World O World Corporation v. Marina Safroniy, 329512

Background

In 2005 Yuriy and Marina Safroniy executed a promissory note and mortgage for $13,500 at 11.75% interest (15‑year term) secured by Florida property; both instruments contained acceleration clauses.
The Safroniys last paid on August 1, 2009, and made no further payments; plaintiff waited until September 12, 2014 to sue and served the complaint on October 30, 2014 (plaintiff’s first demand for full repayment).
Plaintiff’s complaint sought $29,448.17 (remaining principal plus 18% compound interest); after filings plaintiff submitted an affidavit reducing its damages claim to $20,307.97 (11.75% simple interest).
Yuriy was personally served but no answer was filed in his name; a default was entered against him for the amount in the complaint. Marina (through counsel) admitted nonpayment and moved for summary disposition on statute‑of‑limitations and usury grounds; plaintiff moved for summary disposition on breach.
The circuit court denied Marina’s statute‑of‑limitations and usury arguments but entered judgment for plaintiff in the reduced amount ($20,307.97). The court also denied Yuriy’s motion to set aside the default.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether loans installments prior to Oct 30, 2009 are time‑barred under Florida’s 5‑year statute of limitations	Plaintiff treated acceleration as retroactive and sought all missed payments since Aug 2009	Defendants: each installment accrues its own 5‑year limitations period; plaintiff’s acceleration occurred on service (Oct 30, 2014), so payments due before Oct 30, 2009 are time‑barred	Reversed in part: payments due before Oct 30, 2009 (and associated interest) are time‑barred; judgment must be reduced accordingly
Whether plaintiff’s attempt to collect 18% compound interest in the complaint renders recovery of lawful interest barred by Florida usury law	Plaintiff argued its pleading posture did not preclude recovery of interest and later limited recovery to 11.75% simple interest	Defendants argued seeking 18% compound interest in complaint showed usury and should bar interest recovery	Affirmed in part: usury defense fails because the parties’ original agreement was not usurious and the usurious rate was not part of the contract; plaintiff’s concession to 11.75% simple interest was accepted
Whether the default against Yuriy should be set aside for good cause and meritorious defense	Plaintiff opposed setting aside; urged default valid and was not excused	Yuriy argued he had meritorious defenses (statute of limitations/usury) and a reasonable excuse for failure to answer	Court did not abuse discretion in denying set aside initially, because Yuriy had notice and offered no adequate excuse; but default must be vacated later to enter a single corrected judgment (see below)
Whether equity requires setting aside the default and entering an amended joint judgment after plaintiff reduced its interest claim	Plaintiff maintained original default judgment valid; later amended claim justified separate judgment amounts	Defendants argued it is inequitable for married co‑debtors to be subject to different judgments on a single joint debt after plaintiff reduced its claim	Court: default was properly entered originally but, in equity, the default judgment against Yuriy should be set aside and a corrected joint judgment entered reflecting plaintiff’s reduced damages

Key Cases Cited

Dillard v. Schlussel, 308 Mich. App. 429 (discussing summary‑disposition standards)
West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (summary‑disposition (C)(10) standard)
Epps v. 4 Quarters Restoration, LLC, 498 Mich. 518 (standards for setting aside default; attorney/litigant neglect)
Access Ins. Planners, Inc. v. Gee, 175 So. 3d 921 (Florida rule: statute of limitations on installment contracts accrues separately for each missed payment)
Greene v. Bursey, 733 So. 2d 1111 (Florida law on limitations for installment contracts)
Snow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 156 So. 3d 538 (demand for full balance suffices to accelerate; acceleration date controls limitations)
Oregrund Ltd. P’ship v. Sheive, 873 So. 2d 451 (usury defense analyzed at contract inception)
Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Ristich, 292 Mich. App. 376 (equitable relief to set aside default judgment)