amount of the principal and interest due under the note, as prayed for in the complaint filed below by the plaintiff/cross appellant Leslie J. Harrington. We conclude that the trial court erred in striking the profit participation provision of the loan agreement herein, in refusing the requested mortgage foreclosure and in finding that the mortgage loan charged a usurious rate of interest. We reach this result based on the following, briefly stated, legal analysis.

The note in question charged an interest rate of 24.99% which was plainly not usurious as the amount of money loaned herein was in excess of $500,000. §§ 687.03(1), 687.071, Fla. Stat. (1983). The profit participation provision of the loan agreement did not, as the trial court found, charge any additional interest on the loan. It provided that the lender was entitled to share in 43% of the profits, if any, from the construction project which the loan financed. This payment cannot constitute additional interest on the loan as it was not payable at all if no[*862] profits were realized from the project. Indeed, no profits were realized as the project entirely failed and all agree that no payment whatever is due under the profit participation provision. Moreover, this profit participation provision is expressly authorized by our usury statutes as not constituting additional interest, § 687.03(4), Fla. Stat. (1983), and has long been approved by well-established principles of usury law. Schwab v. Quitoni, 362 So.2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

The main appeal of the defendant/appellant Yenom Associates Corp. is rendered moot by our ruling today; so is the first point in the main appeal of the defendant/appellant Frank A. Bailey. The remaining point raised by the defendant/appellant Bailey has no merit.

Reversed and remanded.