[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. There must be a loan express or implied;
2. An understanding between the parties that the money lent shall be returned;
3. That for such a loan a greater rate of interest than is allowed by law shall be paid or agreed to be paid, as the case may be; and
4. There must exist a Corrupt intent to take more than the legal rate for the use of the money loaned.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. There must be a loan express or implied;
2. An understanding between the parties that the money lent shall be returned;
3. That for such a loan a greater rate of interest than is allowed by law shall be paid or agreed to be paid, as the case may be; and
4. There must exist a Corrupt intent to take more than the legal rate for the use of the money loaned.

Source: Dixon v. Sharp, 276 So.2d 817, 819 (Fla. 1973).

“As a matter of law, a usury violation does not arise under an agreement. Rather it arises under state statutory law.” BREA 3-2 LLC v. Hagshama Fla. 8 Sarasota, LLC, 327 So. 3d 926, 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citing; Party Yards, Inc. v. Templeton, 751 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 5Th DCA 2000)). “Usury is a creature of statute. Thus, usury violations are statutorily governed and give rise only to those penalties and relief statutorily contained or provided. Other damages, compensatory or punitive, are not recognized or permitted.” Cerrito v. Kovitch, 423 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (citing; Moretto v. Sussman, 274 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Florida Supreme Court: Dixon v. Sharp, 276 So.2d 817, 819 (Fla. 1973); Clark v. Grey, 132 So. 832, 834 (Fla. 1931).

First District: Rollins v. Odom, 519 So. 2d 652, 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Second District: Fla. Trading & Inv. Co. v. River Const. Servs., Inc., 537 So. 2d 600, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Rebman v. Flagship First Nat. Bank of Highlands Cnty., 472 So. 2d 1360, 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); River Hills, Inc. v. Edwards, 190 So. 2d 415, 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); Diversified Enterprises, Inc. v. West, 141 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).

Third District: World O World Corp. v. Patino, 306 So. 3d 1044, 1045-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Antonelli v. Neumann, 537 So. 2d 1027, 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Gergora v. Goldstein Pro. Ass’n Defined Benefits Pension Plan & Tr., 500 So. 2d 695, 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Bermil Corp. v. Sawyer, 353 So. 2d 579, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Fourth District: Nolden v. Summit Fin. Corp., 244 So. 3d 322, 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Northwood SG, LLC v. Builder Fin. Corp., 76 So. 3d 3, 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Pinchuck v. Canzoneri, 920 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Valliappan v. Cruz, 917 So. 2d 257, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

Fifth District: Oregrund Ltd. P’ship v. Sheive, 873 So. 2d 451, 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Party Yards, Inc. v. Templeton, 751 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

 FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Southern District: Singhal v. Unison Agreement Corp., 2023 WL 2734230, *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2023); Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Lanzo Constr. Co., Fla., 2013 WL 11927713, *6 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2013).

Middle District: EnSolTech USA LLC v. A-Z Power Sols., LLC, 2021 WL 8775768, *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16, 2021).

Northern District: Bardfield v. Chisholm Properties Cir. Events, LLC, 2010 WL 1688451, *6 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2010).

FLORIDA STATUTES: Chapter 687, Florida Statutes (Interest and Usury; Lending Practices) (allowing for private right of action for violation of Florida’s usury statutes, including compensatory and punitive damages, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Usurious Transaction

(1) R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: Stat. §95.11(3)(f) (four years).

(3) The borrower has the burden of proving the elements of the alleged usurious transaction. Bardfield v. Chisholm Properties Cir. Events, LLC, 2010 WL 1688451, *6 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2010); Swanson v. Gulf W. Int’l Corp., 429 So. 2d 817, 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

(4) Generally, ignorance of the law is not a defense for usury, even when the lender relies on the advice of counsel. Saralegui v. Sacher, Zelman, Van Sant Paul, Beily, Hartman & Waldman, P.A., 19 So. 3d 1048, 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Ross v. Whitman, 181 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).

(5) In Florida, civil usury laws are not applied to loans that exceed $500.000. If the interest rate exceeds 25% it is considered criminal usury. Singhal v. Unison Agreement Corp., 2023 WL 2734230, *4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2023); Top Beam Inc. v. ShieldX2 LLC, 2022 WL 2758386, *6 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2022); Section 687.071, Fla. Stat.

(6) “A borrower who asserts usury as a defense must prove all the elements of usury by clear and satisfactory evidence.” Bardfield v. Chisholm Properties Cir. Events, LLC, 2010 WL 1688451, *6 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2010) (citing; Dixon v. Sharp, 276 So.2d 817, 819 (Fla. 1973)).

[/MM_Access_Decision]