M. D. FUTCH, CORNELIA A. FRAZURE AND BESS CANAVAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
L. G. BALL, CURTIS KING, MARION BUTLER AND PETER REID, 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.
This case involves a claim for a real estate commission and a conspiracy to defraud. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the purchaser, selling broker, and salesman, and affirmed the summary judgment for the seller, finding no error in either decision.
The court held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for conspiracy to defraud and that the facts did not present an issue entitling the plaintiffs to a jury trial on the procuring cause of the sale.
“We hold that there was no error in the dismissal because the complaint failed to state a cause of action under the rule set forth in Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, Fla. App.1963, 155 So. 2d 711, 716.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the dismissal of the conspiracy claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, acting as plaintiffs, sued the seller, purchaser, selling broker, and selling salesman for a real estate commission. They also alleged a c…
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 Real Estate Commission Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, as plaintiffs, sued the seller, the purchaser, the selling broker and the selling real estate salesman for a claimed real estate commission. The amended complaint sought to hold the purchaser, the selling broker and the selling salesman on a charge of conspiracy with the seller to defraud the plaintiffs of their claimed commission. The complaint was dismissed as to all except the seller. We hold that there was no error in the dismissal because the complaint failed to state a cause of action under the rule set forth in Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, Fla. App.1963, 155 So.2d 711, 716.
The second aspect of this appeal concerns the entry of a summary final judgment for the defendant-seller. It is appel*239lants’ contention that under the facts presented that they were entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether they were the procuring cause of the sale. We hold that no such issue appears from the facts in this case and that the judgment must be affirmed under the rule stated in Judson v. Mobley, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 730.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ocala Loan Co. v. Smith, 155 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Judson v. Mobley, 62 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1953)