DUBOV REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DENNIS KUCHAREK, 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 (Dubov Realty) sued a prospective purchaser (Kucharek) for its brokerage fee after the purchaser refused to close on a property sale. The trial court found the contract valid and that the purchaser breached without justification, but refused to award damages. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court was required to enforce the contract's plain terms awarding the broker its fee and attorney's fees.
The trial court was without authority to refuse to award the damages called for by the plain and unambiguous terms of the contract. The appellant-broker was entitled to judgment for its brokerage fee and an award of reasonable attorney's fees.
[1] A prospective purchaser who breaches a valid real estate contract without justification is liable for the full amount of the brokerage fee as stipulated in the contract.
[2] A purchaser who breaches a real estate contract is obligated to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs if the broker must enforce collection of the brokerage fee.
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“the appellant-broker was entitled to judgment for its brokerage fee and an award of reasonable attorney's fees”
Establishes the core holding that the broker was entitled to enforce the contractual damage provisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDubov Realty entered into a real estate sales contract with Kucharek as the prospective purchaser. The contract contained express terms providing that…
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 Contract Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In its final judgment, the trial «court found that (1) the appellee, the prospective purchaser, had not been fraudulently induced into making the contract for the sale of real estate and that the contract was in all respects valid; (2) the appellee had, without justification, refused to close on the sale of the property; and (3) the prospective sellers were ready, willing and able to close' in accordance with the terms of the contract. It necessarily follows from these findings that pursuant to the express terms of the contract (if “the sale is not closed due to any default or failure on the part of the purchaser, purchaser shall be liable for the full amount of brokerage fee” and “[i]n the event it shall be necessary for the broker to enforce collection of the payment of the real estate brokerage fee, the purchaser shall be obligated to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs to the broker”), the appellant-broker was entitled to judgment for its brokerage fee and an award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
Having found that the appellee breached a valid and enforceable contract, the trial court was without authority to refuse to award the damages to the appellant called for by the plain and unambiguous terms of the contract. Richard v. Triester, 409 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Silver Blue Lake Apts. No. 3, Inc. v. Marson, 334 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Treasure Cay Ltd. v. Gentile, 261 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
Accordingly, the cause is reversed with directions to enter judgment for Dubov Realty, Inc. for its brokerage fee plus reasonable attorney’s fees.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sybert v. Combs, 555 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…tractual provision. See Golden Cleaver Packing, Inc. v. G & M Hughes Corporation, 490 So. 2d 1381, 1383 n. 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Blue Lakes Apartments, Ltd. v. George Gowing, Inc., 464 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Dubov Realty, Inc. v. Kucharek, 433 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1981). Here, the note provided for the payment of attorney’s fees in clear and unambiguous terms, and a judgmen…
Authorities Cited
- Brickell BAY Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Silver Blue Lake Apts. v. Manson, 334 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Richard v. Triester, 409 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Treasure CAY, Ltd. v. Gentile, 261 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)