AUCTION COMPANY OF AMERICA
v.
RUSSELL REVOCABLE TRUST
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.
Auction Company of America appealed a trial court order granting summary judgment to Russell Revocable Trust and denying Auction Company's counterclaim. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the exclusive right of sale contract had terminated before the property sale and that auctioneers have no legal duty to collect deposits from bidders.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Russell Trust, holding that the exclusive right of sale contract and any extended protection period terminated prior to Russell Trust's sale of the property. The court further held that auctioneers have no legal duty or obligation to collect deposits from bidders absent an express contractual provision, and therefore Auction Company cannot be held liable on those grounds.
[1] An auctioneer owes no non-contractual legal duty to collect a deposit from a bidder in the absence of an express or implied contractual provision requiring such collectio…
[2] A contract for exclusive right of sale that has terminated before a sale occurs provides no basis for liability for the sale.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“A duty of care is a minimal threshold legal requirement for opening the courthouse doors.”
Court citing Wallace v. Dean in support of the requirement that a duty must exist before liability can attach.
Auction Company of America and Russell Revocable Trust had a contract containing an 'exclusive right of sale' provision governing their relationship. …
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 Ripeness For Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed November 24, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-1914 Lower Tribunal No. 18-8683 ________________
Auction Company of America,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
vs.
Russell Revocable Trust, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Florida Bankruptcy Group, LLC, and Kevin C. Gleason (Hollywood), for appellant/cross-appellee. Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A., and Peter L. Meltzer (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees/cross-appellants. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Auction Company of America appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and entry of final judgment for Russell Revocable Trust UAD March 21, 1990, as restated December 17, 2009, and Charles Russell (collectively “Russell Trust”). Russell Trust cross appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Auction Company on its counterclaim. We affirm for the following reasons.
The “exclusive right of sale” contract governing the parties’ relationship terminated, as did any extended protection period, prior to Russell Trust’s sale of the subject property. On the cross-appeal, the auction agreement under review created no duty or obligation on the part of Auction Company to collect a deposit and Russell Trust has pointed to no law that would indicate that an auctioneer has a non-contractual legal duty to collect a deposit from a bidder before allowing a bid to be placed at auction. In the absence of such a duty, Auction Company is not liable to Russell Trust.
Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 2009) (“A duty of care is a minimal threshold legal requirement for opening the courthouse doors.”) (quotations and citation omitted). Moreover, there was no implied contract between Auction Company and its president Jim Gall—Gall’s performance of the auction was nothing more than his carrying out of Auction Company’s obligation under the agreement.
Auction Company also appeals the trial court’s order granting Russell Trust its entitlement to attorneys’ fees for defending against Auction Company’s complaint. As Russell Trust properly points out, however, the trial court did not fix an amount of fees. Without a fee award amount, this issue is not ripe for appellate review. Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735, 736–37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035 (Fla. 2009)
- Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)