THE HERITAGE CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HERBERT MAGNES, 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.
Heritage Corporation appeals a judgment requiring it to return a $6,500 cash deposit to a client who engaged it as a mortgage broker. The trial court found the agreement was unilateral, Heritage failed to complete its obligations, and the client was not bound by the terms of the mortgage Heritage procured.
The trial court's judgment requiring Heritage to return the $6,500 deposit is affirmed. The court found that no binding agreement existed between the parties, the undertaking was unilateral, Heritage did not complete its obligations, and Magnes was not bound by the mortgage terms Heritage procured.
[1] A mortgage broker is not entitled to a commission if it fails to complete its contractual obligations in procuring a mortgage loan commitment.
[2] A unilateral undertaking by a party does not bind the other party unless that party agrees to be bound by its terms.
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“the trial judge found that there was not an agreement entered into by which the plaintiff could bind the defendant; that the undertaking was unilateral in nature; that the defendant did not complete its obligation under the latter agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant”
Establishes the core findings that the agreement was unilateral and Heritage failed to complete its obligations, justifying denial of the commission claim.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHeritage Corporation, a mortgage broker, received a $6,500 cash deposit from Magnes as a good faith deposit for securing a mortgage loan commitment on…
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 Broker'S Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was the defendant in an action brought by the plaintiff appellee for recovery of money damages for defendant’s failure to return a cash deposit which the plaintiff had given to the defendant as a good faith deposit in connection with an agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant, a mortgage broker, for its services in procuring a mortgage loan commitment on property belonging to plaintiff.
The defendant denied that it was indebted to plaintiff and counterclaimed for a brokerage commission on the mortgage loan commitment which it alleged it obtained in accordance with the agreement between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff in his reply to the counterclaim denied that he was indebted to defendant.
The issues were tried in a non-jury trial and the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover $6,500.00 from the defendant on his complaint and that the defendant was not entitled to recover on its counterclaim.
The trial judge found that there was not an agreement entered into by which the plaintiff could bind the defendant; that the undertaking was unilateral in nature; that the defendant did not complete its obligation under the latter agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant; that the defendant sought to rewrite the agreement between the parties and that the plaintiff did not agree to be bound by the terms of the mortgage which defendant procured.
It is appellant’s contention that the trial court’s findings of fact were not supported by the evidence and that his conclusions-of *514law were contrary to the controlling principles of law.
We have considered the points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed as no reversible error has been made to appear.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Heritage Corp. OF S. Fla. v. Magnes, 288 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 281 So. 2d 513. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…