usury claim in Florida

10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Forest Creek Dev. Co. v. Liberty Sav. & Loan Ass'ngreen fladistctapp · 1988 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1994–1995 2 sentences 1995Furthermore, citing to Forest Creek Development Co. v. Liberty Savings & Loan Ass’n, 531 So.2d 356, 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 541 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1989), the district court concluded that the inclusion of a usury savings clause in a loan document “has been held to warrant dismissal of a usury claim.” Id. at 184. 1994The majority brushes aside the decision in Forest Creek Development Co. v. Liberty Savings & Loan Ass'n, 531 So.2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 541 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 1989), in which because of a savings *675 clause, the fifth district did not even permit a usury defense to survive a mere motion to dismiss.	1	2
Jackson v. Shakespeare Foundation, Inc.green fla · 2013 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021Even applying the less-rigorous “significant relationship/contractual nexus” test typically reserved for broad arbitration provisions, it is clear this usury claim is not arbitrable: it cannot be said that the usury claim arises “under the 18 Agreement” because “the duty alleged to be breached is one imposed by law in recognition of public policy and is generally owed to others besides the contracting parties.”5 It simply cannot satisfy Seifert and Jackson’s requirement that the claim “emanate[] from an inimitable duty created by the parties’ unique contractual relationship;” instead, the inst 2021The narrow arbitration provision agreed to by the parties in the instant case cannot satisfy the remaining aspects of the contractual nexus test because the usury claim does not “emanate[] from an inimitable duty created by the parties’ unique contractual relationship,” but instead is a claim that “pertains to the breach of a duty otherwise imposed by law or in recognition of public policy, such as a duty under the general common law owed not only to the contracting parties but also to third parties and the public.” Jackson, 108 So. 3d at 593 . 7 To the extent that Party Yards (and its progeny	1	1
Salvin v. . Myles Realty Co.green ny · 1919 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See Salvin, 124 N.E. at 96 ; Union Estates Co., 116 N.E. at 985 .	1	1
First State Bank v. Dorstgreen texapp · 1993 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 1 sentence 1995In rejecting the use of a savings clause as an absolute bar to a usury claim, we note, as have other courts, that a contrary holding would permit a lender to "relieve himself of the pains and penalties visited by law upon such an act by merely writing into the contract a disclaimer of any intention to do that which under his contract he has plainly done." First State Bank v. Dorst, 843 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992) (quoting Nevels v. Harris, 129 Tex. 190 , 102 S.W.2d 1046, 1050 (1937)).	1	1
Nevels v. Harrisgreen tex · 1937 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995In rejecting the use of a savings clause as an absolute bar to a usury claim, we note, as have other courts, that a contrary holding would permit a lender to "relieve himself of the pains and penalties visited by law upon such an act by merely writing into the contract a disclaimer of any intention to do that which under his contract he has plainly done." First State Bank v. Dorst, 843 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992) (quoting Nevels v. Harris, 129 Tex. 190 , 102 S.W.2d 1046, 1050 (1937)). 1995In rejecting the use of a savings clause as an absolute bar to a usury claim, we note, as have other courts, that a contrary holding would permit a lender to "relieve himself of the pains and penalties visited by law upon such an act by merely writing into the contract a disclaimer of any intention to do that which under his contract he has plainly done." First State Bank v. Dorst, 843 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex. Ct. App. 1992) (quoting Nevels v. Harris, 129 Tex. 190 , 102 S.W.2d 1046, 1050 (1937)).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna green scotus · 2006 1 sentence 2021The narrow arbitration provision agreed to by the parties in the instant case cannot satisfy the remaining aspects of the contractual nexus test because the usury claim does not “emanate[] from an inimitable duty created by the parties’ unique contractual relationship,” but instead is a claim that “pertains to the breach of a duty otherwise imposed by law or in recognition of public policy, such as a duty under the general common law owed not only to the contracting parties but also to third parties and the public.” Jackson, 108 So. 3d at 593 . 7 To the extent that Party Yards (and its progeny	1	2021–2021
Seifert v. US Home Corp. green fla · 1999 2 sentences 2021This is not to say that a usury claim, as a matter of law, can never be subject to arbitration. 7 It simply means that a claim such as this will generally considered ‘arising out of or relating to’ an agreement, it must, at a minimum, raise some issue the resolution of which requires reference to or construction of some portion of the contract itself.” Seifert, 750 So. 2d at 638 . 2021This is not to say that a usury claim, as a matter of law, can never be subject to arbitration. 7 It simply means that a claim such as this will generally considered ‘arising out of or relating to’ an agreement, it must, at a minimum, raise some issue the resolution of which requires reference to or construction of some portion of the contract itself.” Seifert, 750 So. 2d at 638 .	1	2021–2021
Party Yards, Inc. v. Templeton green fladistctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2021Id. at 123 .	1	2021–2021
T.D. v. Florida Department of Children & Families neutral fla · 2006 1 sentence 2021The narrow arbitration provision agreed to by the parties in the instant case cannot satisfy the remaining aspects of the contractual nexus test because the usury claim does not “emanate[] from an inimitable duty created by the parties’ unique contractual relationship,” but instead is a claim that “pertains to the breach of a duty otherwise imposed by law or in recognition of public policy, such as a duty under the general common law owed not only to the contracting parties but also to third parties and the public.” Jackson, 108 So. 3d at 593 . 7 To the extent that Party Yards (and its progeny	1	2021–2021
FastFunding the Company, Inc. v. Betts green fladistctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2021The narrow arbitration provision agreed to by the parties in the instant case cannot satisfy the remaining aspects of the contractual nexus test because the usury claim does not “emanate[] from an inimitable duty created by the parties’ unique contractual relationship,” but instead is a claim that “pertains to the breach of a duty otherwise imposed by law or in recognition of public policy, such as a duty under the general common law owed not only to the contracting parties but also to third parties and the public.” Jackson, 108 So. 3d at 593 . 7 To the extent that Party Yards (and its progeny	1	2021–2021
Union Estates Co. v. . Adlon Construction Co. green ny · 1917 1 sentence 2017See Salvin, 124 N.E. at 96 ; Union Estates Co., 116 N.E. at 985 .	1	2017–2017
Trapp v. Hancuh green minnctapp · 1995 1 sentence 2006Charmoll Fashions, Inc. v. Otto, 311 Minn. 213 , 248 N.W.2d 717 (1976); Trapp v. Hancuh, 530 N.W.2d 879 (Minn.Ct.App. 1995).	1	2006–2006
Charmoll Fashions, Inc. v. Otto green minn · 1976 2 sentences 2006Charmoll Fashions, Inc. v. Otto, 311 Minn. 213 , 248 N.W.2d 717 (1976); Trapp v. Hancuh, 530 N.W.2d 879 (Minn.Ct.App. 1995). 2006Charmoll Fashions, Inc. v. Otto, 311 Minn. 213 , 248 N.W.2d 717 (1976); Trapp v. Hancuh, 530 N.W.2d 879 (Minn.Ct.App. 1995).	1	2006–2006
Beekner, Et Vir v. L. P. Kaufman, Inc. green fla · 1940 2 sentences 1997We allowed the usury defense, noting that "a contrary holding would enable the lender to purge a usury-infected contract by the simple process of awaiting the running of the statute of limitations before bringing his suit." Beekner, 145 Fla. at 156 , 198 So. at 796 . 1997We allowed the usury defense, noting that "a contrary holding would enable the lender to purge a usury-infected contract by the simple process of awaiting the running of the statute of limitations before bringing his suit." Beekner, 145 Fla. at 156 , 198 So. at 796 .	1	1997–1997
Szenay v. Schaub green fladistctapp · 1986 1 sentence 1995The district court held that although the agreement may have technically *535 provided for a usurious rate of interest, the trial court acted within its fact-finding authority in relying upon the savings clause to determine that the lender had no intent to charge such an amount. 496 So.2d at 884 .	1	1995–1995
Jersey Palm-Gross, Inc. v. Paper green fla · 1995 1 sentence 1995Recently, in Jersey Palm-Gross, Inc. v. Paper, 658 So.2d 531 (Fla.1995), we disapproved Forest Creek and held that a usury savings clause does not preclude, as a matter of law, a finding of usury.	1	1995–1995
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. Richard M. Wood green ca6 · 1985 1 sentence 1988FDIC v. Leach, 772 F.2d 1262 (6th Cir.1985); FDIC v. Wood, 758 F.2d 156 (6th Cir.1985).	1	1988–1988
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Marian G. Leach green ca6 · 1985 1 sentence 1988FDIC v. Leach, 772 F.2d 1262 (6th Cir.1985); FDIC v. Wood, 758 F.2d 156 (6th Cir.1985).	1	1988–1988
Klebanow v. New York Produce Exchange green ca2 · 1965 1 sentence 1987Following the landmark decision of Klebanow v. New York Produce Exchange, 344 F.2d 294 (2d Cir.1965), most jurisdictions have concluded that common law allows a limited partner to bring a derivative action.	1	1987–1987
Hightower v. Bigoney green fla · 1963 1 sentence 1981We do not consider the usury defense because the parties stipulated for the trial of that defense by the court without a jury. [2] The question of the lack of a formal objection is noted for later discussion. [3] It may well be argued that the rule is not the most efficient one, but we are, we think, compelled to follow it because we are dealing with the constitutionally granted right of trial by jury as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Florida in Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So.2d 501 (Fla. 1963).	1	1981–1981

Statutes the citing opinions construe

FL § 687.071 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 70 (1977–2022) NY 34 (1937–2025) CA 13 (1931–2025) MI 10 (1986–2023) WA 10 (1980–2024) FL 10 (1981–2021) MN 7 (1985–1995) IL 5 (1987–2025) CT 5 (1986–2002) OK 3 (1940–1963) NE 3 (1970–2025) NC 3 (1935–2008) ID 3 (1981–1994) RI 3 (1982–2021) AZ 3 (1973–2018) LA 2 (1974–1987) AK 2 (1991–2017) AR 2 (1999–2007) GA 2 (1984–1996) DC 2 (1953–2024) MO 2 (1924–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check