W. GERRY MILLER
v.
E. L. KOKANOUR, 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.
An attorney sought to use interpleader to force two competing realtors to litigate over a commission he held, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal because the evidence overwhelmingly established that the attorney actually knew which realtor earned the commission, defeating a fundamental requirement of interpleader.
The interpleader action must be dismissed because the attorney failed to satisfy the fundamental requirement of interpleader: genuine uncertainty about which party was entitled to the funds. The evidence established that the attorney knew or should have known which realtor earned the commission.
“Plaintiff avers that he has no interest whatever in, the .... commission . . . and does not know and cannot ascertain which of the said defendants is entitled to it”
The central allegation in the interpleader complaint that the court found was not supported by evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, an attorney, held a commission from the sale of property. He sued two realtors in interpleader, claiming he did not know and could not …
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 Exclusive Listing Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, an attorney, instituted a suit in interpleader against two realtors seeking to have them litigate' between themselves their claims to money held by him representing the commission earned in procuring a purchaser for the property of his client.
We have recently, in the case of Paul v. Davis, et al., not yet reported, discussed the fundamental principles of this remedy and shall not undertake to repeat them here, particur larly as we find from our examination of the record that this controversy may be determined by the application of but one of them. The salient point was developed by the testimony relevant to an issue formed on one allegation of the bill: “Plaintiff avers that he has no interest whatever in,the . .... commission . . . and does not know and .cannot ascertain which of the said defendants is entitled to it . . . • (Italics supplied.)
The master found that the plaintiff had “wholly failed to sustain” the allegation we have quoted, and the exceptions to his report were overruled by the chancellor, who ordered the case dismissed.
The evidence abundantly refutes the assertion of the plaintiff that he did not know and could not determine whom he owed. We use the title “plaintiff” and “owner” synonymously because clearly the real party in. interest is the client for whom the attorney brought the suit as a nominal plaintiff. The purchaser of the property was positive in the statement that an associate, or representative, of only one of the defendants exhibited the property to her and induced her to buy it; that the. other defendant had no part in the transaction and was not known by her to have had any authority from the owner to solicit purchasers. The latter had had an “exclusive listing” of the lots, but this expired before the sale was effected by the former; so he could not have had even a vicarious interest in the compensation.
*545One .of the owners became a witness in the case. Accord-' ing to her testimony, the realtor, whose listing had expired did not know what broker had negotiated the sale -or what person had purchased the property until she told him. The owners well knew of the expiration of the listing, because' parties to it, and the obligation to the broker who eventually made the sale. Not only had he been engaged for the purpose, but the other broker in his ignorance of the action obviously could have had no part in it.
The master found, we think quite properly, that in these circumstances and by the .process of elimination lack of intelligence of an obligation to one of the defendants could not be successfully urged. In such a situation plaintiff could not by interpleader burden them with litigating the point between themselves, for in all events he was supposed to know whether he owed one of them. Fogg v. Goode, 78 Fla. 138, 82 So. 614. By the testimony in this case that feature was translated from a supposition to a practical certainty.
The decree of the chancellor is"
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN’ and SEÉRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
JOE Hatton, Inc. v. Doyle Conner, 247 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…se of action, i. e., in-terpleader. Said defendant relies on the case of Paul v. Harold Davis, Inc., Fla., 20 So. 2d 795, and other general statements of the law applicable to inter-pleader. Cases such as Paul v. Davis, and Miller v. Kokanour, Fla., 20 So. 2d 797, and general statements of the conditions precedent to interpleader make it difficult at first blush to determine whether this is a proper suit for inter-pleader. However, with the adoption of the rule in 1962, interpleader was liberalized and some…
-
PAN Am. Sur. Co. v. Cooke, 130 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…n by Pan American Surety Company. Upon the trial court’s finding that inter-pleader was not proper under the facts set forth in the complaint, we are in entire accord. See Paul v. Harold Davis, Inc., 155 Fla. 538, 20 So. 2d 795; Miller v. Kokanour, 155 Fla. 543, 20 So. 2d 797. Having determined that interpleader did not lie, the court had no authority to then ad [*291] judicate the rights of the parties. Drummond Title Company v. Weinroth, Fla.1955, 77 So. 2d 606. Therefore the final decree appealed is aff…
Authorities Cited
- Fogg v. Goode, 78 Fla. 138 (Fla. 1919)