H. LAWRENCE ASHER AND GLORIA ASHER, APPELLANTS,
v.
GENE SNYDER & COMPANY, 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.
Real estate brokers sued to recover a $10,000 commission after successfully finding a purchaser for the defendants' property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the brokers, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the defendants had adequate knowledge of and consented to the broker's principal's acquisition of an interest in the transaction.
The broker was entitled to recover the commission as a matter of law because the sellers had actual knowledge that Gene Snyder was president of the brokerage company and learned before closing that he was one of the purchasers, and they subsequently acquiesced to the purchase by signing the commission agreement.
[1] A real estate broker may not acquire an interest or profit in a transaction without the principal's knowledge and consent or acquiescence.
[2] A principal's signing of a brokerage commission agreement after learning of the broker's interest in the purchase constitutes acquiescence to the broker's interest.
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“a broker can neither acquire an interest or make a profit in a transaction in which he is employed unless his principal knows and gives his consent or acquiescense”
Establishes the fiduciary duty brokers owe and the disclosure requirement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Ashers employed Gene Snyder & Company to find a purchaser for their real property. The broker procured a purchaser, and the Ashers entered into a …
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
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellants seek review of an adverse final summary judgment in this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission.
Defendants are the owners of certain real property and employed the plaintiff-appellee, Gene Snyder & Company, to find a purchaser therefor. Plaintiff procured a purchaser and the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Asher, on February 27, 1969 entered into a deposit receipt agreement with Alan S. Rosenthal, as Trustee (for the purchasers).
The sale was consummated and on April 15, 1969 defendants executed and delivered a warranty deed to the sub j ect realty to the purchaser, Gene Snyder, et ux, as to an undivided Yz interest and Lillian Lubin as to an undivided Yt interest. Thereafter, on April 23, 1969 sellers agreed in writing to pay plaintiff a broker’s commission in the sum of $10,000 for finding a purchaser for the subject realty. Subsequently, plaintiff-appellee demanded payment of the $10,000 commission and defendants refused to pay it. Thereupon, plaintiff filed the instant action for recovery thereof. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which was denied whereupon defendants filed their answer wherein the defense was raised that plaintiff failed to disclose that one of the purchasers, to wit: Gene Snyder, was an officer and principal shareholder of plaintiff corporation. Following pre-trial discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. After hearing oral argument thereon, the trial judge entered final summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee for $10,000 together with interest and costs. Defendants. appeal therefrom.
We affirm.
It is well established that because of the close relationship which calls for trust and confidence, a broker can neither acquire an interest or make a profit in a transaction in which he is employed unless his principal knows and gives his consent or acquiescense. Chisman v. Moylan, Fla.App.1958, 105 So. 2d 186 and cases cited therein.
Reviewing the record in the case sub judice in a light most favorable to defendant-appellants, the non-moving parties, the evidence as adduced from pre-trial discovery affirmatively demonstrates that defendant-appellant H. Lawrence Asher knew that Gene Snyder was the president of Gene Snyder & Company and had learned prior to and upon closing that Gene Snyder and his wife were two of the purchasers of defendants’ realty. Further, it is undisputed that shortly after the closing, defendants signed the brokerage commission letter agreement of April 23, 1969 thereby acquiescing to the purchase by Gene Snyder and his wife. Thus, we conclude that plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the summary judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Keyes Co. v. Shea, 372 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…ull knowledge of the alleged wrongful acts of Chavez, it would be within their province to find that appellees had waived their claim regarding the commission and that they were not entitled to recover the commission. Asher v. Gene Snyder & Company, 311 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Olsen v. Brickies, 203 Va. 447, 124 S.E. 2d 895 (Va.1962); Bradley, Beall & Howard, Inc. v. Miller, 76 U.S.App. D.C. 27, 128 F. 2d 320 (1942). Thus, we think the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrin…
-
Dubois v. The Keyes Co., 375 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Ellison v. Anderson, 74 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla.1954); Asher v. Gene Snyder & Co., 311 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); McKean v. Kloeppel Hotels, Inc., 171 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Kramer v. Landau, 113 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).…
-
Young v. Field, 548 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…principal expressly assents thereto or acquiesces in such a course, with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances. Vining v. Smith, 343 So. 2d 871, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1978); Asher v. Gene Snyder & Co., 311 So. 2d 155,156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Kline v. Pyms Suchman Real Estate Co., 303 So. 2d [*786] 401, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 S.o.2d 588 (Fla.1975); Chisman v. Moylan, 105 So. 2d 186, 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Neither may a broker act as agent for b…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chisman v. Moylan, 105 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)