QUANTUM REALTY, INC., ANN FORD, INC., AND GERTRUDE GERBER, APPELLANTS,
v.
LAUDERHILL APARTMENT INVESTORS, LTD., AN OHIO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND WALTER ZAREMBA, 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 is entitled to a commission if they produce a ready, willing, and able buyer, even if the seller later withdraws the property from the market or raises partnership approval issues late in the process.
[1] A real estate broker is entitled to a commission upon producing a ready, willing, and able buyer, even if the sale is not consummated.
[2] A seller is responsible for the failure to consummate a sale, thereby entitling the broker to a commission, when the seller withdraws the property from the market after a…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA real estate broker found a buyer willing to pay the asking price and terms. The trial court found the buyer ready, willing, and able but denied comm…
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 Ready, Willing, And Able Purchaser cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Whether a real estate broker produced a ready, willing, and able buyer for property so as to be entitled to a commission is the issue to be determined in this appeal from an adverse final judgment in an action to recover brokerage fees. The trial court found that appellants produced a ready, willing, and able buyer. Appellants were not entitled to a commission, said the court, since the prospectus was silent concerning existing mortgages, leading the court to conclude no agreement existed. The court also found that the buyer’s offer was subject to the approval of the sellers’ partners. We disagree and reverse.
A broker employed to find a buyer is entitled to a commission if he produces a ready, willing, and able purchaser. Knowles v. Henderson, 156 Fla. 31, 22 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1945); Wilder v. Burton, 317 So. 2d 776 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Mogul v. McClaskey Realty, Inc., 309 So. 2d 254 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). Regardless of whether the employment contract requires the finding of a purchaser or a sale, the broker is entitled to a commission if the seller is responsible for the failure to consummate the sale. Knowles v. Henderson, supra; Hopkins v. Gibson Furniture, Inc., 312 So. 2d 499 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).
The record reflects, and the trial court found, that the broker produced a ready, willing, and able buyer prepared to pay the asking price and the terms set forth in the written prospectus furnished by appellee’s comptroller. Although the trial court was concerned with the terms relating to existing mortgages, the buyer and the seller were able to resolve those questions and reach an agreement. The sale was refused when the seller withdrew its property from the market.
At all times, the broker dealt with two general partners, Mr. Zaremba and Mr. Ya-nowitz. The necessity of confirmation by the entire partnership was not mentioned until after the broker presented a buyer. For these reasons, we hold that the broker is entitled to its commission. We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the cause with instructions that a judgment be entered in favor of appellants.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E. Kendall Invs., Inc. v. Bankers Real Est. P'rs, 742 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…whether the employment contract requires the finding of a purchaser or a sale, the broker is entitled to a commission if the seller is responsible for the failure to consummate the sale.” Quantum Realty, Inc. v. Lauderhill Apartment Investors, Ltd., 391 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The seller will incur responsibility, in other words, if the seller “acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or was inspired by ... caprice in declining to go through with the transaction.... ” McAllister Hotel, Inc., 98 So. 2d at…
-
Plaza Realty Invs. v. Singer, 421 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…913, 130 So. 421, 427 (1930); Walker v. Chancey, 96 Fla. 82, 117 So. 705 (1928); Florida Boca Raton Housing Ass’n v. Marqusee Associates of Florida, 177 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); see Quantum Realty, Inc. v. Lauderhill Apartment Investors, Ltd., 391 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1981). Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Ward v. Branch, 429 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…between principal and broker as to completing the sale or procuring a binding contract of purchase from the customer being deemed waived by the principal. Knowles, 22 So. 2d at 385. Also see Quantum Realty, Inc. v. Lauderhill Apt. Investors, Inc., 391 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); and Royal Netherlands Realty, Inc. v. Ross, 421 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The principle of Knowles and its progeny are also applicable here. In our view it is not significant that Ward removed his property from the mar…
Authorities Cited
- Knowles v. Henderson, 156 Fla. 31 (Fla. 1945)
- Allie Gregory Sink v. Treadwell, 156 Fla. 31 (Fla. 1945)
- Mogul v. McCLASKEY Realty, Inc., 309 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Gordon v. State, 312 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Wilder v. Burton, 317 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)