PETER A. KOWALSKI AND JULIANNA KOWALSKI, APPELLANTS,
v.
BEN D. WILDER, DOING BUSINESS AS SOUTHLAND 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.
Trial court properly denied defendants' motion for new trial where jury found broker entitled to real estate commission, as substantial evidence supported the verdict and jury properly resolved factual disputes about listing agreement completeness and buyer readiness.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial when substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict on disputed factual issues.
Appellants sold property and were sued by a real estate broker for an allegedly owed brokerage commission. The appellants defended by claiming the lis…
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 Listing Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants were defendants below in an action brought by the appellee to recover a real estate brokerage commission allegedly owed to the appellee as a result of the appellants’ sale of certain property. A jury trial was had upon the issues framed by the pleadings, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the appellee. Final judgment was entered thereon, and the appellants filed their motion for new trial and motion for judgment n. o. v. Both motions were denied, and the appellant now contends that the court erred in failing to grant them a new trial.
The motion'for new trial is directed to the court’s discretion, and in this case, the record shows that ample and substantial evidence had been submitted to the jury to sustain their finding that the appel-lee was indeed entitled to the brokerage commission he claimed. The defense which had been offered by the appellants at trial was that the listing agreement between sellers-appellants and broker-appellee was incomplete, and that the buyer produced by the broker was not ready, willing and able to buy on terms acceptable to the appellant. Both these defenses presented factual issues for the jury’s resolution, and we see no justification to disturb the jury’s finding.
Therefore, it is our holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied the appellants’ motion for new trial.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burton v. Merritts Props., Ltd., 484 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…, willing and able buyer, such evidence is not conclusive on the issue. The issues presented, including whether Airan was ready, willing and able to purchase the properties, are factual issues that must be resolved by a jury. See Kowalski v. Wilder, 233 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Accordingly, the directed verdict and award of fees in favor of the seller are reversed and the cause is remanded for trial. . Neither party in this action was aware that the checks had not been deposited in escrow prior to rev…