E.A. LAW & CO., INTERNATIONAL, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS E.A. LAW & CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PROVENDE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ALEXANDRE, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP F/D/B/A CLUB ALEXANDRE, D AND R RESTAURANTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A APPLAUSE RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, ALEJANDRO CACHALDORA, RICHARD FIRST, RICHARD CAMI, HENRY FERNANDEZ D/B/A FERNANDEZ REALTY AND THE KEYES COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
E.A. Law & Co., a real estate broker, appealed a judgment denying recovery of broker's commission against multiple defendants and an attorney's fees award. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no misapplication of well-settled principles of law regarding summary judgments, directed verdicts, amendments to pleadings, contract law, and attorney's fees.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and attorney's fees award, finding no reversible error in the trial court's application of well-settled principles of law to the facts of the case.
[1] A trial court's denial of motions to amend pleadings is subject to appellate review for reversible error.
[2] The entry of directed verdicts in a complex civil suit is subject to appellate review for reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 points on appeal all involve the application of well-settled principles of law relating to summary judgments, directed verdicts, amendments to pleadings, basic contract law, and attorney's fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983) to the fact pattern revealed in this record”
Establishes the scope of review and identifies the legal doctrines at issue
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceE.A. Law & Co., International, Inc., a real estate broker, brought a complex suit against multiple defendants for recovery of a broker's commission. T…
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.
PER CURIAM.
These are consolidated appeals from a final judgment and award of attorney’s fees below in a complex suit for recovery of a real estate broker’s commission brought against multiple defendants. The plaintiff real estate broker, E.A. Law & Co., International, Inc., secured a judgment below against one of the defendants, but appeals as to the balance of the defendants, claiming as error the denial of certain motions to amend its pleadings and the entry of directed verdicts on its claims against the aforesaid defendants. One of the defendants, The Keyes Company, also appeals a judgment entered on a cross claim filed against it after an adverse jury verdict and an adverse summary judgment entered on its cross claim.
We have carefully examined all of the points on appeal raised by the appellants and have reached the conclusion that no reversible error appears. An extensive opinion detailing our reasons for reaching this result is not, in our view, appropriate in this case. Suffice it to say, however, that the points on appeal all involve the application of well-settled principles of law relating to summary judgments,1 directed verdicts,2 amendments to pleadings,3 basic contract law,4 and attorney’s fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983)5 to the fact pattern revealed in this record. After a thorough study of the briefs and record herein, we are convinced that the trial court did not misapply any of these well-settled principles of law. The final judgment and attorney’s fees order under review are in all respects
Affirmed.
. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Johnson v. Gulf Life Insurance Co., 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Akeley v. Morgan, 332 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.510(c).
. See Morton v. Insurance Co. of North America, 297 So. 2d 602, 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Citizens National Bank of Orlando v. Youngblood, 296 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
. See Costa Bella Development Corp. v. Costa Development Corp., 445 So. 2d 1090, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Lasar Manufacturing Co. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236, 237-38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and authorities collected; Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(b).
. See City of South Miami v. Dembinsky, 423 So. 2d 988, 989-90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Pacura, 402 So. 2d 1266, 1267-68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Slattery v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 366 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Knowles v. C.I.T. Corp., 346 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Baya v. Price, 222 So. 2d 253, 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
. Autorico, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 398 So. 2d 485, 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see Fierer v. 18th Avenue Development Corp., 417 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 429 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1983); City of Miami Beach v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 380 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delissio v. Delissio, 821 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…o. 2d 615 (Fla.1970); C.W. Chase, Jr. v. Cowart, 102 So. 2d 147 (Fla.1958); Dade County Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla.1999); Green v. First Am. Bank & Trust, 511 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); E.A. Law & Co. v. Provende, Inc., 471 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Here, the parties will, for the first time, become acquainted with the argument which forms the basis and rationale of this court’s decision upon receipt of the majority’s opinion. Because the basis for affir-mance was not an alt…
-
Adams v. Shiver, 890 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…o. 2d 615 (Fla.1970); C.W. Chase, Jr., v. Cowart, 102 So. 2d 147 (Fla.1958); Dade County Seh. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla.1999); Green v. First Am. Bank & Trust, 511 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); E.A. Law & Co. v. Provende, Inc., 471 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Here, the parties will, for the first time, become acquainted with the argument which forms the basis and rationale of this court’s decision upon receipt of the majority’s opinion. Because the basis for affirmance was not an alte…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Lasar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Bachanov, 436 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Sarron v. Barbel I. Sarron, 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Knowles v. C. I. T. Corp., 346 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Peadon v. State, 398 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Town OF BAY Harbor Islands, 380 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Sec. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Pacura, 402 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Costa Bella Dev. Corp. v. Costa Dev. Corp., 445 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Citizens Nat'l Bank OF Orlando v. Youngblood, 296 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Fierer v. 18TH Ave. Dev. Corp., 417 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)