ALLENBY & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CROWN "ST. VINCENT" LTD., 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.
Allenby & Associates, a yacht broker, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Crown "St. Vincent" Ltd., the yacht owner, denying Allenby a commission on the vessel's sale. The court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Allenby was the procuring cause of the sale.
The court held that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Allenby was the procuring cause of the sale because the record does not conclusively show that Allenby did not bring the parties together, initiate negotiations, and continue those negotiations until exclusion. Accordingly, summary judgment was improper.
[1] A broker is entitled to a commission when that person is the procuring cause of a sale, absent a special contract.
[2] To be the procuring cause of a sale, a broker must bring the parties together and the sale must be consummated as a result of continuous negotiations conducted by the bro…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“In the absence of a special contract, a broker is entitled to a commission when that person is the procuring cause of a sale.”
Establishes the foundational rule for broker commission entitlement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllenby & Associates, a yacht broker, claimed entitlement to a commission on the sale of a yacht owned by Crown "St. Vincent" Ltd. Crown denied Allenb…
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 Commission Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case we consider whether the trial court erred in determining that no disputed issues of material fact existed as to a claimed yacht sale commission. Allen-by & Associates, Inc. (“Allenby”), a yacht broker, appeals the final summary judgment in favor of Crown “St. Vincent” Ltd. (“Crown”), the yacht owner, finding Allen-by was not entitled to a commission on the vessel’s sale. Because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Allenby was the procuring cause of the sale, we reverse.
In the absence of a special contract, a broker is entitled to a commission when that person is the procuring cause of a sale. Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., 761 So.2d 415, 416-17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); First Fla. Realty & Auction Co. v. Peacock, 703 So.2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In order to be the procuring cause of the sale of property, the parties must have been brought together and the sale consummated as a result of continuous negotiations conducted by the broker. Sanson v. Dutcher, Higginbotham & Bass, Inc., 401 So.2d 913, 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See also Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., 911 So.2d 1181, 1189 (Fla.2005) (To earn a commission a broker must initiate negotiations by performing some affirmative act to bring the buyer and seller together, and the broker must remain involved in the continuing negotiations between the seller and the buyer unless they intentionally exclude him from the negotiations.); Nat’l Airlines, Inc. v. Oscar E. Dooly Assocs., 160 So.2d 53, 54-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (“To be the procuring cause the broker must show that he called the potential purchaser’s attention to the property and it was through his efforts the sale was consummated.”).
Genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Allenby brought the buyer and seller together, initiated negotiations between them, and continued those negotiations — at least until Allenby was, as he claims, excluded. See Siegel, 761 So.2d 415. In Fini v. Glascoe, 936 So.2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), this court recognized:
*1213The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). When reviewing a ruling on summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So.2d 990, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Summary judgment cannot be granted unless the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, conclusively show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). “[T]he burden is upon the party moving for summary judgment to show conclusively the complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact.” Albelo v. S. Bell, 682 So.2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Allenby was the procuring cause of the sale, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…en granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment and entered a written final judgment of foreclosure. This appeal followed. The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Allenby & Assocs., Inc. v. Crown St. Vincent Ltd., 8 So. 3d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citation omitted). When reviewing a ruling on summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. Summary judgment cannot be granted unless the pleadings, d…
-
Burton v. MDC PGA Plaza Corp., 78 So. 3d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ling on summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905, 906 (Fla. [*734] 4th DCA 2009) (citing Allenby & Assocs., Inc. v. Crown St Vincent Ltd., 8 So. 3d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)). A landowner or occupier owes an invitee two independent duties: (1) to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and (2) to give warning of concealed perils. Marion v. City of Boca Raton, 47 So. 3d 334, 338 (F…
-
Harvey v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 69 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…other affidavits supporting its motion for summary judgment. 1. The Order Granting Deutsche’s Motion for Summary Judgment “The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” Allenby & Assocs., Inc. v. Crown St. Vincent Ltd., 8 So. 3d 1211,1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). When reviewing a ruling on summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party; the burden is upon the moving party to show conclusively the complete absence of a…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Albelo v. S. Bell k/n/a Bell S. Telecomms., Inc., 682 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Weinstein Design Grp., Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Nat'l Airlines, Inc. v. Oscar E. Dooly Assocs., Inc., 160 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. ACT Realty Co., Inc., 911 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2005)
- Fini v. Glascoe, 936 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Sanson v. Dutcher, 401 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., 761 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- First Fla. Realty & Auction Co., Inc. v. Peacock, 703 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)