THE KEYES COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
F. L. FRAZIER, JR., DOROTHY B. FRAZIER, ROBERT M. CORNFELD, JUDITH CORNFELD AND FILMORE INVESTORS CORP., 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.
The Keyes Company appealed the dismissal of its complaint seeking a real estate commission. The court reversed dismissal as to the Fraziers based on an express written agreement between them, but affirmed dismissal as to subsequent property purchasers who were not parties to that agreement.
The court held that the commission agreement was a personal agreement, not a covenant running with the land, and therefore did not bind subsequent purchasers. However, the complaint stated sufficient ultimate facts for a cause of action against the Fraziers based on their express written agreement with Keyes.
“The second amended complaint alleged sufficient ultimate facts to state a cause of action for damages for breach of an express written agreement between the Fraziers and appellant.”
Establishes that the complaint against the Fraziers met pleading requirements under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrazier, the landlord, leased property to Monique, Inc. with a purchase option and entered into a written agreement with Keyes Company to pay a commis…
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 Covenant Running With The Land cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, The Keyes Company, appeals from an order which dismissed its second amended complaint with prejudice.
Keyes had sued the various defendants, jointly and severally, on numerous theories of liability set forth in six separate counts in the amended complaint, alleging that they owed it, a real estate commission of $4,200 plus interest and costs.
We reverse the dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claim for alleged damages as to defendants Fraziers. The second amended complaint alleged sufficient ultimate facts to state a cause of action for damages for breach of an express written *277agreement between the Fraziers and appellant. R.C.P. 1.110, 30 F.S.A.
We affirm the dismissal with prejudice of Keyes’ claim against the other defendants. These defendants were not parties to the express written contracts between the Fraziers and The Keyes Company. They never employed Keyes, or agreed to pay Keyes a commission for any services, actual, or implied. See 12 C.J.S. Brokers §§ 59 and 82, 12 Am.Jur.2d Brokers § 164.
Briefly, the facts alleged are that Frazier, the landlord, leased certain property to Monique, Inc. with an option given to Monique to purchase. Keyes, under agreements in writing with Frazier was to receive a commission in the event the tenant, Monique, exercised its option and purchased the property. Frazier subsequently conveyed the property to Filmore Investors, who conveyed to Cornfeld, both conveyances “subject to” the lease. Monique exercised its option. Cornfeld then conveyed to Rosenberg and Lewis, officers of Monique. Keyes sued the defendants for its commission.
The original agreement between the landlord Frazier, and The Keyes Company for the payment of a commission in the event the tenant, Monique, Inc., exercised its option to purchase was not a covenant running with the land. It was a personal agreement and does not bind a subsequent purchaser of the property who takes it “subject to” the lease, to the payment of a real estate commission to persons with whom they have never employed or agreed to pay a commission. See Ernest A. Carrere’s Sons v. Levy, 191 So. 747 (La.App.1940); Blasser v. Cass, 158 Tex. 560, 314 S.W.2d 807 (1958); S. L. Nussbaum & Co. v. Atlantic Virginia Realty Corp., 206 Va. 673, 146 S.E.2d 205 (1966); and Restatement, Property § 537 (1944).
The order herein appealed is, therefore, affirmed as to all the defendants except the Fraziers. We reverse and remand for further action as to them.
It is so Ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silver v. Abbot Realty Inc., 249 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…cases involving the liability of purchasers of the premises or the land. Cf. Hunter v. Benamy Realty Company, 115 Ga.App. 829, 156 S.E. 2d 160 (1967); Blasser v. Cass, 158 Tex. 560, 314 S.W. 2d 807 (1958); and Keyes Company v. Frazier, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 276. The final judgment herein appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter final judgment for the defendant Silver. It is so ordered.…
-
Osman v. Broward Bank, 578 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ward Bank, 526 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla.1988).* With respect to the real estate commission, we conclude that on the record here presented, summary judgment was properly entered. See Keyes Company v. Frazier, 213 So. 2d 276, 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Affirmed. * Osman takes issue with a portion of this court’s earlier opinion in the prior appeal. His position in that respect is barred by the law of the case doctrine. However, if that issue were properly before us,…
-
Vinder, Inc. v. Manson, 251 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Salter v. Knowles, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 138; National Airlines, Inc. v. Oscar E. Dooly Assoc. Inc., Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 53; and Keyes Company v. Frazier, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 276. PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.…