Legal Opinion

MCO Investors, Inc. v. Dansby

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 16, 1989No. 88-2055Published

1Per curiam

We affirm the summary final judgment of foreclosure finding that the interest rate applied in this case was not usurious. Hool v. Rydholm, 467 So.2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). While we agree with appellant’s contention that testimony of an expert witness concerning a reasonable attorney’s fee is generally necessary to support the establishment of the fee, Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. Stone, 514 So.2d 351, 352-3 (Fla.1987), no transcript of the hearing for summary judgment was made, and we find a lack of agreement by the parties concerning the alleged absence of evidence adduced at the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of TallahasseeSupreme Court of Florida · 1979
  2. Crittenden Orange Blossom Fruit v. StoneSupreme Court of Florida · 1987
  3. GLACE & RADCLIFFE v. City of Live OakDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
  4. Hool v. RydholmDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API