CARLILE
v.
SPOFFORD
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.
Two real estate brokers disputed the division of commissions from a property transaction. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that there was no agreement requiring division of the commission from a building sale, despite ethical arguments for fair dealing among brokers.
There was no agreement, express or implied, between the brokers requiring division of the building sale commission. The Circuit Court's judgment was therefore affirmed.
“It is a common and ethical practice among real estate brokers to split commissions arising out of sales of real estate sales where both brokers contribute to the consummation of the transaction.”
Establishes the acknowledged ethical norm in the brokerage industry, even though the court found no binding agreement in this case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo registered real estate brokers had an agreement to split commissions from the sale of two parcels of land. The land sales were conditioned on the …
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 Implied Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
BUFORD, Justice.
This case arises out of a dispute between two registered real estate brokers concerning división of commissions growing out the transaction. It is a common and ethical practice among real estate brokers to split commissions arising out of sales of real estate sales where both brokers contribute to the consummation of the transaction. Some brokers in settling with cooperating brokers base such settlement on the Golden Rule of “doing as you would be done by.” Others base such settlements on the strict legal rights of the parties.
Here the agreement between the brokers was that they would split commissions derived from the sale of two parcels of land. The two parcels of land were sold subsequent to an agreement of the buyer to buy if he could build and sell a building to be constructed on one of the parcels of land. A deal was consummated Iby one of the brokers for the sale of such building and that broker received a commission on the sale of the building. The other broker claimed 50 per cent of this commission. It is probable that the ethics of the brokerage business and a disposition toward fair dealing would suggest that such claim should be respected.
However, the learned Circuit Judge was required to determine this case on the evidence and the law under the pleadings and to reverse his judgment we would have to find that there was either a direct or implied agreement between the parties for a division of the commission resulting from a sale of the building. The record fails to disclose such agreement.
Decree affirmed.
So ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., DREW, J., and SPO-TO, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J. A. Cantor & Assocs., Inc. v. Devore, 281 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant. We affirm. It has long been established in the law of this State that brokers may divide commissions. Giles v. Wilmott, 59 Fla. 271, 52 So. 287; Carlile v. Spofford, Fla.1954, 69 So. 2d 318; Alter v. Adams, Fla.App.1966, 185 So. 2d 490; 5 Fla.Jur., Brokers, § 39. It has also been established that such an agreement may be an oral one. Bush v. Mattingly, 62 Ariz. 483, 158 P. 2d 665; Thompson v. Carey’s Real Estate, 335 Mich. 474, 56 N.W.…