LAW REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN A. PAGLIARULO AND ALBERT PICA, 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.
A real estate broker appealed a directed verdict denying commission on a house sale. The court reversed, holding that the listing agreement contained clear and unambiguous language granting an exclusive right to sell, not merely an exclusive agency, entitling the broker to commission even when the owner sold the property himself.
The listing agreement contained clear and unambiguous language establishing an exclusive right to sell. The broker is entitled to commission when the owner sells the property himself during the exclusive period, because the agreement's requirement to refer all interested parties to the broker encompasses even the owner's own purchaser.
[1] A listing agreement granting a broker the "exclusive right and authority to sell" for a specified period, coupled with a provision requiring the owner to refer all inquir…
[2] Under an exclusive right of sale agreement, a property owner is liable for a real estate commission even if the owner sells the property themselves without the broker's i…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 language of the listing agreement signed by the owner is clear and unambiguous and we hold it to be an exclusive right of sale agreement.”
The court's holding that the listing agreement unambiguously grants an exclusive right to sell, not merely an exclusive agency.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw Realty, Inc., a real estate broker, entered into a listing agreement with homeowner Pagliarulo for a six-month period granting "exclusive right an…
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 Right To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Chief Judge.
A real estate broker here appeals the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of a house owner denying a real estate commission on the grounds that the listing agreement did not constitute an exclusive right to sell. We reverse.
The “Listing Agreement” provided inter alia:
1. ... I hereby give you for a period of 6 months from this date the exclusive right and authority to sell
* * * * * *
5. In consideration of the above, I agree:
A. To refer to you all inquiries of Realtors or others interested in my property, (emphasis supplied) Despite the above, the owner sold the house himself within the six month period and did not pay any brokerage. Nonetheless the trial court denied the broker a commission basing the directed verdict on the authority of a Second District case, Nicholas v. Bursley, 119 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). In Nicholas v. Bursley the court found the language there employed in the listing agreement to be ambiguous and that, therefore, the broker who had drawn it up did not have an “exclusive right to sell” but only had an “exclusive agency.” The court went on to correctly reason that under an exclusive agency the owner can sell the property himself without incurring liability for a real estate commission.
It is not necessary for us to agree or disagree with the remainder of the reasoning in Nicholas v. Bursley, because in addition to nearly identical language in the listing agreement in that case and the one now before us, there is, in the instant case, other language agreeing to refer all others interested in the property to the broker during the six month period. It goes without saying that anyone who actually purchased the house would have to be another interested in it. See Community Cablecasting Corp. v. Daniels & Assoc., Inc., 215 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
We have sympathy with the owner’s view that if the broker had nothing to do with the sale, he should not get a commission. Yet the language of the listing agreement signed by the owner is clear and unambiguous and we hold it to be an exclusive right of sale agreement.
The cause is reversed and remanded in accordance herewith so that the house owner may present any defenses which are prbperly before the trial court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nicholas v. Bursley, 119 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Lucille Hadley et vir v. Youngblood, 215 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)