MAGDY Z. BOUTROS AND BARBARA R. BOUTROS, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMUNITY REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 broker sued sellers for a commission after finding a buyer for their rental apartment property. The trial court awarded the commission, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the broker failed to produce a buyer whose offer conformed to the sellers' listing terms because the buyer required the property be conveyed as separately deeded condominium units, which the sellers did not own.
The court reversed, holding that the broker did not earn a commission because it failed to produce an offer that conformed to the sellers' listing terms. The substantial difference between what the sellers owned and what the offer required them to convey could not be rectified by post-hoc testimony about the buyer's intent.
[1] A real estate broker is not entitled to a commission when the offer produced does not conform to the terms of the listing agreement, absent evidence that the sellers coul…
[2] A broker must establish that the parties understood a substantial difference between the property owned and the property required to be conveyed in the offer.
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“the commission would be due if the seller refused an offer at the price and terms stated in the listing agreement”
Establishes the condition precedent for earning a commission under the listing agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSellers owned two buildings with ten rental apartments at one location and listed them with a real estate broker under an agreement providing commissi…
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 Prevailing Party Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court found, after a non-jury trial, that the appellee real estate broker was entitled to a commission for finding a buyer for the sellers’ property. The sellers appeal because the offer obtained by the broker did not conform to their offer to sell. We reverse.
The sellers owned two separate buildings at one location, containing a total of ten rental apartments. They signed a listing agreement with the broker, and the agreement provided that a commission would be due if the seller refused an offer at the price and terms stated in the listing agreement.
The broker then produced a buyer; however, the contract provided that the sellers would deliver the property as “ten separately deeded condominium units.” Although the broker submitted two more contracts from the same buyer, each of them suffered from the same deficiency as the first one, containing the requirement that the rental apartments be deeded as condominium units. After the sellers refused to sign the third contract, the prospective buyer lost interest and the broker sued for a commission, contending that it had produced a ready, willing and able buyer. The trial court found in favor of the broker and the sellers appeal.
There is no evidence in the record that the apartments were owned as condominiums or that the apartments could have been converted into condominiums by the sellers in order to meet the terms of the offer produced by the broker. The trial court, although it made findings of fact, did not address the discrepancy between the conveyance described in the buyer’s offer, and the condition of the title in the sellers’ offer. The broker does not assert that the sellers could have satisfied the title requirement in the offer, but rather argues that the buyer had no concern as to whether these apartments were condominiums or not. The buyer, according to the broker, was willing to accept title in the form in which it existed. That position is in fact supported by some evidence introduced by the broker at trial; however, that evidence did not establish that this was understood by the buyer and sellers when the offer to buy was submitted to the sellers. The broker has not furnished us with any authority that this substantial difference between what the sellers owned, and what the offer required them to convey, could be rectified by testimony as to the buyer’s intent.
We accordingly reverse the judgment, as well as the order awarding attorney’s fees, and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of the sellers. We also authorize the trial court to award attorney’s fees for the trial court litigation to the sellers, as prevailing parties under the listing contract.
WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.