JOHN P. PARIS, APPELLANT,
v.
L. CHARLES HILTON, 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.
Paris, a Georgia-licensed real estate broker, performed substantial brokerage services in Florida that resulted in a land sale contract, but was not registered as a Florida broker. The trial court granted summary judgment rescinding the promissory notes given as his commission, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida's Real Estate Licensing Act voids commissions to unregistered brokers as a matter of public policy.
The promissory notes are entirely void as a matter of public policy under Florida's Real Estate Licensing Act. Recovery cannot be had either under the contract or under the theory of quantum meruit for brokerage services rendered by an unregistered broker.
[1] A contract to pay the commission of a real estate broker who is not registered in Florida at the time services are rendered is void as a matter of public policy.
[2] Recovery may not be had for real estate brokerage services rendered in Florida by an unlicensed broker, either under the contract or under the theory of quantum meruit.
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“contracts to pay the commissions of real estate brokers or salesmen, who are not registered as such in the State, of Florida at the time such services are rendered, are entirely void as a matter of public policy, and the courts have ruled that recovery may not be had either under the contract or under the theory of quantum meruit”
Establishes the core holding that Florida law voids all compensation agreements with unregistered brokers regardless of equitable considerations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParis, a Georgia real estate broker, learned in mid-1973 of Gulf County, Florida acreage for sale. He conducted extensive activities including telepho…
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 Quantum Meruit Recovery cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.
By this interlocutory appeal, Paris seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment granting the rescission and cancellation of two promissory notes held by Paris. The trial court’s basis for granting the summary judgment was its finding that the notes were given as consideration for Paris’s services as a real estate broker within the State of Florida at a time that he was not registered as a Florida real estate broker pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.
Paris and appellee Cooper are both residents of the State of Georgia. In mid-1973, Paris, a licensed real estate broker in Georgia, learned that certain Gulf County, Florida, acreage was on the market. Paris followed an energetic course of action that ultimately led to the formation of a binding contract for salé of the land between appel-lees Hilton & Associates and Cooper. Paris’s activities in conjunction with the sale of this property included numerous telephone calls from Atlanta to Panama City, Florida, for the purpose of discussing the real estate and the terms of its sale with one of the owners; a one day visit to the property which included three hours of “walking” the land and photographing it; preparing Dr. Cooper’s written offer to purchase, as well as working with Cooper’s attorneys on the sales contract; returning to Panama City for further discussions and negotiations concerning the contract; and attending the closing of the sale in Panama City during February of 1974.
Paris received his $315,070 commission in the form of a $215,070 note secured by the real property and a check for $100,000 from Cooper. By prior arrangement, Paris returned the $100,000 to Cooper and, in turn, was given a check for $25,000 and a demand note for $75,000. Cooper subsequently refused to honor the notes and sought their rescission and cancellation.
The services performed by Paris clearly fall within the provisions of Section 475.01(2), Florida Statutes, as being duties to be performed by real estate brokers or salesmen. It is undisputed that Paris was not licensed either as a broker or as a salesman in the State of Florida. While it is true that the purpose of the Real Estate Licensing Act is to protect the public from being forced to deal with dishonest or unscrupulous real estate operators, rather than to permit one party to gain unconscionable advantage by avoiding a just obligation which he has contracted to pay,1 the statute also protects the public in general from untrained and unsupervised real estate operators. To this end, the legislature of this state has decreed that contracts to pay the commissions of real estate brokers or salesmen, who are not registered as such in the State, of Florida at the time such services are rendered, are entirely void as a matter of public policy, and the courts have ruled that recovery may not be had either under the contract or under the theory of quantum meruit.2
The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur. . Geneva Inv. Ltd. v. Trafalgar Developers Ltd, 274 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973), cert. disch. 285 So. 2d 593 (Fla.1973), appeal after remand 305 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). Paris argues strongly that because he is licensed to practice in Georgia, the citizens of Florida are not exposed to the dangers that the.statute seeks to restrict. Paris argues, just as strongly, that it is inequitable and unconscionable to allow Cooper to avoid his contractual obligation to pay him his commission for services rendered.
. Bradley v. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1972); Wegmann v. Mannino, 253 F. 2d 627 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 358 U.S. 824, 79 S.Ct. 37, 3 L.Ed.2d 63 (1958).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krieger v. Ocean Props., Ltd., 387 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…cated in Florida. Plaintiffs claim to have rendered multiple services and to have been the procuring cause in the purchase of these Holiday Inns. In granting judgment on the pleadings, the trial court expressly relied on two cases: 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) and Meadows of Beautiful Bronson, Inc., v. E.G.L. Investment Corp., 353 So. 2d 199 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 360 So…
-
Cooper v. Paris, 413 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…decided in favor of Cooper, the trial court finding that Paris had acted in the capacity of an unlicensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, thereby fatally tainting the promissory notes. This finding was upheld on appeal. Paris v. Hilton, 352 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In subsequent proceedings on the secondary issue of whether Cooper was entitled to restitution for payments already made to Paris, the trial court granted final summary judgment in Paris’s favor. Both parties agree, and decisio…
-
Lou Tassy & Holiday Realty, Ltd. v. Hall, 429 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…e, e.g., Geneva Investments, Ltd. v. Trafalgar Developers, Ltd., 274 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. discharged, 285 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1973); Pokress v. Tisch Florida Properties, Inc., 153 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). . See, e.g., 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). Cf. Bradley v. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972) (where appellant was not registered at time he performed brokerag…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wegmann v. Mannino, 358 U.S. 824 (U.S. 1958)
- Sadacca v. Nylonet Corp., 358 U.S. 824 (U.S. 1958)
- Bradley v. Clyde M. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Geneva Inv. v. Trafalgar Developers, Ltd., 274 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Trafalgar Developers, Ltd. v. Geneva Inv. Ltd., 285 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1973)
- Trafalgar Developers, Ltd. v. Morley, 305 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Wegmann v. Mannino, 253 F.2d 627 (5th Cir. 1958)