MIKE TUTKO AND MARY TUTKO, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CLYDE M. BANKS, D/B/A BANKS COMPANIES, 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.
A real estate broker sought to recover a brokerage commission from a purchaser who defaulted on a purchase agreement. The court reversed the judgment, holding that the broker could not enforce a commission clause against the purchaser where the clause was added to the contract after the purchaser signed and without the purchaser's knowledge or agreement.
The court held that the broker cannot recover a commission from the purchaser because no contract to pay the commission was formed. A real estate broker cannot enforce a commission obligation against a purchaser unless the purchaser has actually contracted to pay the commission, which did not occur here.
“a real estate broker cannot recover a commission from a purchaser unless the purchaser contracts to pay the commission”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that a broker must have a contract with the purchaser to recover commission
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBanks, a real estate broker, prepared a deposit receipt contract and presented it to Tutko (the purchaser) with a blank commission clause. Tutko signe…
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 Broker'S Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, who was defendant in the trial court, appeals a final judgment in a non jury trial. The appellee is a real estate broker and the judgment was for a commission claimed against the prospective purchaser of a parcel of real estate. The sale was not completed.
There is no dispute as to the following: (1) The plaintiff, appellee, was qualified (2) He performed the services claimed (3) The transaction was not closed because the purchaser, appellant, defaulted in his written agreement to purchase. The basis of the claimed liability of this appellant, purchaser, is the following agreement contained in the deposit receipt contract:
“It is further agreed that in case this transaction is not completed due to any default or failure on the part of the purchaser, the said purchaser shall in that event become liable to the broker for brokerage commission as hereinafter provided.”
The appellee prepared the contract and presented it to the purchaser who signed. Thereafter it was presented to the seller who signed at a different place and time, and in addition signed the following agree*111ment placed at the bottom of the contract below the signatures of the purchaser and seller:
“I, or we, agree to pay to the above signed broker, as commission for finding the above signed purchaser for the above described property, the sum of 5% of the selling price - - - Dollars ($5,125.00) or One-half of all amounts paid under said contract if the said amounts are retained pursuant to the terms thereof, whichever is the lesser sum.”
Thereafter the appellee delivered to the appellant, purchaser, a copy of the deposit receipt agreement on which the commission clause was blank and unexecuted. The judgment was for $5,125.00.
The sole question is whether a contract by the appellant, purchaser, to pay $5,-125.00 came into being, This is true because a real estate broker cannot recover a commission from a purchaser unless the purchaser contracts to pay the commission. Borensky v. Cohen, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 814.
It is well settled that matters contained in other writings which are referred to may be regarded as a part of a contract. See Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. City Gas Co., Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 334 and cases at 12 Am.Jur. Contracts § 245, Note 11. This rule is frequently applied to an endorsement upon an instrument before its execution and to two instruments executed at the same time. See cases collected at 12 Am.Jur. Contracts § 245. In the instant case the writing referred to was not in existence at the time defendant signed the contract. This might be of no importance if the defendant was a party to the second writing, but he was not. From the record of this case it does not appear that the defendant knew of the subsequent execution of the writing to which reference is made, nor does it appear that he was informed of its terms. The effect of treating the subsequent agreement between the seller and his agent (the plaintiff-appellee) as a part of defendant’s contract is to approve a situation wherein certainty of contract would be thrown to the winds and opportunities for fraud and imposition would be open and notorious. Spragg v. Polino, 114 W.Va. 369, 171 S.E. 897. See 4 Williston on Contracts, 3rd Ed. § 581.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the defendant.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frank J. Rooney, Inc. v. Charles W. Ackerman OF Fla., Inc., 219 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ntractor was to receive the sum of $387,000.00], if a dispute arose he was entitled to arbitration pursuant to the A. I. A. general provisions. Quarngesser v. Appliance Buyers Credit Corp., Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 662; Tutko v. Banks, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 110. However, we find merit in the appellant’s second argument, which contends that the extras were not included as ar-bitrable matters because such extras go beyond the scope of the original general contract. Initially we recognize that the parties ha…
-
Bruce v. Am. Dev. Corp. & Kenneth Mamula, 408 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ration; and (3) tortious interference. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the amended complaint. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary or written contract, the purchaser is not responsible for a brokerage commission. Tutko v. Banks, 167 So. 2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). A prospective purchaser of property is not liable to a broker for showing an interest in property and then failing to make the purchase. Because the purchaser was not obligated, there can be no fraud, misrepresentation, or inter…
-
Williams v. Stewart, 424 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…, a purchaser breaching a contract for sale of real property is not liable to the broker for his commission. Bruce v. American Development Corp., 408 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Belk v. Oehlert, 324 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Tutko v. Banks, 167 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). A broker must usually look to the vendor for his commission. Borinsky v. Cohen, 86 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1956); Moss v. Sperry, 140 Fla. 301, 191 So. 531 (1939). Here, the contract specifically stated that only the seller was obligate…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Borinsky v. Cohen, 86 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1956)
- Wyatt v. 6345 Collins Ave., Inc., 147 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Peoples GAS Sys., Inc. v. City GAS Co., 147 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)