SHELDON GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAMS ISLAND ASSOCIATES, A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., 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.
Sheldon Greene & Associates appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of Williams Island Associates in a breach of contract and quantum meruit action. The court affirmed, holding that Greene failed to perform its obligation to produce a financially capable investor/manager, and therefore was not entitled to recover under any of its legal theories.
Greene was not entitled to recover under any of its legal theories as a matter of law because: (1) it failed to perform any service for Williams Island by producing a financially troubled manager; (2) it failed to produce an investor/manager who was financially able to perform as agreed; and (3) its affidavit establishing ostensible benefit was based on inadmissible hypothetical facts about a hotel that was never built.
[1] A party seeking recovery under a quantum meruit theory fails to perform a service when they produce a financially unable party to fulfill a contract.
[2] A party is not entitled to a brokerage fee or damages for breach of contract if they fail to produce an investor or manager who is financially able to perform as agreed.
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“the plaintiff, as a matter of law, was not entitled to recover from the defendant based on the legal theories pled in the complaint”
Establishes the central holding that Greene had no viable legal claim as a matter of law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheldon Greene & Associates was engaged to produce a management company to develop and manage a prospective hotel investment for Williams Island Assoc…
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 Broker'S Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following our reversal of a final judgment entered upon a directed verdict in favor of the defendant Williams Island Associates in an action for breach of contract, a brokerage commission, and quantum me-ruit, the trial court entertained a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant (as our prior decision had authorized) and entered a final summary judgment for the defendant. Sheldon Greene & Assoc. v. Williams Island Assoc., 550 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla.1990). The plaintiff Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc. appeals.
We affirm based on a holding that the plaintiff, as a matter of law, was not entitled to recover from the defendant based on the legal theories pled in the complaint. We reach this result because the management company, which the plaintiff produced to develop and then manage a prospective hotel investment for the defendant, was financially unable to perform. As a consequence, the plaintiff, in producing such a financially troubled investor/manager for the defendant, failed to perform any service for the defendant and was therefore not entitled to recover under a quantum meruit theory; the plaintiff was also not entitled to recover a brokerage fee or for breach of contract because it failed to produce, as agreed, an investor/manager who was financially able to perform. See Variety Children's Hosp., Inc. v. Vigliotti, 385 So. 2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Tobin & Tobin Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518, 520-21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see also Sticht v. Shull, 543 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Chanton v. Drucker, 299 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 307 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1974); Furnari v. Goodman, 242 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Moreover, the plaintiffs affidavit, adduced below to establish an ostensible benefit conferred on the defendant, constituted legally inadmissible evidence becajise it was based on hypothetical facts related to the building of the subject prospective hotel which was, in fact, never built — and, consequently, was insufficient to preclude the summary judgment entered below. See Arkin Const. Co. v. Simpkins, 99 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1957); Husky Indus., Inc. v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Gesco, Inc. v. Edward L. Nezelek, Inc., 414 So. 2d 535, 538-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 426 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1983); § 90.705(2), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Padron v. Plantada, 632 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…a loan commitment which complied with the terms of the agreement, the broker is not entitled to recover a brokerage fee. See McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 98 So. 2d 781 (Fla.1957); Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc. v. Williams Island Associates, 571 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Harding Realty, Inc. v. Tumberry Towers Corp., 436 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Bryan & Greenlees Real Estate, Inc. v. Norman, 405 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment entered in favor of…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Arkin Constr. Co. & Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Simpkins, 99 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1957)
- Tobin & Tobin Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Husky Indus., Inc. v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Variety Child's. Hosp., Inc. v. Vigliotti, 385 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Williams Island Assocs., 550 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Gesco, Inc. v. Edward L. Nezelek, Inc., 414 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Furnari v. Goodman, 242 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Chanton v. Drucker, 299 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Harold and Dorothy Sticht v. Shull, 543 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Stanford v. Constantine Kitsos and Anthony Karamanlakis, 307 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1974)