THORNTHWAITE ET AL.
v.
THOMAS ET UX.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court's decree concerning a real estate contract dispute. The court upheld the denial of rescission but reversed the award of attorney's fees and a real estate broker's commission, finding no contractual or statutory basis for them.
No, the lower court erred in awarding attorney's fees and a real estate broker's commission as there was no contract, statute, or other basis in the record to support these awards.
“As to the attorney's fees and the real estate broker's commission, we. find no contract, statute or other basis in the record for the allowance of such fees.”
This quote establishes the primary reason for reversing the lower court's decision regarding the fees and commission.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees sued to rescind a real estate contract for a home and business, alleging fraud and misrepresentation after occupying the property and operat…
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 Real Estate Broker Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellees-cross-appellants brought suit in equity against appellants to rescind a contract for the sale of real estate which included a home, a going business and the land, on. which • they were located. The complaint also prayed for return of $9,000, being the initial payment on the real estate, The suit was brought after appellees had .occupied the home and conducted the business for, two weeks. Fraud and misrepresentation were, .basis of the, relief prayed for. On conclusion of the trial the.chancellor found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their charges and' that-appellants were entitled to recover from appellees-cross-appellants $3,500, which amount included a real -estate broker’s commission -in the sum of $850 and an attorney’s fee in-the sum .of - $1,250, the real estate broker’s commission to remain in the registry of the.-court pending further orders. We are confronted with an appeal and a cross-appeal from the decree.
Several questions are urged for reversal but most of them are based on factual considerations on which we. find no basis for reversal of the chancellor. As to the attorney’s fees and the real, estate broker’s commission, we. find no contract, statute or other basis in the record for the allowance of such fees.
It necessarily follows that as to attorney’s fees and the real estate broker’s commission, the judgment appealed from is reversed. In all other respects the judgment appealed from is affirmed as to th'e appeal and-the cross-appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part
' RÓBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.