GLOBAL RESORTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FAMILLE, INC., AND LEEDCO ENTERPRISES, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF GENERAL PARTNERS, LEROY LINSBERG AND EDWARD HARRIS, APPELLEES
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.
The appellate court reversed a final judgment awarding damages for breach of contract, finding the contract unenforceable because the plaintiff lacked a required real estate broker's license. The court affirmed the judgment on a cross-claim, deeming it moot due to the reversal.
Yes, the oral contract was unenforceable because Leedco, acting as a broker, failed to obtain the required real estate license, rendering the contract void under Florida law.
“Global argues that since Leedco had not obtained a real estate broker’s license, the alleged oral contract was unenforceable pursuant to section 475.41, Florida Statutes (1983).”
This quote outlines the appellant's core argument regarding the unenforceability of the contract.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGlobal Resorts, Inc. (Global) contracted with Famille, Inc. (Famille) to sell time-share units. Global also allegedly entered into an oral contract wi…
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 Unenforceable Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Global Resorts, Inc., appeals a final judgment awarding appellee, Leedco Enterprises, $34,400.93 on a breach of contract claim. The final judgment also found against appellant in regard to its cross-claim against appellee, Famille, Inc., which finding appellant also appeals. Appellee Leedco Enterprises has not appeared or responded in this appeal. We reverse the final judgment in favor of appellee Leedco and, because we do, we find the appeal on the cross-claim against appellee Famille moot and, therefore, affirm in regard to that cross-claim.
This action arose out of an oral contract whereby Leedco was to solicit prospective purchasers of time-share condominium units which Global had by written contract with Famille, the owner, agreed to market and sell.
Global denied the existence of the oral contract with Leedco, and alleged, as an affirmative defense to Leedco’s action, that Leedco acted as a “broker” within the meaning of section 475.01(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1983). Global argues that since Leedco had not obtained a real estate broker’s license, the alleged oral contract was unenforceable pursuant to section 475.41, Florida Statutes (1983).
That issue has previously been determined in favor of Global’s position by the decision of this court in Alligood v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 156 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963).
While this court in Alligood interpreted section 475.01(2), Florida Statutes (1961), a predecessor to section 475.01(2), (l)(c), defining a real estate broker, there is essentially no difference, for the purpose of this appeal, in the applicable language in the two statutes. That being the case, the Alligood decision is controlling precedent in this case and, on its authority, we reverse the final judgment as it granted judgment to Leedco against Global in the amount of $34,400.93.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.