LOUIS SHERRY ASSOCIATES, INC. AND HARDING REALTY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JOEL OPATUT, 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.
A real estate broker failed to earn a commission because it did not produce a ready buyer willing to purchase on terms acceptable to the vendor, as essential terms regarding personal property and repair costs remained unresolved.
A real estate broker is entitled to a commission only upon producing a ready buyer willing to purchase on the terms acceptable to the vendor, and the broker's failure to resolve essential terms such as personal property inclusion and repair costs demonstrates the buyer was not ready and willing on acceptable terms.
[1] A real estate broker must prove by a preponderance of evidence that it produced a ready buyer willing to purchase on terms acceptable to the vendor to recover a commissio…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 submitted a deposit receipt contract to a vendor that differed from the listing agreement, and the parties failed to agree on wha…
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
PER CURIAM.
On motion for rehearing after a non-jury trial, the lower court entered judgment against the plaintiff-appellants in an action for a real estate brokerage commission. It found that
1. The real estate broker has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to recover under the commission agreement.
2. The failure of the parties to agree as to what personal property was to be included as part of the real estate transaction, an essential term, evidences that the broker had yet to produce a ready buyer, willing to purchase on terms acceptable to the vendor. 3. The failure of an agreement as to what amount, if any, the seller was willing to spend for repairs to the subject property, which term is essential, further evidences that the broker had yet to pro duce a ready buyer, willing to purchase on terms acceptable to the vendor. 4. The deposit receipt contract prepared by the broker and submitted to the vendor was at variance with the listing agreement entered into by the parties therefore it cannot be contended that the transaction failed solely because of ill faith or capriciousness on the part of the vendor. We conclude that these findings are supported by both substantial, competent evidence, see Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla.1978), and the applicable law. Judson v. Mobley, 62 So. 2d 730 (Fla.1953); Banks Beal Estate Corp. v. Gordon, 353 So. 2d 859, 860 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), and cases cited. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hortensio Delgado and Nellie Geraldine Delgado v. Strong, 360 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 1978)
- Banks Real Est. Corp. v. Gordon, 353 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Judson v. Mobley, 62 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1953)