SCHNEIDER
v.
BINDER ET AL.
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 sued sellers and purchasers for tortious interference with a real estate commission after claiming he procured willing purchasers for a leasehold estate, but the sellers and purchasers allegedly conspired to exclude him from the transaction. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, finding it fatally defective in pleading requirements despite the potentially meritorious underlying doctrine.
The complaint was fatally defective and did not state a cause of action, regardless of whether the underlying doctrine of tortious interference could apply, because it failed to meet fundamental pleading requirements including: insufficient showing of breach of duty, indefinite listing and sales prices, inadequate showing of damages, and other deficiencies.
“It is true that we held in this case that interference with any contract amounts to tort but with qualifications that are not necessary to discuss at this time due to what we consider fatal defects in the complaint.”
The court acknowledges the validity of the tortious interference doctrine but declines to apply it due to pleading deficiencies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a real estate broker, listed a Miami leasehold property for sale. He claimed to have found and presented purchasers ready, able, and willin…
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
TERRELL, Justice.
Appellant, a real estate broker, brought this suit against appellees as defendants to recover a real estate commission. He bottoms his complaint on the theory that a leasehold estate in a certain Miami property was listed with him for sale by appel-lee, that appellant procured “purchasers ready, able and willing to purchase the interest of said defendant-lessees upon terms agreeable to them.” It is contended that the sellers conspired with the purchasers, consummated the sale in secret and eliminated appellant from having any part in the transaction, -thus depriving him of his commission. The Court dismissed the original and the amended complaint. The plaintiff appealed.
The only point for determination is whether or not the original or the amended complaint stated a cause of action.
The gist of appellant’s grievance is that the leasehold was listed with him for sale and that he found and presented a purchaser with whom the sellers and purchasers negotiated and consummated the sale in secret, thereby-perpetrating a tortuous fraud on appellant. He relies on Duval Laundry Co. Inc. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276, 177 So. 726. It is true that we held in this case that interference with any contract amounts to tort but with qualifications that are not necessary to discuss at this time due to what we consider fatal defects in the complaint.
Appellant devotes much of his brief to the charge that the seller and the purchaser made an agreement to exclude him (appellant) from the transaction, that such an agreement was fraudulent or tortuous and . that under the doctrine of Duval Laundry Co. Inc. v. Reif, last cited, both the seller and the purchaser are liable to him in tort. Both, were made parties defendant. He relies on Hornstein v. Podwitz, 254 N.Y. 443, 173 N.E. 674, 84 A.L.R. 1; Tatarsky v. Wavecrest Building Corp., Sup., 49 N.Y.S. 2d 335, and California Auto Court Ass’n v. Cohn, 98 Cal.App.2d 145, 219 P. 2d 511 and other cases to support this contention.
We have examined these cases and the doctrine on which they are based has much to commend them to a court of equity but we are confronted with a complaint that is devoid of some of the fundamental requisites of such a pleading. There is not sufficient showing of breach of duty on the part of defendants, the listing and sales price are' indefinite, the showing of damages is short of the requirement and there are other deficiencies not necessary to detail. Appellant has briefed his contention -very thoroughly but his complaint being fatally defective we express no opinion as to' whether or not we-would follow the rule applied in' the cases 'he relies on even though as applied in those cases it has merit.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.*
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C.J., 'and SEBRING and MATHEWS;' J J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Potakar v. Hurtak, 82 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1955)…misrepresentation could ever have constituted a fraud and hence a basis for rescission. The final decree should be reversed, with directions to the Chancellor to enter a final decree in defendant’s favor.” In the case of Schneider v. Binder, Fla., 72 So. 2d 909, an action had been brought by a broker against holders of leasehold interest and purchasers thereof for damages. The lower court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff appealed. The Supreme' Court, with Justice Terrell’ writing1…
-
The Mead Corp. v. Mason, 191 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…es have been established since the broker still has all that he could have —a claim for compensation against the seller. Although the Nicol case does assert that point of view, our courts have since receded from it. In Schneider v. Binder, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 909, a broker complained that a leasehold was listed with him for sale and that he found and presented a purchaser with whom the seller and purchaser negotiated and consummated the sale in secret, thereby perpetrating a tortious fraud on the broker. The…1 / 2
-
ORO Verde Groves, Inc. v. Fuchs, 136 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…e conduct of the parties in bringing them about, speak for themselves; and on the evidence before him the able trial judge committed no error in granting summary judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants. See Schneider v. Binder, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 909; Williams v. Dr. P. Phillips & Sons, 160 Fla. 110, 33 So. 2d 637; Nicol v. Bressler, 159 Fla. 668, 32 So. 2d 457; Dr. P. Phillips & Sons v. Kilgore, 152 Fla. 578, 12 So. 2d 465. See also Prosser, Torts (2d ed 1955) S. 46, pp. 234-35. Accordin…
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
- Duval Laundry Co., Inc. v. Reif, 130 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1937)