BEN D. WILDER, D/B/A SOUTHLAND, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LONG PHAN PHAM AND TU NGUY PHAM, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Wilder, a real estate broker, sued the Phams to enforce a brokerage contract and recover a six percent commission based on producing a ready, willing, and able buyer. The trial court granted the Phams' motion for a new trial despite the jury's verdict in Wilder's favor, but this appellate court reversed that ruling, holding that the jury's verdict must be respected under established precedent.
The appellate court reversed the trial court's order granting a new trial and affirmed the denial of the Phams' motion for a directed verdict, holding that the jury's verdict must be respected given the conflicting evidence in the record and the trial court's failure to adequately articulate its reasons for overturning the verdict.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a new trial when the jury's verdict is supported by competent substantial evidence, even if the trial court disagrees with…
[2] A new trial may not be granted on grounds that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence unless the trial court articulates specific reasons beyond b…
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 intelligence“Wilder and the jury say they did; the Phams and the trial judge say they did not. Given the supreme court's holding in Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So.2d 430 (Fla.1978), the record before us and the trial court's failure to state in other than broad terms its reasons for granting a new trial, we must side with the jury.”
Establishes the standard that when evidence is conflicting and the trial court fails to provide specific reasons for overturning a jury verdict, appellate courts must defer to the jury.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Phams contracted with Wilder (doing business as Southland) granting him an exclusive right to sell their property for a six percent commission if …
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 Motion For Directed Verdict cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Wilder appeals that portion of the trial court’s order which granted a new trial in Wilder’s successful action to enforce a real estate brokerage contract. The Phams cross-appeal that portion of the order which denied their motion for a directed verdict. We reverse the former ruling and affirm the latter. The Phams entered into a six-month exclusive-right-of-sale contract with Wilder whereby the Phams agreed to pay Wilder six per cent of the agreed purchase price if Wilder produced a buyer “ready, willing and able to buy on these terms or on any other terms acceptable to” the Phams. Wilder presented the Phams a contract signed by prospective buyers. The Phams made certain alterations to the contract and Wilder presented the altered contract to the prospective buyers’ real estate broker. There was, of course, conflicting evidence as to whether the prospective buyers accepted the changes.
Wilder and the jury say they did; the Phams and the trial judge say they did not. Given the supreme court’s holding in Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla.1978), the record before us and the trial court’s failure to state in other than broad terms its reasons for granting a new trial,1 we must side with the jury. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Watson, 428 So. 2d 243 (Fla.1983); Adams v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391 (Fla.1981); Baptist Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1980); Taylor v. Ganas, 443 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); H & U Foods, Inc. v. Ellison, 439 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Cirou v. Basler, 432 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Florida East Coast Railway v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied mem., 440 So. 2d 353 (Fla.1983).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
.In granting the new trial the trial court made the following "findings of fact”:
1. The Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the recovery of a brokerage commission in that he failed to produce evidence at trial to establish that the prospective purchasers were ready, willing and able to purchase the subject parcel of realty for the price and upon terms acceptable to the seller pursuant to the brokerage contract between Plaintiff and Defendants.
2. The jury’s verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence produced at trial based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for the Plaintiff as reflected in paragraph 1 hereto and it is apparent that the jury was influenced by considerations outside the record in arriving at the verdict.
3.The subject verdict, based upon the evidence presented at trial, shocked the conscience of the Court as a result of the inadequacy of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty, 359 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1978)
- Baptist Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Bell, 384 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1980)
- Adams v. Wright, 403 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1981)
- ST. Regis Paper Co. v. J.B. Watson, Sr., 428 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1983)
- Cirou v. Basler, 432 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Taylor v. Ganas, 443 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- H & U Foods, Inc. v. Gale Ellison, 439 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Amos E. Walker, 429 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)