MORRIS H. STEINHARDT
v.
HARRY KOEPPEL, AND JEAN KOEPPEL
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 the dismissal of a real estate broker's lawsuit seeking a commission. The court found that the broker's complaint did not allege sufficient facts to establish a right to a commission under the agreement.
No, the bill of complaint does not contain sufficient allegations to support the relief sought by the plaintiff broker.
“A bill of complaint seeking to impress- a lien on: real property was dismissed with prejudice.”
Describes the initial action taken by the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA real estate broker sued the property owners, alleging they agreed in writing to make him their exclusive agent for selling their property within thr…
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 Exclusive Agency Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
A bill of complaint seeking to impress- a lien on: real property was dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff appealed.
The bill alleged that plaintiff was a real estate broker and that for valuable consideration defendants agreed in writing *254that if they decided to sell the property within three years plaintiff should be their exclusive agent to consummate the sale and that before the expiration of three years from the date of the agreement defendants sold the property for $12,000.00 through another broker and declined to pay plaintiff the commission of 5% on the sale.
There is no basis in the allegations of the bill of complaint for the relief prayed. See Moss v. Sperry et al., 140 Fla. 301, 191 So. 531, 125 A.L.R. 909 (1939); same, 147 Fla. 86, 2 So. (2nd) 123.
The decree appealed from is affirmed.
So ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. City of Palmetto, 140 Fla. 252 (Fla. 1939)
- Moss v. Sperry, 140 Fla. 301 (Fla. 1939)
- Moss v. Sperry, 147 Fla. 86 (Fla. 1941)