ERA CARICO REAL ESTATE CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND GANIM REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
SERAPHIN JOSEPH MANFREDONIA, RESPONDENT
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.
ERA Carico Real Estate Co. and Ganim Realty sought certiorari review of an appellate decision that reversed their trial court judgment for broker commissions. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the trial court correctly found Petitioners were the procuring cause of a real estate sale, and that no intent to exclude by the buyer and seller was required under controlling precedent.
The court held that Petitioners were the procuring cause of the sale and entitled to the commission. Sheldon Greene & Assoc. does not require a showing that the buyer and seller acted with bad motives or intentionally excluded the broker; it is sufficient that the buyer and seller negotiated directly without the broker who first called the property to the buyer's attention.
[1] A court may grant certiorari review when an appellate order departs from the essential requirements of law, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
[2] A broker is considered the procuring cause of a real estate sale when they initially bring the property to the buyer's attention, even if the buyer and seller subsequentl…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“While we acknowledge that such descriptive terms as "secret," "clandestine," and "conspiratorial" are often found in the broker commission cases, the use of such terms hardly establishes an additional element of a broker's cause of action for a commission, that is, that the seller and buyer acted with bad motives.”
Establishes that bad faith or intentional exclusion is not required for procuring cause; the terms describe direct negotiation between buyer and seller without the broker.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners, real estate brokers, initially brought a property to a buyer's attention. The buyer and seller subsequently negotiated directly without t…
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
SHEVIN, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
ERA Carico Real Estate Co., Inc., and Ganim Realty, Inc. [collectively “Petitioners”], seek certiorari review of a circuit court order that reversed, on appeal, a county court final judgment. Finding that the order under review departs from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice, Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995), we grant certiorari, and quash the appellate division’s order. The trial court entered final judgment in Petitioners’ favor finding that Petitioners were due a commission as the procuring causes of a real estate sale. The appellate order reversed the final judgment, reasoning that Sheldon Greene & Assoc., Inc. v. Rosinda Inv., N.V., 475 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review dismissed, 502 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1987), precluded Petitioners from recovering any commission under the procuring cause theory because the trial court found that the buyer and seller did not intentionally exclude Petitioners from the sale. However, the court misconstrued the holding in Sheldon Greene & Assoc. Although the case involved a scenario where the buyer and seller excluded the broker from negotiations through deceit, in holding that the broker was the procuring cause of the sale, this court stated:
While we acknowledge that such descriptive terms as “secret,” “clandestine,” and “conspiratorial” are often found in the broker commission cases, the use of such terms hardly establishes an additional element of a broker’s cause of action for a commission, that is, that the seller and buyer acted with bad motives. In our view, these terms, in this context, mean nothing more than the buyer has negotiated directly with the seller without the participation of the broker who first called the property to the buyer’s attention; this negotiation is called “secret,” “clandestine,” and “conspiratorial” because only the buyer and seller are in on it.
Sheldon Greene & Assoc., 475 So. 2d at 928 (emphasis added). Here, as in Sheldon Greene & Assoc., the buyer and seller negotiated directly and excluded the Petitioners who initially brought the property to the buyer’s attention. Thus, the trial court properly deemed the Petitioners to be the procuring cause of the sale. The appellate order’s reasoning to the contrary is error and departs from the essential requirements of law. Because the error is sufficiently egregious to result in a miscarriage of justice, Haines City Community Dev., we grant certiorari, quash the appellate division’s order and remand with instructions to reinstate the trial court’s final judgment.
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wilson, 690 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…th, 661 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (granting certiorari because district court disagreed with circuit court’s decision that use of illegal tape recording in one misdemeanor trial was fundamental error); ERA Carico Real Estate Co. v. Manfredonia, 689 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). It is a miscarriage when both the county and circuit courts conclude that State v. Durkee, 584 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), authorized dismissal of one DUI case as a sanction to improve police procedures where the police misl…
-
Cushman & Wakefield OF Fla., Inc. v. Schaecter, 708 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…bsequent deal, it is irrelevant that the Schaecters claim lack of knowledge as to the identity of Cygne representatives during these negotiations in which Cushman & Wakefield was the intermediary. See ERA Carico Real Estate Co., Inc. v. Manfredonia, 689 So. 2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 700 So. 2d 686 (Fla.1997); see also Oro Verde Groves, Inc. v. Fuchs, 136 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Rosinda Invs., N.V., 475 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Horn v. Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc., 502 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1987)