FAUSTA LABARERRE, APPELLANT,
v.
CERVERA REAL ESTATE, INC., ETC., 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.
Fausta Labarerre appealed the entry of summary judgment against her claim for unpaid real estate commissions from her former employer, Cervera Real Estate. The court reversed the summary judgment, finding that material factual disputes existed regarding the parties' contractual intent that must be resolved at trial.
The court reversed the summary judgment because material factual disputes existed regarding the parties' intent concerning the scope and applicability of the September 15, 1998 contract that must be resolved by a trier of fact rather than on summary judgment.
[1] Summary judgment must be reversed if the slightest doubt exists regarding material facts.
[2] When construing facts for summary judgment, they must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
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“Upon review of the entry of summary judgment, we must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
Establishes the standard of review for summary judgment appeals in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 15, 1998, Labarerre and Cervera entered into a contract registering Frederic Rado, his family business and/or assigns as Labarerre's clie…
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 Intent Of The Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
Fausta Labarerre appeals the entry of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, appellee Cervera Real Estate, Inc., in which she sought to recover unpaid real estate commissions. We reverse because there are issues of material fact that preclude the entry of summary judgment.
On September 15, 1998, Labarerre and Cervera entered into a contract in which Labarerre “register[ed] ... Frederic Rado, his family business and/or assigns” as her “client” with Cervera. The contract mentions Frederic Rado’s contact with La-barerre in which he solicited her help in the purchase of particular site or “any other” site in the same area. The contract also mentions Frederic Rado’s interest to seek Labarerre’s and Cervera’s help in the development of the “Bel-Air Hotel site.” Labarerre and Cervera also agreed to “split 50/50 the commission received by Cervera ... of whatever business [they] do with this client and others that might arrive through him.”
Frederic Rado’s father, Gabor Rado, eventually developed the Bel-Aire Hotel site into a condominium project.
On February 8, 2002, Gabor Rado listed the Bel-Aire Hotel site with Cervera who in turn marketed the project and sold a number of condominiums. Labarerre, however, did not receive any commission from those sales. Upon review of the entry of summary judgment, we must construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Collections, USA, Inc. v. City of Homestead, 816 So. 2d 1225, 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
If the slightest doubt exists, the entry of summary judgment must be reversed. Id. When the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to La-barerre, there is an issue of fact as to whether Labarerre and Cervera intended the September 15, 1998 contract to govern not only Frederic Rado, but also “his family business and/or assigns,” as well as any business that would arise “through him.” This issue of the intent of the parties as to the September 15, 1998 contract should be properly submitted to the trier of fact for determination, thus precluding the entry of summary judgment. See Birwelco-Montenay, Inc. v. Infilco Degremont, Inc., 827 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Reversed and remanded for trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Collections v. The City OF Homestead, 816 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Lenett v. World Vacation Travel, 827 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)