RICHARD W. HANKS, APPELLANT,
v.
L. E. HAMILTON, JR., ET AL., APPELLEES
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 registered real estate broker sought to enforce an agreement to pay a non-registered person $44,000 for services rendered from a real estate commission. The court held that such agreements violate Florida real estate licensing laws and public policy, and therefore cannot be enforced.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the appellant cannot enforce the agreement. Fee-splitting agreements between registered brokers and unregistered persons violate Florida Statutes § 475.41 and public policy, and therefore are unenforceable.
[1] Agreements for "fee-splitting" with unregistered individuals in the real estate profession are unlawful and against public policy.
[2] A party who is not a registered real estate salesman cannot enforce an agreement made with a registered salesman for services rendered out of a commission fund.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This is absolutely unlawful and the establishment of a 'fund' out of the commissions earned by a broker appears to be a device to split the fee and circumvent the law.”
Establishes that fee-splitting arrangements violate Florida law and public policy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHi-Acres Groves, Inc. owned approximately 134 acres of land in Seminole County. Hamilton Realty, a registered broker, produced a purchaser and was ent…
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 Enforceability Of Agreements cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS E. LEE, Associate Judge:
The appellant (plaintiff below) has appealed an adverse ruling in a nonjury trial concerning the commission of a registered real estate broker. Factually, Hi-Acres Groves, Inc., was the owner of approximately 134 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Interstate Highway 4 and State Road 436 in Seminole County. Desiring to sell said property it was placed on the market and appellee, Hamilton Realty, produced a purchaser (L. E. Hamilton, Jr.) with the broker to receive a commission of $134,310.30.
Appellant and appellees agreed in writing that contingent upon the consummation of the sale of said property resulting in the brokers receiving said commission that it would be delivered to a closing agent from which appellant would be paid $44,000.00 for “services rendered”. Other agreements were prepared authorizing James K. Byrd, a registered salesman, as cooperating salesman to receive one third of the commission. Said agreements resulted in “fee-splitting” with unregistered people in the real estate profession. This is absolutely unlawful and the establishment of a “fund” out of the commissions earned by a broker appears to be a device to split the fee and circumvent the law. This is the very thing that the law is trying to avoid, sec. 475.41, F.S., and is against public policy. Bradley v. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla.App.1972). The agreements are important as it raises the question we are to concern ourselves with: Whether or not the appellant, who is not a registered real estate salesman can enforce an agreement made with one who is so registered under Chapter 475.41, F.S., in return for “services rendered” out of a fund created by the said $134,310.30 commission? The appellant had heretofore been paid some $20,000.00 toward the $44,000.00 fee.
Both parties have cited Willner v. Wilder, 280 So. 2d 1 (Fla.App.1973). The cited case is distinguished from the case sub ju-dice in that the cited case deals, with a business opportunity whereas the case under consideration concerns the purchase and sale of real property.
The trial judge entered judgment for appellee and appellant seeks a reversal of that judgment.
We affirm. The trial judge sitting as the trier of the facts has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence and these findings are clothed with a presumption of correctness. Benedict v. Dade County Realty, Inc., 274 So. 2d 553 (Fla.App. 3rd 1973).
AFFIRMED.
WALDEN, C. J., and ALDERMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 704 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…is the equivalent of a jury verdict. See Lonergan v. Estate of Budahazi, 669 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (the findings of the trial court are to be presumed to be correct and are to be given the same weight as a jury verdict); Hanks v. Hamilton, 339 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (the trial judge sitting as the trier of the facts has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufScieney of the evidence, and these findings are clothed with a presumption of correctness), cert. denied, 352…
-
Hannan v. City Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n & Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Palm Beach, 500 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…evelopment Co. v. Porpoise Bay Co., 487 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Paris v. Hilton, 352 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2050, 60 L.Ed.2d 659 (1979); Hanks v. Hamilton, 339 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 352 So. 2d 171 (Fla.1977); Bradley v. Bank, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Harris v. McKay, 176 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Notwithstanding the undisputed public policy properly applied in the above cases, e…
Authorities Cited
- Bradley v. Clyde M. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Benedict v. Dade Cnty. Realty, Inc., 274 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Willner v. Wilder, 280 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)