Jury rejects Usury Claim, Award $351K for Unjust Enrichment
Table of Contents
Case Background
This legal battle began when Manuel A. Bastardo Hernandez and his company, Global Trading and Foods, Corp. (collectively, "Bastardo"), filed a complaint against Jose Alberto Olortegui Quispe ("Olortegui"). The core dispute arose from a loan agreement between the parties. Bastardo had alleged the terms of the loan were illegal because the interest rate was excessively high, claiming the agreement violated Florida's civil and criminal usury statutes. Essentially, Bastardo sued the lender, Olortegui, to void the loan and recover the funds already paid, asserting that the lender exploited him with an agreement that demanded an unlawful return on the money borrowed.
Cause
The central cause of action in the original complaint was Usury. Bastardo contended that he entered into a loan agreement with Olortegui that included an interest rate so high it was illegal under Florida law, an act which Bastardo claimed demonstrated a "corrupt intent" on Olortegui's part to take more than the legal maximum rate for the use of the loaned money.
In response, Olortegui denied all allegations of usury and fraud. He filed a detailed counterclaim which became the primary focus of the verdict. His counterclaim alleged Unjust Enrichment and Money Had and Received, arguing that Bastardo, having received and benefited from Olortegui's money, had unjustly refused to repay it. Olortegui’s position asserted that, regardless of the contract's alleged legality, Bastardo had received a benefit that, in fairness, he ought to pay for. Olortegui further claimed that Bastardo received his money as a result of fraud, specifically regarding the representations Bastardo made about the validity and legitimacy of his business.
Injury
The injury claimed by Bastardo was the financial damage caused by paying what he alleged were illegal, usurious interest payments, as well as the burden of the remaining debt.
Conversely, the injury claimed by Olortegui was the direct and sustained financial loss of the principal funds he had lent to Bastardo. Olortegui sought to recover the full amount of his money, arguing he faced financial detriment because Bastardo had received the funds and refused to return them, unjustly enriching himself in the process.
Damages Sought
Bastardo, as the Plaintiff, sought to have the entire loan agreement declared void, to recover all monies he had already paid to Olortegui, and to receive punitive damages because of the alleged criminal nature of the usury.
Olortegui, as the counterclaimant, sought full repayment of the principal amount of the loan, along with interest, attorneys' fees, and all associated Court costs. The verdict form indicates Olortegui sought recovery on the grounds of Unjust Enrichment and Money Had and Received.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s) (and Counter-Defendants): Manuel A. Bastardo Hernandez | Global Trading and Foods, Corp.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Santiago D Paniagua | Joshua E Rasco | Monique A Low
Defendant(s) (and Counter-Plaintiff): Jose Alberto Olortegui Quispe
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Eduardo A. Maura | Luis F. Quesada
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Bastardo’s legal team had focused heavily on the contract itself. They argued that the terms of the promissory note clearly included an interest rate that exceeded the legal limits established by Florida statute, automatically rendering the loan usurious. They maintained that this predatory conduct by Olortegui invalidated the entire transaction, giving Bastardo the right to be fully reimbursed for all principal and interest payments already made.
Defense
The defense for Olortegui strategically counterattacked with claims centered on restitution, essentially arguing that even if a technical legal flaw existed in the loan documents, Bastardo knowingly took and used the money.
Arguments Against Usury: Olortegui's defense team denied that he had the "corrupt intent" necessary to prove criminal usury. They likely argued that any high-interest payment was a legitimate business consideration for the risk involved and did not constitute an unlawful scheme to exploit the borrower.
Arguments for Unjust Enrichment: The main thrust of Olortegui's defense, which became his successful counterclaim, was that Bastardo received a substantial sum of money that he used for his benefit and then refused to return. The defense claimed the circumstances demanded that Bastardo be required, in all fairness, to pay for the financial benefit he received. The counterclaim was a powerful move that shifted the jury’s focus from the alleged illegality of the loan's terms to the simple fact that Bastardo had possession of Olortegui’s money.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a mixed verdict on 20th March 2025, awarding Counter-Plaintiff (Defendant) Olortegui $351,000.00 in damages. This award was based solely on the claim of Unjust Enrichment (Count IV). The jury found that Olortegui conferred a benefit, the Counter-Defendants knew of the benefit, and that fairness required the Counter-Defendants to pay for it. The jury did not find the Plaintiffs liable for Money Had and Received (Count V) because it was not received as a result of fraud.
The jury rejected all fraud-based allegations. They found against Olortegui on the Fraud (Count II) and Civil Conspiracy (Count I) claims. They determined that Bastardo and Global Trading did not make a material misrepresentation. They also found that neither Counter-Defendant participated in any alleged fraud.
Furthermore, the jury found against the Plaintiffs on their singular Usury claim. While the jury found a loan, an understanding of return, and an agreement for a greater rate of interest existed, they explicitly found that Olortegui did not have the corrupt intent required for a Usury violation. Therefore, the jury found for Olortegui on the Usury claim as well.