HAROLD F. GIBBS, D/B/A KING REALTY, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE W. GIBBS, 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.
A real estate broker was the procuring cause of a property sale and entitled to a commission where he introduced the buyer to the seller and the sale was ultimately completed on substantially the same terms as the broker's proposed contract.
A real estate broker is the procuring cause of a sale and entitled to a commission when he introduces the buyer to the seller and the sale is completed on substantially the same terms as the broker's proposed contract, even if the initial contract is rejected.
[1] A real estate broker who introduces a buyer to property and prepares a contract that is rejected but is later accepted on substantially the same terms is the procuring ca…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarold Gibbs, a real estate broker, brought suit against George Gibbs to recover a real estate commission. Gibbs had introduced a buyer to the propert…
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 Procuring Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, a real estate broker, seeks reversal of a final judgment in favor of appellee in a suit brought by appellant to recover a real estate commission.
The only issue involved herein is whether appellant was the procuring cause of the sale of the property and therefore entitled to a commission. We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully reviewed the record on appeal. Upon our consideration thereof, we conclude that the trial court erred in its finding against the appellant.
The manifest weight of the evidence illustrates that the appellant called the attention of the ultimate purchaser to the subject property and that it was through the appellant’s efforts that the sale was consummated. B & B Super Markets, Inc. v. Metz, 260 So. 2d 529 (Fla.App.2d, 1972). The appellant introduced the buyer to appellee and prepared a contract on behalf of the buyer to submit to appellee. Although this contract was rejected by appellee, the buyer and appellee completed the sale a little more than one month later on substantially the same terms as the contract submitted by appellant. During this time, appellant did not abandon efforts to make and complete the sale. Hence, it appears that appellant was the procuring cause of the sale of real estate and the lower court erred in finding to the contrary.
Accordingly, the judgment in favor of appellee is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of appellant in the amount of $1,170.00, together with costs.
Reversed and remanded.
SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and BOYER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Rosinda Invs., N.V., 475 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…buyer the property but makes no further efforts because an initial purchase offer is rejected or the buyer expresses no interest in the property. See Crystal River Enterprises, Inc. v. Nasi, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Gibbs v. Gibbs, 296 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). If the rule were otherwise: “a crafty prospect could reject the contract submitted by the broker, go behind his back to the owner, modify the terms without affording the broker an opportunity for negotiations, purchase the prop…
Authorities Cited
- B & B Super Mkts., Inc. v. Emil Metz, 260 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)