455 So. 2d 612 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1984
The trial judge’s extensive findings which concluded that a contract for the purchase of several condominium units was a disguised usurious mortgage loan will not be disturbed by this court because they are supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record. See Marsh v. Marsh, 419 So.2d 629 (Fla.1982); DuPont Plaza, Inc. v. Samuel Kipnis Family Foundation, 132 So.2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961), cert. denied, 146 So.2d 382 (Fla.1962).
The evidence shows that (1) appellants (purchasers) and appellees (developers) entered into an agreement for the sale of five condominium units for an alleged precon-struction purchase price of $372,800, whereby the developers were to deliver the apartments within twenty months or, in the alternative, pay the sum of $559,200 to the purchasers — the difference between the two amounts being exactly 30% per an-
Affirmed.
. The appellants were found to have violated Section 687.071(2), Florida Statutes (1983) which provides:
Unless otherwise specifically allowed by law, any person making an extension of credit to any person, who shall willfully and knowingly charge, take, or receive interest thereon at a rate exceeding 25 percent per annum ... shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree....