FRANK A. MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED THOMPSON AND IRENE THOMPSON, HIS WIFE, AND JULIUS KUPFER, 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.
A real estate broker appeals from a directed verdict in a dispute over broker's commission for a motel leasehold sale. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants after the plaintiff's evidence, finding it legally insufficient to support recovery. The appellate court affirmed, holding the evidence did not establish a prima facie case for broker's commission.
The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict, holding that Martin's evidence was legally insufficient to support any lawful verdict in his favor.
“On an appeal from a judgment rendered consequent upon the direction of a verdict, the evidence is required to be viewed in a light most favorable to the appellant. The question then becomes one of whether there was any evidence upon which a jury could have lawfully found a verdict for the appellant.”
Establishes the standard of review for directed verdict appeals
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin, a real estate broker, received a listing from Thompson to sell a leasehold motel interest initially priced at $375,000. The price was reduced …
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 Action For Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff below appeals from a final judgment rendered upon a directed verdict granted by the trial court at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence. The plaintiff, a real estate broker, brought an action against the appellees Thompson and wife, owners of a leasehold interest in a motel, and appellee Kupfer, the purchaser of said leasehold interest. The complaint sought to require payment into the registry of the court of five per cent of the purchase price of the motel, for an accounting and discovery. The basis of the relief sought was that the appellant had received a listing from the appellee Thompson to sell a leasehold interest in a motel for the sum of $375,000; that this price was later reduced to $310,000 and subsequently to $290,000. The appellee Kupfer had refused to purchase at the reduced price of $290,000, and later negotiated with Thompson, ultimately purchasing Thompson’s interest at the reduced price of $240,000;' that by virtue thereof, the appellant was entitled to a five per cent real estate commission on the sale of the leasehold. It was further charged that Thompson, the seller,, had refused to recognize the appellant as the procuring broker and it was feared that Thompson would secrete the funds from the sale and thereby render the appellant unable to satisfy any judgment for broker’s commission that he might obtain.
The cause was transferred to the' law side and after answer of the respective appellees to the complaint as amended, the cause went to trial before the jury. At the conclusion of the appellant’s case, and upon motion of the respective appellees, the court directed a verdict in favor of the appellees and entered a judgment thereon from which this appeal was taken.
The appellant’s principal contention is that the court erred in directing a verdict for the reason that the appellant’s evidence made a prima facie case, entitling him to the recovery of a broker’s commission.
On an appeal from a judgment rendered consequent upon the direction of a verdict, the evidence is required to be viewed in a light most favorable to the appellant. The question then becomes one of whether there was any evidence uponi which a jury could have lawfully found' a verdict for the appellant. See Red Top Cab & Baggage Co. v. Dorner, 159 Fla. 538, 32 So.2d 321; Propper v. Kesner, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 1; Schutzer v. City of Miami, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 492. We have carefully reviewed the testimony offered on behalf of the appellant, bearing in mind the applicable rule, and conclude,. *746'as did the eminent trial judge, that the evidence was legally insufficient to support any lawful verdict for the appellant.
Concluding as we have that the trial judge was correct in directing a verdict for appellees, the judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riccio v. Allstate Ins. Co., 357 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…avor of the non-moving party. Paikin v. Beach Cabs, Inc., 187 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Once done, the question then becomes whether there was any evidence upon which a jury could have lawfully found a verdict for appellants. Martin v. Thompson, 124 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Based upon the above criteria, the record is replete with testimony concerning the contents of various conversations held between Isaac Dorf, agent for appellee, and appellant Gerald Riccio. In sum and substance, the conversatio…
-
The City OF Hialeah v. Rehm, 455 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…directed. Newsome v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 350 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The ultimate question then is whether there was any evidence upon which a jury could have lawfully found a verdict for defendants. Martin v. Thompson, 124 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). The record reveals testimony concerning the officers’ belief that the elements of the offense of loitering and prowling had been met by the activities of Stephen Rehm. The loitering and prowling statute, Section 856.021, Florida…
-
Elois Brookshire v. Fla. Bendix Co., Inc., 153 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…d verdict and setting aside the verdict of the jury. Upon this appeal the appellant is entitled to all inferences reasonably to be [*57] drawn from the evidence. See: Messner v. Webb’s City, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 66; Martin v. Thompson, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 744. The record discloses that the appellant was injured while operating a coin-activated washing machine in and about the premises of an apartment building. It appears that the machine in question was manufactured by a third party, sold to the appellee…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schutzer v. The City OF Miami, 105 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Selma Propper and Irving Propper v. Kesner, 104 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1958)
- RED TOP CAB & Baggage Co. v. Adeline M. Dorner, 159 Fla. 538 (Fla. 1947)
- Homer v. Reed v. James T. Vocelle, 159 Fla. 529 (Fla. 1947)