Case ID: so2d_258/html/0318-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COMUTRIX CORPORATION and Leo Greenfield, Appellants, v. John U. VAZQUEZ and Henry Frank, Appellees.
    Nos. 71-882, 71-887.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    Feb. 29, 1972.
    Rehearing Denied March 15, 1972.
    Shorenstein & Lewis, Miami Beach, for appellants.
    Snyder, Young & Stern, and Joseph Teichman, North Miami Beach, for appel-lees.
    Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal from summary and final judgments. We must reverse.

The original answers, although inartful, pled the defense of usury. The affidavits filed by defendants in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment set forth factual allegations supporting the defense of usury. We find the defense of usury, on these actions on promissory notes, raised a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude a summary judgment. We, therefore, reverse the summary and final judgments and remand for further action consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.