C.M.T. HOLDING, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LAZARUS JACARANDA PARTNERSHIP, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, JAMES D. SCULLY, JR., AND MICHAEL A. SCULLY, 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.
The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant seller and buyers against the broker-appellant, holding that the broker failed to establish an essential element of its claims because it had no listing, disclosed no connection to the buyers, and provided no evidence of collusion.
A broker cannot recover against a seller and buyers when the broker had no listing on the property, made no disclosure of any connection between itself and the buyers, and presented no evidence of collusion.
[1] A broker without a current listing on property cannot recover damages from a seller and buyers absent evidence that the broker disclosed its connection to the buyer or en…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA broker that previously held an open listing on property, which was later cancelled, claimed damages against the seller and buyers. The broker had to…
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 Listing Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm a summary judgment in favor of the defendant seller and buyers of real estate and against the appellant-broker. Although there are some disputed facts, it is clear that there is no evidence refuting the defendants’ proof that:
(1) The broker had no listing on the property, although at an earlier time it did have an open listing which was cancelled.
(2) The broker told the buyer, when the buyer inquired, that:
(a) the property was off the market and
(b) it no longer had a listing
(3) The seller also told the buyer, in response to the buyer’s inquiry several months prior to the buyer’s negotiation with the seller, that the property was not for sale.
(4) There was no evidence of collusion.
(5) At no time did the broker ever advise the seller that it had furnished any information to the buyers, nor had broker given the buyers name or identity to the sellers or otherwise alerted the seller, prior to the sale, that there was any connection between the broker and the buyer. In short, there was a lack of proof as to an essential element on each of appellant’s theories. Cf. Richland Grove & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Easterling, 526 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1988); Shuler v. Allen, 76 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1955); Edwards v. Brandon Realty, Inc., 497 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
LETTS and POLEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shuler v. Allen, 76 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1955)
- Richland Grove & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Easterling, 526 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1988)
- Elbert v. Edwards, 497 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)