ROGER PROPERTIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LON WORTH CROW REALTY COMPANY, 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.
The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the interpretation of a lease termination clause in a brokerage agreement.
Appellant Koger Properties, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ordering payment of real estate brokerage commissions to appellee Lon Worth Crow Realty C…
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 Interpretation Of Contract Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment ordering the appellant Koger Properties, Inc., to pay certain real estate brokerage commissions to the appellee Lon Worth Crow Realty Company. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In our view, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether “the tenant terminate[d] the subject lease” as such terms are used in the brokerage agreement [thereby terminating the brokerage commissions due thereunder] when the appellant and the tenant herein together terminated the subject lease. Stated differently, we find that an ambiguity exists in the above quoted terms of the brokerage agreement for which the taking of testimony is necessary to determine whether such terms were intended by the parties to cover the lease termination accomplished in this case. If such was the intent of the parties, no brokerage commissions are due under the brokerage agreement; if such was not so intended, the opposite is true and the brokerage commissions sought herein are due under the brokerage agreement.
The final summary judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion. Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. In-Sink-Erator, 252 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Commercial Trading Co. v. Zero Food Storage, Inc., 199 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. In-Sink-Erator, 252 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Commercial Trading Co., Inc. v. Zero Food Storage, Inc., 199 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)