J. WILLIAM BRADLEY AND ROBERT E. BAKER, 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.
Bradley and Baker appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims against Banks for a real estate commission. The court affirmed, holding that Bradley's contract to receive a portion of the commission was void as a matter of public policy because he was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman when he performed the services, violating Florida Statute § 475.41.
The contract between Bradley and Banks for a portion of the real estate commission was void as a matter of public policy under Florida Statute § 475.41 because Bradley was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman at the time he performed the services. Bradley could not recover based on quantum meruit for services rendered in connection with a void contract.
[1] A contract to pay the commission of a real estate broker or salesman who is not registered in Florida at the time services are rendered is void as a matter of public poli…
[2] Recovery may not be had under a contract or quantum meruit for real estate brokerage services performed by an unlicensed individual in Florida.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No contract for a commission or compensation for any act or service enumerated in subsection (2) of § 475.01 shall he valid unless the broker or salesman shall have complied with this chapter in regard to registration and renewal of the certificate at the time the act or service was performed.”
This is the controlling statute that bars recovery by an unregistered salesman; the critical time for registration is when the service is performed, not when payment is made.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBradley claimed a portion of a real estate commission from Banks for services in securing a real estate listing. Banks agreed to pay Bradley a portion…
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 Real Estate Commission Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered after rendition of summary judgment for the defendant on counts 1, 2 and 3 of plaintiffs’ complaint and dismissal of count 4 as insufficient. We affirm.
The appellee was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim for a portion of a real estate commission because there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning the proposition that plaintiff-appellant Bradley was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman “at the time the act or service was performed.” Fla.Stat. § 475.41, F.S.A.1
Appellant Bradley claimed a portion of a real estate commission and it appears that appellee Banks agreed to pay that portion to appellant for appellant’s services in securing a listing. Appellee Banks subsequently received a large commission because of the listing. Appellant Bradley was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman at the time he procured the listing. He was not so registered at the time he submitted the listing to Banks. He was not so registered at the time Banks agreed to pay him a portion of the commission. Therefore, it is immaterial that appellant Bradley was rein*257stated as a registered salesman before the actual contract to purchase was delivered. We think that the contract to pay a portion of the commission was entirely void as a matter of public policy based upon legislative enactment. Harris v. McKay, Fla.App. 1965, 176 So.2d 572; cf. Wegmann v. Mannino, 253 F.2d 627 (5th Cir. 1958).
The contract being void as a matter of public policy, the services rendered in connection therewith cannot be made the basis for a quantum meruit claim as appellants suggest in their fourth count.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Geneva Inv. v. Trafalgar Developers, Ltd., 274 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…instrument promising to pay a real estate commission must allege that the broker performing the service for which the commission is claimed was at the time of the rendition of the service a licensed broker. See also Bradley v. Banks, Fla.App. 1972, 260 So. 2d 256. In the case sub judice the parties executed the contracts in a jurisdiction which did not require the registration of real estate brokers. They were to commence at a future date. The sales contract provided that the appellants were to comply with…
-
Trafalgar Developers, Ltd. v. Geneva Inv. Ltd., 285 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1973)…dice. This cause is before us on certiorari granted to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 274 So. 2d 581, which purportedly conflicts with Harris v. McKay, 176 So. 2d 572 (Fla.App.1965); Bradley v. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla.App.1972). Conflict does exist and we, therefore, have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution F.S.A. The opinion of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, succinctly states the facts pertinent to the i…
-
Paris v. Hilton, 352 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…ed to the dangers that the.statute seeks to restrict. Paris argues, just as strongly, that it is inequitable and unconscionable to allow Cooper to avoid his contractual obligation to pay him his commission for services rendered. . Bradley v. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972); Wegmann v. Mannino, 253 F. 2d 627 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 358 U.S. 824, 79 S.Ct. 37, 3 L.Ed.2d 63 (1958).…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wegmann v. Mannino, 253 F.2d 627 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Harris v. McKAY, 176 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)