BRICKELL BAYVIEW REAL ESTATE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A FORTUNE INTERNATIONAL REALTY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROY COOPER, APPELLEE
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.
Fortune International Realty appeals a trial court judgment denying its claim for real estate commissions from Roy Cooper under an oral open listing agreement. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that Fortune was not the procuring cause of the sale and that its alternative quantum meruit claim failed because an express agreement existed.
Fortune was not the procuring cause of the sale, as supported by competent and substantial evidence. Fortune's alternative quantum meruit claim failed because the existence of an express agreement between the parties defeats a quantum meruit action, and Fortune presented no evidence of the reasonable value of its services absent the express agreement.
[1] A real estate broker is entitled to a commission as the procuring cause of a sale if the broker brought the parties together and the sale was effected as a result of cont…
[2] A trial court's finding that a broker was not the procuring cause of a sale, supported by competent and substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.
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“[i]f the broker has brought the parties together and a sale is effected as a result of the continuous negotiations inaugurated by him [or her]....”
Defines the standard for a broker to be entitled to commission as procuring cause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFortune claimed entitlement to real estate commissions from Cooper under an oral open listing agreement for the sale of Cooper's property. At trial, F…
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 Express Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Brickell Bayview Real Estate, Inc. d/b/a Fortune International Realty (“Fortune”) appeals an adverse final judgment entered after a non-jury trial on its complaint for real estate commissions pursuant to an oral open listing agreement with appellee, Roy Cooper. At issue in the trial was whether Fortune was the procuring cause of the sale of real property owned by Cooper. A real estate broker will be entitled to a commission of the sale of real estate as the procuring cause “[i]f the broker has brought the parties together and a sale is effected as a result of the continuous negotiations inaugurated by him [or her].... ” Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 308, 19 So. 2d 876, 878 (1944); South Pacific Enters., Ltd. Partnership v. Cornerstone Realty, Inc., 672 So. 2d 568, 570 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 682 So. 2d 1100 (Fla.1996); see Brisco v. Ronnie Diaz Realty Corp., 562 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Rosinda Investments, N.V., 475 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. dismissed, 502 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1987); Ehringer v. Brookfield and Assocs., Inc., 415 So. 2d 774, 775 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, the court found that a broker other than Fortune, was the procuring cause for the sale of Cooper’s property.
We find the trial court’s finding in this regard to be totally supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record.
Hence, it cannot be disturbed on appeal. Randy Int’l Ltd. v. American Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437, 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Fortune alternatively argues that it was entitled to recover under quantum meru-it where this unpled theory was implicitly tried by consent of the parties. Fortune’s proof at trial, however, reveals that it had an express agreement for the payment of com missions by Cooper upon certain conditions. Any proof of an express agreement between the parties, as to the commissions to be paid for the brokerage services rendered by Fortune, would necessarily defeat rather than sustain an action for quantum meruit. Harding Realty, Inc. v. Tumberry Towers Corp., 436 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Solutec Corp. v. Young & Lawrence Assocs., Inc., 243 So. 2d 605, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
Indeed, we note, in particular, that Fortune introduced evidence only of the claimed commissions owed pursuant to its oral agreement with Cooper. It introduced no evidence of the reasonable value of its services in the absence of this express agreement.
Thus, the trial court had no basis to award Fortune any quantum meruit damages. See Solutec, 243 So. 2d at 606 (“The measure of recovery in a case of this type is the reasonable value of the labor performed and the market value of any materials furnished_”).
Finding no reversible error, we therefore affirm the judgment under review.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. ACT Realty Co., Inc., 911 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2005)…So. 2d at 505 (citing Easton-Babcock & Assocs. v. Fernandez, 706 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). Appellate courts uphold such determinations when supported by competent, substantial evidence. See, e.g., Brickell Bayview Real Estate, Inc. v. Cooper, 691 So. 2d 1094, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We conclude that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the brokers procured the sale of Act Realty’s property to the School District. The record shows that the brokers initiated negotiatio…
-
E. Atl. Realty & Inv. Inc. v. Gsomr LLC, 14 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ther a broker was the procuring cause of the sale will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., 911 So. 2d 1181, 1189 (Fla.2005); Brickell Bayview Real Estate, Inc. v. Cooper, 691 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). . Paragraph 1 of the GRO agreement states that "[sjubject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Seller [BJV] will sell to the Buyer [GRO] and the Buyer [GRO] will purchase from the Seller [BJV] the Property,…
-
Cooper v. Brickell Bayview Real Est., Inc., 711 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ncededly good faith $10,000.00 offer of judgment under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1995), the trial court sitting non-jury entered a judgment for the defendant which was affirmed by this court. See Brickell Bayview Real Estate, Inc. v. Cooper, 691 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Section 768.79(6)(a) provides that fees and costs shall be “calculated ... from the date the offer was served, ’’[emphasis supplied], and section 768.79(3) specifically provides that the offer may not be filed at all “unless it i…
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
- Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305 (Fla. 1944)
- Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Solutec Corp. v. Young & Lawrence Assocs., Inc., 243 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Randy Int'l, Ltd. v. Am. Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Harding Realty, Inc. v. Turnberry Towers Corp., 436 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Rosinda Invs., N.V., 475 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Horn v. Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc., 502 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1987)
- Ehringer v. Brookfield & Assocs., Inc., 415 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- S. Pac. Enters. v. Cornerstone Realty, Inc., 672 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Brisco v. Ronnie Diaz Realty Corp., 562 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)