MICHAEL CONSTRUCTION CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND LEON GORFINKEL, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRED G. SMITH, INTERNATIONAL VENTURES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND EDMUND DUPONT D/B/A FRANCIS L. DUPONT, & CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 court held that the appellants' failure to prove an agency relationship between Gorfinkel and Michael Construction Co. was fatal to their claim.
Appellants sued for a declaratory judgment to recover a deposit on a real estate purchase that failed to close. The agreement was signed by Gorfinkel,…
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 Agency Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were the plaintiffs in the trial court. They appeal a final judgment for the defendants-appellees which was entered by the court after a trial without jury. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment which would establish appellants’ right to receive a sum of money deposited by one of the appellees with a real estate broker as a deposit upon a proposed purchase of real property from the appellant Michael Construction Co. The sale was not completed because of the purchaser’s failure to proceed with the purchase at the time and place stipulated in the deposit receipt contract.
The trial judge found that the equities of the cause were with the defendants and denied the relief sought. The judgment sets forth three findings as determinative. We do not pass upon the legal sufficiency of the first and third grounds contained in the judgment because the second ground is clearly sufficient to sustain the judgment. The second ground is:
* * * * * * “(b) That as a matter of Law, the evidence submitted to this Court relative to an agency relationship between the Plaintiff, LEON GORFINKEL, and the Plaintiff, MICHAEL CONSTRUCTION CO., a Florida corporation is totally insufficient to establish such a relationship.”
The record shows that the agreement to sell was signed only by Leon Gorfinkel. It appears that he was a stockholder in the corporate entity which owned the real estate described in the deposit receipt. The complaint alleged that Gorfinkel was acting as agent for the appellant, Michael Construction Co. Appellants’ failure to prove this essential allegation of his complaint requires the affirmance of the judgment for the defendants. Miller v. Chase & Co., 88 Fla. 500, 102 So. 553 (1924); Bogue Electric Mfg. Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, 269 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1959); 3 C.J.S. Agency § 315b.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixson v. Kattel, 311 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…information furnished by him. City Builders’ Finance Co. v. Stahl, 1925, 90 Fla. 357, 106 So. 77, 78. The burden of proving the allegation that there was an agency relationship rests with the broker. Michael Construction Co. v. Smith, Fla.App.1971, 244 So. 2d 563. In the case sub judice, the burden has not been met. The record is devoid of substantial evidence in support of Kattel’s allegation in Count I that he performed work and services as real estate broker for the Dixsons at their instance and request t…
-
Herb Brieler v. Feder, 367 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…endered for Feder because the record contains no evidence that Briefer had been employed by Feder or was otherwise acting on his behalf with his consent in connection with the transaction involved in this case. See Michael Construction Co. v. Smith, 244 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 247 So. 2d 438 (Fla.1971). The most that can be said is that the broker— who had previously represented the seller, and later, another prospective buyer — provided the defendant with information which was helpful in…
-
Michael Constr. Co. v. Smith, 247 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1971)…Certiorari denied. 244 So. 2d 563. CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD, Mc-CAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, J., dissent.…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Chase & Co., 88 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1924)
- Bogue Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, 269 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1959)