IVAN B. FISHER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE KEYES COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 the prior appellate decision, finding no contract for sale, mandated the return of the deposit and required the trial court to grant summary judgment for the plaintiff.
Plaintiff offered to purchase a warehouse and paid a deposit to the broker. Plaintiff withdrew the offer before acceptance and demanded the deposit ba…
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 Return Of Deposit cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellant, Ivan B. Fisher, seeks review of the lower court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment in an action involving the purchase of a warehouse.
In an attempt to purchase a warehouse located in Hialeah, Florida, plaintiff-appellant, Ivan B. Fisher, made an offer to the owners ánd delivered a deposit for the proposed purchase to the real estate broker handling the sale, The Keyes Company. Plaintiff alleges that he withdrew his offer before it was accepted and demanded that his deposit be returned by The Keyes Company. The trial court entered a summary judgment awarding a broker’s commission to The Keyes Company against Fisher and the sellers. The sellers did not appeal the summary judgment against them but this order was appealed by Fisher to this court which reversed the lower court on the basis that no contract for the sale was executed which could produce liability on the prospective purchaser for a broker’s commission. Once back on remand to the circuit court, Fisher, in a further attempt to retain his deposit, moved the court for a summary judgment based upon the prior decision of the District Court of Appeal finding that no contract for sale was executed. The motion for summary judgment was denied by the circuit court and this appeal ensued.
To be consistent with this court’s decision in its previous opinion, see Fisher v. Keyes Company, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 705, we hold that it was error to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is reversed, and the court below is directed to enter an order requiring the deposit to be returned to the plaintiff.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weiss, 790 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…r” endorsement, providing coverage for bodily injury and property damage, did not modify the definition of who was an insured for UM coverage. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. See Fisher v. Keyes Co., 271 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Under this analysis, we need not reach the other errors claimed by the insurer or the Estate. Accordingly, the order under review is reversed.…
Authorities Cited
- Westwood Lake, Inc. v. Dade Cnty., 262 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)