ROLAND MURRAY AND BARBARA MURRAY, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL F. CHILLEMI T/A CHILLEMI & ASSOCIATES, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1981-04-22
No. 79-697
MOORE, BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
396 So. 2d 1222 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1981) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Penalty Clause Preservation Of Issues For Appeal Contract Interpretation Breach Of Contract

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Penalty Clause cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal a $2,695 final judgment entered after a nonjury trial. The judgment was in favor of plaintiff, a real estate broker. We affirm.

The parties entered into a contract for the sale of real estate. Within this contract was a provision that seller would pay broker a seven per cent commission based upon the listed sale price if seller revoked the agreement before it expired. The trial court, based upon adequate evidence, found as a matter of fact that the seller did revoke the agreement prior to its expiration. The court entered judgment for a commission based on the listed sale price. On appeal the sellers argue the contractual provision was unenforceable because it was excessive and constitutes a penalty. Unfortunately, appellants did not raise this point before the trial court and we, therefore, cannot consider the issue. Nicholas v. First Interstate Development Corporation, 315 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Since appellants failed to preserve the point, we have no alternative other than to affirm. We conclude that all other issues raised are also without merit and the final judgment is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

MOORE, BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • J.M. Beeson Co. v. Sartori, 553 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
    …s that the trial court erred in awarding the liquidated delay damages to appellee, because they amounted to a penalty and had no reasonable relation to the actual damages suffered by appellee. However, this point is controlled by Murray v. Chillemi, 396 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In that ease, as in this case, the appellant failed to raise the issue in the trial court and therefore was precluded from raising it on appeal. Furthermore, we would note that where liquidated damages are attacked, it is the bu…
  • Twins D & D, Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 722 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
    …ortunities to demand a formal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1997). Having failed to do so, Twins D & D did not preserve this issue for review. See A.H. Robins v. Ford, 468 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Murray v. Chillemi, 396 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Accordingly, we remand for' an informal hearing. Reversed and remanded for an informal hearing before a different hearing officer. QUINCE, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.…
  • Am. Med. Express Corp. v. Trans-American Med. Referrals, Inc., 606 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Aspen Invs. Corp. v. Holzworth, 587 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Holmes v. Redland Constr. Co., 557 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Murray v. Chillemi, 396 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw