SHELDON GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROZ BELFORD, 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.
The court affirmed a trial court's declaratory judgment awarding a 50/50 split of disputed brokerage commission between two real estate brokers, finding substantial evidence that both were procuring causes and had agreed to the split.
Both brokers were procuring causes of the sale and had agreed to a 50/50 split of the brokerage commission, which the trial court was authorized to decree.
[1] When two real estate brokers both serve as procuring causes of a sale and agree to split the brokerage commission, a trial court may enter a declaratory judgment awarding…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo real estate brokers, Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc. and Roz Belford, disputed the allocation of brokerage commission from the sale of a hotel i…
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 Procuring Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc., a real estate broker, from a final declaratory judgment which decreed a 50/50 split of a disputed brokerage commission fee between the plaintiff and the defendant Roz Belford, also a real estate broker, arising from the sale of a hotel in Miami Beach.
We affirm the final judgment under review upon a holding that (1) there is substantial competent evidence in this record to support the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff and defendant brokers agreed to split the disputed brokerage fee on a 50/50 basis, and that both brokers were the procuring cause of the subject sale, see Futch v. Head, 511 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1275 (Fla.1987); Howard v. Boner, 385 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); J.A. Cantor & Assoc., Inc. v. Devore, 281 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 287 So. 2d 689 (Fla.1973); and, (2) the trial court was authorized by the pleadings filed by both the plaintiff and defendant in this cause to decree the aforesaid 50/50 split in the disputed brokerage commission. See Wells v. Thorn, 361 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.1976).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Futch v. Head, 511 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- DeJERINETT v. State, 287 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1973)
- Harrington Chandler and Altamease Chandler v. Chandler, 330 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- J. A. Cantor & Assocs., Inc. v. Devore, 281 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Howard v. Boner, 385 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Wells v. Thorn, 361 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)