ARDC CORPORATION F/K/A ARVIDA CORPORATION AND ARVIDA REALTY SALES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
GERARD J. ZELL, 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 salesman sued his broker for unpaid commissions, and the broker countersued for damages from breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court entered judgment for the broker but limited recovery to commissions from fraudulent transactions and unallocable advances, allowing the salesman to retain commissions from unrelated transactions. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a fiduciary breaching his duty is not required to forfeit all earnings during the period of breach.
The court held that a fiduciary in breach is required to forfeit only those commissions directly resulting from the fraudulent transactions and unallocable advances that cannot be fairly separated from the breach, but may retain commissions earned from unrelated transactions with third parties subsequent to the breach.
[1] A real estate broker may recover damages from a salesman for breach of fiduciary duty.
[2] When a real estate salesman breaches a fiduciary duty, the broker may recover commissions earned from fraudulent transactions.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 principal question to be determined is whether a real estate salesman who is guilty of breach of a fiduciary duty to his principal, is required to suffer a loss, not only for monies earned under a fraudulent transaction, but also is required to lose all commissions that were earned between the date of the fraud and the date of discharge in unrelated real estate transactions, plus the loss of all sums paid between the date of the fraud and the discharge, advanced to him by the principal as general salary and expenses.”
States the central issue on appeal regarding the scope of damages available to a principal when a fiduciary breaches his duty.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA real estate salesman commenced an action against his broker to recover commissions. The broker responded with a counterclaim alleging the salesman b…
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 Recovery Of Commissions cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
This is an appeal and a cross appeal. After an original action by a real estate salesman was commenced to recover commissions, it was met by a counterclaim by the salesman’s broker to recover damages for alleged breach of a fiduciary duty. The matter went to a jury. A verdict in favor of the salesman was rendered in part on his complaint, and in favor of the broker in part on its counterclaim.
The trial court adjusted the verdicts and entered a net judgment in favor of the broker. Both the parties appeal. The principal question to be determined is whether a real estate salesman who is guilty of breach of a fiduciary duty to his principal, is required to suffer a loss, not only for monies earned under a fraudulent transaction, but also is required to lose all commissions that were earned between the date of the fraud and the date of discharge in unrelated real estate transactions, plus the loss of all sums paid between the date of the fraud and the discharge, advanced to him by the principal as general salary and expenses.
The trial court limited the recovery by the principal to the sums earned, if any, as a result of the fraudulent transactions and the sums advanced between the date of the fraudulent conduct and the date of discharge, which could not be fairly apportioned between the fraudulent and the unrelated transactions. He allowed the agent to collect his commission on the unrelated transactions with third persons subsequent to the fiduciary breach and discharge. Finding the trial court’s interpretation of the law appropriate, we affirm the final judgment as entered by the trial court. Bessman v. Bessman, 214 Kan. 510, 520 P. 2d 1210 (Kan.1974); Herman v. Branch Motor Express Co., Inc., 67 Misc. 2d 444, 323 N.Y.S.2d 794 (Cir.Ct. 9 N.Y. 1971); Harry R. Defler Corporation v. Kleeman, 19 A.D.2d 396, 243 N.Y.S.2d 930 (S.Ct.App.Div. 4th Dept.1963).
We also find no merit in the other points urged by the parties for reversal. Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 381 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1980); Rose v. Peters, 82 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1955); Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270, 9 So. 2d 369 (1942); Kingswharf Ltd. v. Kranz, 545 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Sundale Associates, Ltd. v. Southeast Bank, 471 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Dale v. Ford Motor Company, 409 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Auletta v. Fried, 388 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
The final judgment under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Elliott Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 381 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1980)
- Williams v. Sauls, 151 Fla. 270 (Fla. 1942)
- Fairbanks v. Robertson, 151 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1942)
- Sundale Assocs., Ltd. v. Se. Bank, N.A., 471 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Kingswharf, Ltd. v. Kranz, 545 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Dale v. Ford Motor Co., 409 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Tatum v. Tatum, 409 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Harriett Auletta and Harry Auletta v. Fried, 388 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Rose v. Peters, 82 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1955)