BEN D. WILDER D/B/A SOUTHLAND ASSOCIATES REALTORS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH M. BURTON, 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 appeals a summary judgment denying its claim for a commission after presenting a property owner with a purchase contract containing numerous conditions precedent that the owner had not agreed to. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the broker failed to produce a purchaser ready, willing, and able to purchase on the owner's prescribed terms.
The broker is not entitled to a commission because it failed to produce a purchaser ready, willing, and able to purchase on the owner's prescribed terms. The contract presented by the broker contained numerous unacceptable and unagreed-to conditions that constituted at most an option to purchase, not a firm offer meeting the owner's requirements.
[1] A real estate broker is entitled to a commission when they produce a purchaser who is ready, willing, and able to buy on the owner's prescribed terms.
[2] A broker fails to make a prima facie case for a commission when the submitted purchase agreement contains terms and conditions unacceptable to the seller.
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 who is employed to find a purchaser is entitled to compensation if he produces for the owner a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to purchase on the terms prescribed by the owner”
Establishes the fundamental rule governing broker compensation in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn early 1973, Joseph M. Burton orally authorized Southland Associates Realtors to find a purchaser for his Monroe County real property for $1 million…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Southland Associates Realtors, plaintiff in the trial court, appeals an adverse summary final judgment in an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission.
Defendant-appellee, Joseph M. Burton, is the owner of certain real property located in Monroe County. Early in 1973 Burton orally authorized an agent of Southland Associates Realtors to procure a purchaser for the subject realty for the price of one million dollars.
Southland communicated to Burton two offers of purchase from a Mr. Bernstein. Both offers were rejected. On August 6, 1973 Southland presented to defendant Burton a “so called” contract to purchase executed by the J. A. Vails Construction Company as purchaser. The contract was conditioned, inter alia, upon the purchaser being able to retain rezoning for commercial use, permits to use the basin and chan-, nel as a marina, all necessary water, building and sewer permits, filling and dredging permits. The t contract further provided that the closing would be held 90 days from the fulfillment of the last of these conditions precedent. Burton refused to enter into the agreement and the property remains unsold to J. A. Vails Construction Company or anyone else.
Thereafter, Southland filed the instant complaint to recover a real estate commission of 10% of the purchase price of $1,050,000 or $105,000 for allegedly procuring a purchaser ready, willing and able. Defendant Burton answered and after extensive discovery moved for summary final judgment. After a hearing was held thereon, the trial judge determined that the agreement executed by J. A. Vails Construction Company was not a firm contract to purchase but an option to purchase. Thereupon, summary final judgment was entered in favor of the defendant Burton. Southland appeals therefrom.
The established rule in this jurisdiction is that a broker who is employed to find a purchaser is entitled to compensation if he produces for the owner a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to purchase on the terms prescribed by the owner. See 5 Fla.Jur. Brokers § 42 (1955) and cases cited therein.
The record in the case at bar reflects that broker Southland submitted the alleged contract to purchase which plainly contained terms and conditions unacceptable and unagreed to by the seller. Thus, plaintiff Southland failed to make a prima facie case that it was entitled to a commission. Furthermore, we are in accord with the trial judge that the subject contract with its numerous conditions submitted by the broker to the owner was at the most an option to purchase and the broker’s claim for a commission must fail. See Orange City Hills, Inc. v. Florida Realty Bureau, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 119 So. 2d 43; Zwirn v. Gelvan, Fla.App. 1972, 268 So. 2d 539.
For the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, the final summary judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quantum Realty, Inc. v. Lauderhill Apt. Invs., Ltd., 391 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…al of the sellers’ partners. We disagree and reverse. A broker employed to find a buyer is entitled to a commission if he produces a ready, willing, and able purchaser. Knowles v. Henderson, 156 Fla. 31, 22 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1945); Wilder v. Burton, 317 So. 2d 776 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Mogul v. McClaskey Realty, Inc., 309 So. 2d 254 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). Regardless of whether the employment contract requires the finding of a purchaser or a sale, the broker is entitled to a commission if the seller is responsible f…
-
Schmalzried v. Emery M. Findley, Jr., 394 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…t, the parties merely engaged in lengthy negotiations which eventually broke down. The defendant seller was, accordingly, entitled to a final summary judgment in his favor. McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, 98 So. 2d 781 (Fla.1957); Wilder v. Burton, 317 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Zaydon v. Wilder, 305 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 330 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1976). I would affirm.…
-
Texaco Boca DEL MAR, Inc. v. Sentinel Dev. Corp., 402 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…such a buyer is not a ready, willing, and able one. When the seller opts to reject such an offer, he is relieved of the liability to pay a brokerage commission. See, Futura Realty, Inc. v. Kasser, 325 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976); Wilder v. Burton, 317 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975). Sentinel’s response to appellant’s listing offer constituted a counter-offer. Clearly, Sentinel did not accept the appellant’s initial offer in toto. Moreover, there were many other topics of sale that needed to be discussed an…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Orange City Hills, Inc. v. Fla. Realty Bureau, Inc., 119 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)
- Zwirn v. Gelvan, 268 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)