CARLTON PALMS HOTEL, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
FIDELITY TRUST, INC., 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.
Carlton Palms Hotel contracted with Fidelity Trust for mortgage brokerage services, but the loan never closed. Fidelity sued for its fee and obtained summary judgment. The court reversed, holding that summary judgment was improper because there remained a disputed material fact issue regarding whether Fidelity complied with Florida Statutes section 494.00421's mandatory disclosure requirement, which—if not satisfied—would prohibit the fee unless the loan was funded.
Summary judgment was improper because a material fact issue remained unresolved: whether the estimated net proceeds were disclosed as required by section 494.00421(4). If Fidelity failed to make that disclosure, the statute prohibits collection of the fee unless the loan was funded, which it was not.
[1] A mortgage brokerage agreement must accurately disclose the estimated net proceeds to be paid directly to the borrower to earn a fee upon obtaining a bona fide commitment…
[2] If a mortgage brokerage agreement fails to disclose the estimated net proceeds, the mortgage brokerage fee can only be earned upon the funding of the mortgage loan.
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“any mortgage brokerage business which contracts to receive from a borrower a mortgage brokerage fee upon obtaining a bona fide commitment shall accurately disclose in the mortgage brokerage agreement: (4) The estimated net proceeds to be paid directly to the borrower.”
Establishes the mandatory statutory disclosure requirement that Fidelity allegedly failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarlton Palms signed a mortgage brokerage services contract with Fidelity Trust. On the day the contract was signed, Fidelity delivered a mortgage loa…
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.
Appellant, Carlton Palms Hotel, Inc. (“Carlton Palms”) signed a contract for mortgage brokerage services with appellee, Fidelity Trust, Inc. (“Fidelity”). The day the contract was signed, Fidelity delivered a mortgage loan commitment to Carlton Palms, which ultimately never closed the loan. Fidelity sued for its fee, and subsequently moved for summary judgment. Carlton Palms appeals from the order granting summary judgment and ordering a payment of a $16,500 fee. We reverse.
In its Amended Answer, Carlton Palms raised as an affirmative defense that it was not required to pay a fee because the contract lacked an item required by law and thus, under section 494.00421, Florida Statutes, Fidelity could only collect a fee if the loan was funded. The statute states, in pertinent part:
494.00421 Fees earned upon obtaining a bona fide commitment. Notwithstanding the provisions of ss. 494.001-494.0077, any mortgage brokerage business which contracts to receive from a borrower a mortgage brokerage fee upon obtaining a bona fide commitment shall accurately disclose in the mortgage brokerage agreement:
(4) The estimated net proceeds to be paid directly to the borrower. “Estimated net proceeds” means the cash to be received by the borrower after payment of any fees, charges, debts, liens, or encumbrances to perfect the lien of the new mortgage and establish the agreed-upon priority of the new mortgage.
(7)(a) The following statement, in no less than 12-point boldface type immediately above the signature lines for the borrowers:
“You are entering into a contract with a mortgage brokerage business to obtain a bona fide mortgage loan commitment under the same terms and conditions as stated hereinabove or in a separate executed good faith estimate form. If the mortgage brokerage business obtains a bona fide commitment under the same terms and conditions, you will be obligated to pay the mortgage brokerage business fees, including, but not limited to, a mortgage brokerage fee, even if you choose not to complete the loan transaction. If the provisions of s. 494.00421, Florida Statutes, are not met, the mortgage brokerage fee can only be earned upon the funding of the mortgage loan....
Carlton Palms asserts that the information required by subsection (4) was not provided, and that subsection (7) requires the loan to be funded if the requirements of section 494.00421 are not met. Thus, Carlton Palms argues, there was an unresolved issue of material fact remaining, thus making summary judgment improper. We agree.
In replying to Carlton Palms’ Requests for Admission, Fidelity denied that the language required by subsection (4) was missing; in replying to interrogatories, however, Fidelity seemed to admit that the information was not present, but that the defect was attributable to Carlton Palms’ own actions. The statute requires that disclosure, and prohibits the broker from charging a fee when that disclosure is not made, unless the loan is funded.
Thus, it does appear that there was either a disputed issue of material fact concerning whether the estimated net proceeds were not set out in the mortgage brokerage contract, or an admission by Fidelity that they were not. In either event, summary judgment was improper, and we therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In so ruling, we need not address the issue of whether Fidelity was properly licensed at the time of the transaction.
MINER, WOLF and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edward T. Byrd & Co., Inc. v. WPSC Venture I, 66 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ory construction to resolve the ambiguity. See Barco v. School Bd. of Pinellas County, 975 So. 2d 1116, 1122 (Fla.2008). [*982] Notably, the First District applied the Act to a corporate borrower in Carlton Palms Hotel, Inc. v. Fidelity Trust, Inc., 728 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Although Byrd criticizes the holding in Carlton Palms as nothing more than a rejection of summary judgment, the factual dispute involved the Act’s application in either case. Either the Act applied to disallow the mortgage broke…