ELIZABETH V. CLARK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE KEYES CO. AND DOUGLAS E. STAPLES, 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 (plaintiff) obtained summary judgment against a property owner (defendant) for commission based on an exclusive listing agreement. The owner appealed, arguing a factual question existed as to whether the buyer was ready, willing, and able to purchase; the court affirmed, holding that financial ability to obtain the necessary funds within the stipulated timeframe satisfies the 'able' requirement, regardless of the buyer's current possession of cash.
The broker satisfied the listing agreement. A broker producing a financially able purchaser need not show that the purchaser has all cash in hand; it is sufficient that the purchaser is able to command the necessary money to close the deal within the time stipulated. The owner's concern about how the buyer obtains financing is irrelevant to the broker's obligation.
“A broker producing a purchaser financially able is not required to show that the purchaser is then standing outside of the office door with all the cash in hand required to pay for the property.”
Establishes that a broker satisfies the 'ready, willing, and able' requirement without the buyer having actual cash available.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant owner entered into a written exclusive listing agreement with the plaintiff broker to sell property for $25,000 all cash. The broker pro…
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 Exclusive Listing Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, appellant, who was the owner of certain real estate suffered a summary final judgment against her and in favor of the plaintiff, a real estate broker, who claimed a commission. The defendant entered into a written agreement for an exclusive listing with the plaintiff to sell her property for $25,000, all cash. Upon the basis of the listing agreement, together with proof that the plaintiff had produced a purchaser who executed a deposit receipt contract in accordance with the listing agreement, the lower court entered the summary final judgment which is the subject of this appeal.
The appellant, owner, urges here that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the purchaser was ready, willing and able to buy in accordance with the written listing. Our review of the record before the trial judge at the time that he entered the summary judgment reveals no such issue. Appellant’s contention seems to be based upon an idea that the purchaser could not have produced all cash at closing because he admitted upon deposition that he inténded to secure part of the money by a purchase money mortgage for which he had a commitment from a bank. It is not the concern of the seller as to where the purchaser intends to obtain the money that he has bound himself to produce. The purchaser in this instance was shown to be a man of substance and there is nothing in this record to raise an issue as to his ability to produce the purchase money in accordance with the terms of the listing agreement.
The Supreme Court of Florida held in Perper v. Edell, 160 Fla. 477, 35 So.2d 387 (1948):
“A broker producing a purchaser financially able is not required to show that the purchaser is then standing outside of the office door with all the cash in hand required to pay for the property. If the purchaser is financially able to pay for the property within the time stipulated it is sufficient (Financially) 'able’ means that the proposed purchaser is able to command the necessary money to close the deal on reasonable notice or within the time stipulated by the parties. * * * ” 35 So.2d at 391.
The summary final judgment is affirmed upon authority of Perper v. Edell, supra. Cf. Mark v. Hahn, Fla. 1965,-So.2d-[opinion filed February 17, 1965].
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sharp v. Long, 283 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…nsaction on reasonable notice or within the time stipulated by the parties. Perper v. Edell, 160 Fla. 477, 35 So. 2d 387 (1948). Also, purchasing ability may be demonstrated by showing that the purchaser is a person of substance. Clark v. Keyes Co., 172 So. 2d 847 (Fla.App.1965). In the case at bar, the plaintiff Long never offered any evidence that the purchaser, Mrs. Rowland, was financially capable of purchasing the land in question. She was never called to testify. No evidence was entered to show that Mr…
-
Mogul v. McCLASKEY Realty, Inc., 309 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…e to show that the purchaser was “able” to buy. The general rule is that a plaintiff broker to recover a commission must prove it produced a ready, willing and able purchaser, Perper v. Edell, 160 Fla. 477, 35 So. 2d 387 (1948) ; Clark v. Keyes Co., 172 So. 2d 847 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1965). Appellant cited to several cases for the proposition that the purchaser, Mr. Geiger’s, ability to buy was not proven with specificity. These cases are distinguishable, and our decision harmonious with them. In Lindquist v. Bur…1 / 2
-
Chase Enters., Inc. v. All-Prop Realty Assocs., 458 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995 (Fla.1980); O’Bryan v. Linton, 41 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1949); Knowles v. Henderson, 22 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1945); Clark v. Keyes Co., 172 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Ramel v. Chasebrook Construction Co., 135 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961).…
Authorities Cited
- Perper v. Edell, 160 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1948)
- Cornblum v. Eisenberg, 160 Fla. 477 (Fla. 1948)