BOB M. ECKERT, APPELLANT,
v.
SOVEREL MARINE, INC., 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.
Eckert, a buyer of a yacht, sought recovery of his deposit from the broker Soverel Marine after the purchase failed to close due to title defects. The trial court ruled for the broker on its counterclaim for brokerage commission. The appellate court reversed, holding that the broker must return the deposit less only legitimate deductions, and that the broker had no contractual right to a commission from the buyer.
The court held that the broker must return the $1,000 repair deduction to the appellant after the seller reimbursed the broker, and that the broker's counterclaim for commission was not supported by the contract since the offer to purchase obligated the seller, not the appellant, to pay the commission.
[1] A yacht broker who agrees to return a deposit less the cost of repairs, and who is subsequently reimbursed by the seller for those repairs, must return the full deposit t…
[2] A brokerage commission is not owed by a buyer when the purchase offer explicitly states the seller is obligated for the commission.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although the record unequivocally shows that the seller reimbursed the appellee for the repairs, the appellee refused to return the full deposit to appellant. We find this refusal to have been unjustified and hold that the trial court erred by failing to enter judgment in favor of the appellant.”
Establishes that the broker's retention of the repair deduction after being reimbursed by the seller was unjustified and erroneous.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEckert made an offer to purchase a yacht through broker Soverel Marine and deposited funds with the broker. The foreign seller could not provide adequ…
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 Recovery Of Deposit cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
The appellant in this case was the plaintiff in the trial court and commenced suit to recover a portion of the deposit he advanced to the appellee, a yacht broker, for the purchase of a yacht then in the possession of the appellee. Suit was instituted to recover the balance remaining on his deposit after the purchase transaction failed to close. The trial court found for the appel-lee on its counterclaim for a brokerage commission. We reverse.
Appellant executed an offer to purchase a yacht and placed a deposit with the appellee who was the broker handling the sale of a foreign seller. Although the record does not present clear reasons for the failure to complete the transaction, it does reflect that the foreign seller was unable to provide adequate title documentation. It further reflects that the appellant and appellee agreed to a rescission of the purchase offer and a return of the deposit. Because appellant had requested certain repairs to the yacht prior to closing the transaction, the appellee agreed to return the deposit, less $1,000 representing the cost of the repairs and less $75.00 representing the cost of painting a new name on the transom of the yacht. If the broker was successful in seeking reimbursement for the repairs from the seller, he agreed to return the $1,000 to the appellant. Although the record unequivocally shows that the seller reim bursed the appellee for the repairs, the appellee refused to return the full deposit to appellant. We find this refusal to have been unjustified and hold that the trial court erred by failing to enter judgment in favor of the appellant.
We also find that the judgment entered in favor of the appellee on its counterclaim for a commission is not supported by the record. The offer to purchase specified that the seller, not the appellant, was obligated for the commission. Since there is an absence of any contractual obligation of the appellant in this regard, the award to the appellee was clearly erroneous.
This cause is reversed with directions to enter a final judgment in the amount of $1,000 in favor of the appellant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Muskat v. Francia Dorfman and Lawrence Weiner, 546 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Mayer v. Cianciolo, 463 So,2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Variety Children’s Hospital, Inc. v. Vigliotti, 385 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Eckert v. Soverel Marine, Inc., 380 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Brieler v. Feder, 367 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1979); Symon v. J. Rolfe Davis, Inc., 245 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 249 So. 2d 36 (Fla.1971).…