SCHICKEDANZ BROS.-RIVIERA LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND SCHICKEDANZ BROS.-PALM BEACH, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND SCHICKEDANZ ENTERPRISES, INC., THE CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER OF SCHICKEDANZ BROS.-RIVIERA LTD., AND SCHICKEDANZ BROS.-PALM BEACH, LTD., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT HARRIS AND REAL ESTATE MARKETING AND CONSULTING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding real estate commissions to Harris because, although he was a licensed salesperson, he acted as a broker without a broker's license and thus was not entitled to commissions under Florida law.
A licensed real estate salesperson who acts as a broker without obtaining a broker's license is not entitled to real estate commissions, even when selling property owned by his principals.
[1] A licensed real estate salesperson who acts as a broker without a broker's license cannot claim the statutory exemption for persons selling their own property and is not…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 exemption does not apply to an "agent, employee, or independent contractor paid a commission or other compensation strictly on a transactional basis...."”
Court explaining why the property owner exemption does not shield Harris from licensing requirements
Harris, a licensed real estate salesperson, acted as a broker in connection with sales at appellants' real estate development and sought commissions o…
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 Unjust Enrichment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s final judgment on appellants’ counterclaim involving real estate commissions in connection with sales at appellants’ development. Appellee Harris was not entitled to real estate commissions, because he acted as a broker and was not licensed. See § 475.41, Fla. Stat. Although the trial court determined that Harris did not need to be licensed because of the exemption for persons or corporations selling their own property, that exemption does not apply to an “agent, employee, or independent contractor paid a commission or other compensation strictly on a transactional basis....” § 475.011(2), Fla. Stat. While appellants owned the property sold by Harris, Harris was an independent contractor paid on a commission basis. On appeal Harris tries to circumvent this statute, arguing that he did not need an exemption because he was a licensed real estate salesperson. As a licensed real estate salesperson, though, he was required to comply with the requirements of chapter 475, which he failed to do by operating as a broker without a broker’s license.
We affirm appellee’s cross-appeal. We remand for the court to enter judgment in appellant’s favor on the counterclaim.
WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.