BRYAN & GREENLEES REAL ESTATE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
J. ROBERT NORMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A real estate broker appealed a directed verdict dismissing his claim for a commission after presenting a purchase offer that lacked a default provision the vendor required. The court affirmed, holding that the broker failed to establish he produced a buyer ready, willing, and able to accept all essential terms the vendor demanded.
The broker is not entitled to a commission because he failed to produce a purchaser who was ready, willing, and able to accept all of the vendor's essential terms prior to the vendor's decision to accept another offer. The facts presented were insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
[1] A real estate broker is not entitled to a commission based solely on a verbal accord as to price; the broker must produce a purchaser ready, willing, and able to close on…
[2] A vendor may terminate a non-exclusive real estate listing at any time and accept another offer without incurring liability to the broker, absent an agreement for a speci…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the mere verbal accord between the parties as to the price is not the sole ingredient of the agreement to buy and sell sufficient to entitle the broker to a commission”
Establishes that price agreement alone is insufficient for broker commission entitlement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe broker had a non-exclusive oral listing agreement with the vendor for a Martin County property. The broker presented an offer of purchase that the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action For Real Estate Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendant/vendor at the close of the plaintiff/real estate broker’s case. We hold that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case demonstrating his entitlement to a real estate commission and, consequently, we affirm.
Viewing the testimony in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we find that the plaintiff/real estate broker had an oral contract with the defendant/vendor which, in essence, constituted a non-exclusive listing on a piece of property in Martin County. As a result of this agreement, the broker presented the vendor with an offer of purchase which, according to the broker, was acceptable to the vendor except for the fact that it did not contain a provision which would permit the vendor to elect between specific performance and liquidated damages in the event of a default by the purchaser. In the ensuing interval of a few hours during which the broker obtained the purchaser’s agreement to the default provision, the vendor decided to accept an earlier offer from another party. Next, the broker notified the vendor’s lawyer that the default clause was acceptable and shortly thereafter was told that the vendor had decided to sell to another party. Based on these facts the broker sued for his commission.
We concur with the trial court that the foregoing facts are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of appellant’s entitlement to a commission. “[T]he mere verbal accord between the parties as to the price is not the sole ingredient of the agreement to buy and sell sufficient to entitle the broker to a commission.” McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 98 So. 2d 781, 784 (Fla. 1957). To be entitled to a commission, the broker must “produce a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to close the transaction not only for the stipulated price but upon other essential terms which are acceptable to the owner.” Id., at 783. Moreover, absent an agreement that the listing contract will be kept in force for a specified period of time, the vendor is free to terminate the listing at any time and to accept another offer of purchase without incurring liability to the broker. Cf. Leon Realty, Inc. v. Bradwell, 271 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
Since the broker in the case at bar did not produce a buyer who was ready, willing and able to accept all of the vendor’s terms prior to the time that the vendor decided to accept another offer of purchase, we conclude that the broker is not entitled to a commission. Accordingly, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Padron v. Plantada, 632 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…. 2d 781 (Fla.1957); Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc. v. Williams Island Associates, 571 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Harding Realty, Inc. v. Tumberry Towers Corp., 436 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bryan & Greenlees Real Estate, Inc. v. Norman, 405 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment entered in favor of the broker. In view of our resolution on the breach of contract issue, the broker’s remaining points on the cross-appeal become moot, and need not be addressed. Re…
Authorities Cited
- McALLISTER Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 98 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1957)
- Leon Realty, Inc. v. Bradwell, 271 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Wright v. State, 271 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)