Cohn Realty Associates v. Skylake State Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cohn Realty Associates v. Skylake State Bank

557 So. 2d 72, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 144, 1990 WL 2088

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1568

StatusPublished

This text of 557 So. 2d 72 (Cohn Realty Associates v. Skylake State Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohn Realty Associates v. Skylake State Bank, 557 So. 2d 72, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 144, 1990 WL 2088 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a dismissal and a summary judgment in favor of Skylake State Bank on charges of tortious interference with a mortgage brokerage contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

Cohn Realty and Jon Rice, co-brokers, contracted with Kovens & Kovens to find a $6.5 million mortgage loan for the Ko-vens’s property known as the 127th Street Shopping Center. Rice originally presented a loan package to Skylake State Bank but because of its lending limits, Skylake sought a participant and sent the loan particulars to other institutions including Barnett Bank. Ultimately, Barnett, with the approval of Kovens & Kovens, funded the entire mortgage loan transaction without an agreement with, or participation from, Skylake.

Cohn and Rice claim that they were wrongfully shut out of the loan transaction, were never fairly compensated for their services, and that Skylake had undertaken a course of action to benefit Kovens, Barnett, and Skylake to the detriment of the brokers. Cohn and Rice filed an amended action for tortious interference— including punitive damages — and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court dismissed, with prejudice, the count for breach of a fiduciary duty, and struck the punitive damages claim. Following discovery, a summary judgment on the tortious interference charge was also granted in Sky-lake’s favor.

On a thorough examination of the record, we agree with the trial court that the bro[73]*73kers failed to plead factually or to present evidence supporting their conclusory allegations of tortious interference with a business relationship, breach of contract, or breach of a fiduciary relationship on the part of Skylake State Bank.¹ Pizzi v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 250 So.2d 895 (Fla.1971); Messana v. Maule Indus., 50 So.2d 874 (Fla.1951).

The summary judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a dismissal and a summary judgment in favor of Skylake State Bank on charges of tortious interference with a mortgage brokerage contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

Cohn Realty and Jon Rice, co-brokers, contracted with Kovens & Kovens to find a $6.5 million mortgage loan for the Ko-vens’s property known as the 127th Street Shopping Center. Rice originally presented a loan package to Skylake State Bank but because of its lending limits, Skylake sought a participant and sent the loan particulars to other institutions including Barnett Bank. Ultimately, Barnett, with the approval of Kovens & Kovens, funded the entire mortgage loan transaction without an agreement with, or participation from, Skylake.

Cohn and Rice claim that they were wrongfully shut out of the loan transaction, were never fairly compensated for their services, and that Skylake had undertaken a course of action to benefit Kovens, Barnett, and Skylake to the detriment of the brokers. Cohn and Rice filed an amended action for tortious interference— including punitive damages — and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court dismissed, with prejudice, the count for breach of a fiduciary duty, and struck the punitive damages claim. Following discovery, a summary judgment on the tortious interference charge was also granted in Sky-lake’s favor.

On a thorough examination of the record, we agree with the trial court that the bro[73]*73kers failed to plead factually or to present evidence supporting their conclusory allegations of tortious interference with a business relationship, breach of contract, or breach of a fiduciary relationship on the part of Skylake State Bank.¹ Pizzi v. Central Bank & Trust Co., 250 So.2d 895 (Fla.1971); Messana v. Maule Indus., 50 So.2d 874 (Fla.1951).

The summary judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 72, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 144, 1990 WL 2088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohn-realty-associates-v-skylake-state-bank-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack