Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc. v. Schaecter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc. v. Schaecter

708 So. 2d 601, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1135, 1998 WL 51499

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1292

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 601 (Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc. v. Schaecter) 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

Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, Inc. v. Schaecter, 708 So. 2d 601, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1135, 1998 WL 51499 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, a licensed real estate brokerage, appeals the final judgment which found that Cygne Design, Inc., the buyer/lessee, was an unknown party in the relationship between Cushman & Wakefield and the Schaecters, the seller/lessor. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Cushman & Wakefield was the party that introduced Cygne Design to the Schaecters, and was a broker involved in the negotiations between these parties. It is entitled to its commission because it was the procuring cause. See Estes v. Moylan, 94 So.2d 362, 365 (Fla.1957)(en banc); see also Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc. v. Rosinda Investments, N.V., 475 So.2d 925, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that liability for the brokers’ commission may be based on the simple fact that the seller and buyer were brought together by the broker).

Furthermore, because Cushman & Wake-field was the procuring cause of the introduction of these parties to the negotiations and subsequent deal, it is irrelevant that the Schaecters claim lack of knowledge as to the identity of Cygne representatives during these negotiations in which Cushman & Wakefield was the intermediary. See ERA Carico Real Estate Co., Inc. v. Manfredonia, 689 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 700 So.2d 686 (Fla.1997); see also Oro Verde Groves, Inc. v. Fuchs, 136 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Cushman & Wakefield of Florida, a licensed real estate brokerage, appeals the final judgment which found that Cygne Design, Inc., the buyer/lessee, was an unknown party in the relationship between Cushman & Wakefield and the Schaecters, the seller/lessor. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Cushman & Wakefield was the party that introduced Cygne Design to the Schaecters, and was a broker involved in the negotiations between these parties. It is entitled to its commission because it was the procuring cause. See Estes v. Moylan, 94 So.2d 362, 365 (Fla.1957)(en banc); see also Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc. v. Rosinda Investments, N.V., 475 So.2d 925, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that liability for the brokers’ commission may be based on the simple fact that the seller and buyer were brought together by the broker).

Furthermore, because Cushman & Wake-field was the procuring cause of the introduction of these parties to the negotiations and subsequent deal, it is irrelevant that the Schaecters claim lack of knowledge as to the identity of Cygne representatives during these negotiations in which Cushman & Wakefield was the intermediary. See ERA Carico Real Estate Co., Inc. v. Manfredonia, 689 So.2d 1208, 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 700 So.2d 686 (Fla.1997); see also Oro Verde Groves, Inc. v. Fuchs, 136 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 601, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1135, 1998 WL 51499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cushman-wakefield-of-florida-inc-v-schaecter-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack