JACK L. BYRD, APPELLANT,
v.
NEILL M. MICHAEL AND BERT G. GROSS, APPELLEES
JACK L. BYRD, APPELLANT,
NEILL M. MICHAEL AND BERT G. GROSS, APPELLEES
287 So. 2d 119
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1973)
Caution
Cited by 24 cases
Opinion of the Court
DOWNEY, Judge.
In the court below appellees sued appellant for a real estate brokerage commission and prevailed. The sole point there and here was whether the transaction was “closed” so as to entitle the appellees to their commission. The trial court held it was closed and entered judgment for the commission.
On the record before us at this time, absent any suggestion of fraud on appellant’s part, we find the sale was not closed as provided in the brokerage contract and that appellees’’ suit was premature. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed with directions to dismiss the cause,
WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)…nt” to make such a [*17] reservation in that the wife testified she was limited from seeking employment because of her responsibilities in caring for the children and also because of a physical problem with her arm. As indicated in Elkins v. Elkins, 287 So. 2d 119, 120 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973), cited by the district court of appeal, “A chancellor is not required as a matter of law to reserve jurisdiction to award periodic alimony in the future, rather it is a matter within his discretion.” It appears from the reco…
-
Price v. Price, 389 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…e lump sum installments. Although retention of jurisdiction is permitted, Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra; Hyatt v. Hyatt, 315 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Langston v. Langston, 251 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), it is not required. Elkins v. Elkins, 287 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Poe v. Poe, 263 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Cf. Greene v. Greene, 256 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (where alimony provisions would probably terminate at a time when the wife had no other income). We do find error, however, i…
-
Brown v. Brown, 338 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…(Fla.1959). However, if alimony is provided for a terminable period, as in the case of rehabilitative alimony, once the alimony has been paid pursuant to the order, the court no longer has jurisdiction to award additional alimony. Elkins v. Elkins, 287 So. 2d 119 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); see Lee v. Lee, 309 So. 2d 26 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). Applying the foregoing principles to this case, we find that the original judgment of dissolution not only ordered alimony but retained jurisdiction for further consideration of th…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence