JOHN E. SHUEY, APPELLANT,
v.
NAT WOLF, 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 for commission, claiming he found a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase on acceptable terms, but the seller refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for the seller, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding liability. The appellate court affirmed.
No, the appellate court found no error in the trial court's entry of summary judgment for the appellee.
“Basically, the court's position was that there was no genuine issue of any material fact on question of liability of appellee on the cause of action stated; that there had been no complete listing of the property; and that, as a matter of law, appellant had not found a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy on terms acceptable or agreed to by appellee.”
This quote explains the trial court's reasoning for granting summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a real estate broker, sued appellee for a commission, alleging he found a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase the property on terms …
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 Ready, Willing, And Able Purchaser cases and more on FLexlaw
This was an action brought by the appellant, a registered real estate broker, to recover the sum of $50,736 as a commission for services claimed to have been rendered by him in finding a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy on terms accepta*196ble to appellee, which offer appellee refused to accept.
Both parties sought judgment through summary proceeding. Their respective motions were supported by affidavits and depositions. The trial court granted the motion of appellee for summary judgment, in consequence of which he entered judgment for appellee. Basically, the court’s position was that there was no genuine issue of any material fact on question of liability of ap-pellee on the cause of action stated; that there had been no complete listing of the property; and that, as a matter of law, appellant had not found a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy on terms acceptable or agreed to by appellee. In this connection see the case of McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 781.
We do not find from the record that the trial judge erred in entering summary judgment for appellee. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
KANNER, C. J., SHANNON, J., and PARKS, L. L., Associate Judge, concur.