Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1917–2011 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Bennettgreen1 sentence2011In re Bennett, 395 B.R. at 790 (“A debtor who does not claim the Homestead Exemption may still receive its benefits in certain limited circumstances that can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, after a fact-intensive inquiry.”). | 1 | 1 |
Moxley v. Ragangreen1 sentence2007Kent Co. v. Miller, 77 Nev. 471 , 366 P.2d 520, 522 (1961) (finding a creditor could not compel the debtor to claim the homestead exemption); Cameron v. McDonald, 216 N.C. 712 , 6 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1940) ("Having omitted to assert his right to a homestead in the particular land, when the matter was in issue, we think the plaintiff is now estopped to relitigate the question."). [9] Iowa: Curtis, 20 Iowa at 377 ("[A] person contracting a debt cannot by a cotemporaneous and simple waiver of the benefit of the exemption laws, entitle the creditor, in case of failure to pay, to levy his execution ag | 1 | 1 |
Kneettle v. . Newcombgreen1 sentence2007Kent Co. v. Miller, 77 Nev. 471 , 366 P.2d 520, 522 (1961) (finding a creditor could not compel the debtor to claim the homestead exemption); Cameron v. McDonald, 216 N.C. 712 , 6 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1940) ("Having omitted to assert his right to a homestead in the particular land, when the matter was in issue, we think the plaintiff is now estopped to relitigate the question."). [9] Iowa: Curtis, 20 Iowa at 377 ("[A] person contracting a debt cannot by a cotemporaneous and simple waiver of the benefit of the exemption laws, entitle the creditor, in case of failure to pay, to levy his execution ag | 1 | 1 |
IH KENT COMPANY v. Millergreen2 sentences2007Kent Co. v. Miller, 77 Nev. 471 , 366 P.2d 520, 522 (1961) (finding a creditor could not compel the debtor to claim the homestead exemption); Cameron v. McDonald, 216 N.C. 712 , 6 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1940) ("Having omitted to assert his right to a homestead in the particular land, when the matter was in issue, we think the plaintiff is now estopped to relitigate the question."). [9] Iowa: Curtis, 20 Iowa at 377 ("[A] person contracting a debt cannot by a cotemporaneous and simple waiver of the benefit of the exemption laws, entitle the creditor, in case of failure to pay, to levy his execution ag 2007Kent Co. v. Miller, 77 Nev. 471 , 366 P.2d 520, 522 (1961) (finding a creditor could not compel the debtor to claim the homestead exemption); Cameron v. McDonald, 216 N.C. 712 , 6 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1940) ("Having omitted to assert his right to a homestead in the particular land, when the matter was in issue, we think the plaintiff is now estopped to relitigate the question."). [9] Iowa: Curtis, 20 Iowa at 377 ("[A] person contracting a debt cannot by a cotemporaneous and simple waiver of the benefit of the exemption laws, entitle the creditor, in case of failure to pay, to levy his execution ag | 1 | 1 |
State v. Avco Financial Service of New York Inc.green2 sentences2007Serv. of New York Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 383 , 429 N.Y.S.2d 181 , 406 `N.E.2d 1075, 1077 (1980) ("[W]hile contractual waivers of a debtor's statutory exemptions are usually held to be void, the law has not forbidden a debtor to execute a mortgage upon the property so protected and thus create a lien which may be foreclosed. . . .") (citations omitted); North Carolina: N.C. 2007Serv. of New York Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 383 , 429 N.Y.S.2d 181 , 406 `N.E.2d 1075, 1077 (1980) ("[W]hile contractual waivers of a debtor's statutory exemptions are usually held to be void, the law has not forbidden a debtor to execute a mortgage upon the property so protected and thus create a lien which may be foreclosed. . . .") (citations omitted); North Carolina: N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Cameron v. . McDonaldgreen2 sentences2007Kent Co. v. Miller, 77 Nev. 471 , 366 P.2d 520, 522 (1961) (finding a creditor could not compel the debtor to claim the homestead exemption); Cameron v. McDonald, 216 N.C. 712 , 6 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1940) ("Having omitted to assert his right to a homestead in the particular land, when the matter was in issue, we think the plaintiff is now estopped to relitigate the question."). [9] Iowa: Curtis, 20 Iowa at 377 ("[A] person contracting a debt cannot by a cotemporaneous and simple waiver of the benefit of the exemption laws, entitle the creditor, in case of failure to pay, to levy his execution ag 2007Kent Co. v. Miller, 77 Nev. 471 , 366 P.2d 520, 522 (1961) (finding a creditor could not compel the debtor to claim the homestead exemption); Cameron v. McDonald, 216 N.C. 712 , 6 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1940) ("Having omitted to assert his right to a homestead in the particular land, when the matter was in issue, we think the plaintiff is now estopped to relitigate the question."). [9] Iowa: Curtis, 20 Iowa at 377 ("[A] person contracting a debt cannot by a cotemporaneous and simple waiver of the benefit of the exemption laws, entitle the creditor, in case of failure to pay, to levy his execution ag | 1 | 1 |
Curtis v. O'Briengreen1 sentence2007Kent Co. v. Miller, 77 Nev. 471 , 366 P.2d 520, 522 (1961) (finding a creditor could not compel the debtor to claim the homestead exemption); Cameron v. McDonald, 216 N.C. 712 , 6 S.E.2d 497, 499 (1940) ("Having omitted to assert his right to a homestead in the particular land, when the matter was in issue, we think the plaintiff is now estopped to relitigate the question."). [9] Iowa: Curtis, 20 Iowa at 377 ("[A] person contracting a debt cannot by a cotemporaneous and simple waiver of the benefit of the exemption laws, entitle the creditor, in case of failure to pay, to levy his execution ag | 1 | 1 |
cluster 487187green1 sentence1998See id. at 428 , 92 S.Ct. 1678 . | 1 | 1 |
Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New Yorkgreen1 sentence1998See id. at 428 , 92 S.Ct. 1678 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coe v. Frederick E. Muller & Gulf Pine Co.
green
2 sentences1968In the case of Coe v. Muller, 1917, 74 Fla. 399 , 77 So. 88 , the Supreme Court said: "Usury being merely a statutory defense, not founded upon any commonlaw right, either legal or equitable, it is clearly within the power of the Legislature to take it away. * * * * * * The defense of usury is in the nature of a penalty or forfeiture, and may at any time be taken away by the Legislature, in respect to previous as well as subsequent contracts, without trenching upon any vested right. * * * * * * Usury statutes do not affect the obligation of the contract, but pertain to the remedy only, by givi 1968In the case of Coe v. Muller, 1917, 74 Fla. 399 , 77 So. 88 , the Supreme Court said: "Usury being merely a statutory defense, not founded upon any commonlaw right, either legal or equitable, it is clearly within the power of the Legislature to take it away. * * * * * * The defense of usury is in the nature of a penalty or forfeiture, and may at any time be taken away by the Legislature, in respect to previous as well as subsequent contracts, without trenching upon any vested right. * * * * * * Usury statutes do not affect the obligation of the contract, but pertain to the remedy only, by givi | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Holmes v. French
green
1 sentence1917A. 610 , it was held that “Usury statutes do not affect the obligation of the contract, but pertain to the remtedy only, by giving to the debtor the privilege of avoiding his contract when usurious, and their repeal, without a saving clause, takes away such privilege, even as to contracts previously made.” The Supreme Court of Maine in Holmes v. French, 68 Me. 525 , has carefully pointed out the distinction in the effect of a statute which repeals one which declares usurious contracts void, and one which merely penalizes the usurer by giving the borrower the privilege of avoiding it by proper | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.