GANOT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
J.M.G. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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.
Ganot Corporation sought to recover unpaid promissory notes and sales commissions from JMG Construction. The court affirmed the award on the promissory notes but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest, holding that Ganot was not entitled to the commissions because it acted as an unlicensed broker.
The court affirmed the award of the unpaid promissory note balance but reversed regarding commissions. Ganot, as an unlicensed broker, was not entitled to the 7% commissions under Florida law, so those commissions were properly refunded to JMG. JMG was entitled to prejudgment interest on the refunded commissions calculated from the date of demand (filing of the counterclaim), not from the date of payment.
[1] A party who acts as a broker in real estate transactions must be licensed to be legally entitled to a commission.
[2] Commissions paid to an unlicensed broker for services rendered are recoverable.
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“According to law Ganot was not entitled to a commission on the sale of JMG's property and the commissions paid on this basis were correctly refunded to JMG.”
Establishes that an unlicensed person cannot collect broker commissions under Florida law, supporting the reversal of the commission award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGanot owned land platted for residential development and sold five lots to JMG, which built and resold homes on those lots. The parties agreed JMG wou…
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 Suit On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the lower court’s disposition of the claims raised on the main appeal and reverse the lower court’s finding that JMG was not entitled to prejudgment interest.
Ganot is a development corporation which owned land and had it platted for a single family residential development known as Vernon Heights. Five of the lots, numbered 37, 38, 109, 110 and 111, were sold to JMG and JMG built homes on these lots and sold them to third parties. GANOT and JMG agreed that JMG would pay GANOT a 7% commission on the final sale of each of the finished lots. JMG in fact paid the commission on the first three lots sold.
JMG’s refusal to pay the balance due on promissory notes covering its purchase of lots 109 and 110, and JMG’s refusal to pay the 7% commission due on the sale of these two lots prompted Ganot to file suit.
JMG counterclaimed for return of the commissions paid to Ganot on grounds that Ganot was not entitled to collect a sales commission for any of the lots because, although it placed itself in the position of a broker with regard to the sale of the five lots, it was not a licensed broker and was not, by law, entitled to a fee.
The trial court awarded Ganot the balance due on the promissory notes for the purchase of lots 109 and 110. We affirm this award.
As for the 7% commissions paid by JMG, the record supports the lower court’s conclusion that Ganot functioned as a broker in the sale of the lots owned by JMG and Ganot concedes that it was not a licensed broker at that time. According to law Ganot was not entitled to a commission on the sale of JMG’s property and the commissions paid on this basis were correctly refunded to JMG. See sections 475.-01 and 475.41 Fla.Stat. (1987); Hardcastle Pointe Corp. v. Cohen, 505 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); United National Bank of Miami v. Airport Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 537 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1988).
Finally, JMG was entitled to prejudgment interest on the award. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985). However JMG contends that the interest should be calculated from the date the funds were paid, while Ganot contends that interest is due only from the time a demand is made or suit is instituted to collect the funds. The record shows that the parties were not aware of any illegality in the 7% commission provision of their contract until JMG raised its counterclaim. Therefore Ball v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 491 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986) controls and makes prejudgment interest due from the time of demand which, in this case, was made on the filing of JMG’s second amended counterclaim.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vista Designs, Inc. v. Melvin K. Silverman, P.C., 774 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…n the monies paid would affront the court’s affirmative duty to see that the party violating [*887] public policy not benefit in any way as a result of his wrongdoing.” See id. at 774. Since Bedell, this court in Ganot v. J.M.G. Construction Corp., 560 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), held that a developer who was an unlicensed real estate broker was not entitled to a commission on the sale of property to a construction company and that any commissions paid were correctly refunded based on chapter 475. Silve…
-
Schickedanz BROS.-RIVIERA Ltd. v. Harris, 82 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…hat portion of the final judgment failing to award appellant prejudgment interest. We remand to the circuit court to enter an award of prejudgment interest from the date that appellant filed its counterclaim. See Ganot Corp. v. J.M.G. Constr. Corp., 560 So. 2d 804, 804-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The trial court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest to appellee. See Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So. 3d 567, 575 (Fla.2010). STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Ariz. Chem. Co., LLC v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 197 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…f actual loss. Broward Cnty. v. Finlayson, 555 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Fla.1990); see, e.g., Volkswagen Of Am., Inc. v. Smith, 690 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Cuillo v. McCoy, 810 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Ganot Corp. v. J.M.G. Constr. Corp., 560 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The trial court in this case did not address the question of whether equitable considerations might justify moving'the prejudgment interest date forward. Therefore, we cannot tell whether the court determined that the équities w…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Ball v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 491 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Hardcastle Pointe Corp. v. Harlan Cohen, 505 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Polite v. State, 537 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- United Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Airport Plaza Ltd. P'ship, 537 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)