TREASURE CAY, LTD., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWRENCE W. GENTILE, 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.
The court held that while the plaintiff earned a commission, the trial court erred in calculating the amount based on the agreed-upon percentages.
The plaintiff sued for a sales commission. The trial court found the plaintiff earned a commission but awarded an incorrect amount based on a misinter…
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 Commission Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
On the basis of our review of the briefs and the record on appeal we are of the opinion that the defendant has failed to make error clearly appear. Although we affirm the trial court’s determination in all respects including the finding that plaintiff earned a managerial sales commission in connection with the sale of defendant’s property, we are however of the view that the amount of the commission fixed by the trial court was in error. The final judgment reflects a finding of fact that the commission to be paid to the plaintiff was as follows:
“ . . . [O]n a weekly salary basis and a managerial commission basis of li/2% override commission of the first $100,000 in property sales sold through his office and/or a salesman working out of his office; 2% of all property sales in excess of $100,000; and 3% of all property sales over $200,000.”
•The final judgment however went on to conclude “that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1% commission”. Having found that the plaintiff had performed in accordance with his agreement the amount of recovery should have been based upon the terms of the employment as heretofore set forth. See Community Cablecasting Corp. v. Daniels & Assoc., Inc., Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 17; Abbott v. Tec-Mill & Supply, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 881; Golden Heights Land Co. v. Norman Babel Mtg. Co., Fla.App. 1958, 102 So.2d 858.
Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed, in part, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in accordance with the percentages applicable to the transaction. In all other respects the final judgment is affirmed.
WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dubov Realty, Inc. v. Kucharek, 433 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…. Triester, 409 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Silver Blue Lake Apts. No. 3, Inc. v. Marson, 334 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Treasure Cay Ltd. v. Gentile, 261 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Accordingly, the cause is reversed with directions to enter judgment for Dubov Realty, Inc. for its brokerage fee plus reasonable attorney’s fees. Reversed with directions.…
Authorities Cited
- Lucille Hadley et vir v. Youngblood, 215 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Golden Heights Land Co., Inc. v. Norman Babel Mortg. Co., Inc., 102 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Abbott v. Tec-Mill & Supply, Inc., 178 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)