Koslovsky Realty, Inc. v. Losek

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Koslovsky Realty, Inc. v. Losek

729 So. 2d 417, 1999 WL 72326

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 1999

DocketNos. 98-3206, 98-2468

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 729 So. 2d 417 (Koslovsky Realty, Inc. v. Losek) 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

Koslovsky Realty, Inc. v. Losek, 729 So. 2d 417, 1999 WL 72326 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Koslovsky Realty, Inc. (“KRI”), appeals an adverse final judgment denying it a real estate commission from the seller of a condominium unit, and awarding attorney’s fees to the buyer. We reverse.

The only brokerage relationship involving KRI was with the sellers, appellees Alvin and Marilyn Losek (“Loseks”). There was no brokerage arrangement between KRI and appellee, Selma Milgrim (“Milgrim”), and thus no basis for the trial court’s finding that the Loseks were relieved of liability. Because KRI was the procuring cause of the sale, it was entitled to commission. See Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc. v. Rosinda Investments, N.V., 475 So.2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review dismissed, 502 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1987).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of KRI against Milgrim and Losek in all respects. Our decision does not preclude the parties from pursuing any claims for indemnification.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Koslovsky Realty, Inc. (“KRI”), appeals an adverse final judgment denying it a real estate commission from the seller of a condominium unit, and awarding attorney’s fees to the buyer. We reverse.

The only brokerage relationship involving KRI was with the sellers, appellees Alvin and Marilyn Losek (“Loseks”). There was no brokerage arrangement between KRI and appellee, Selma Milgrim (“Milgrim”), and thus no basis for the trial court’s finding that the Loseks were relieved of liability. Because KRI was the procuring cause of the sale, it was entitled to commission. See Sheldon Greene & Associates, Inc. v. Rosinda Investments, N.V., 475 So.2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review dismissed, 502 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1987).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of KRI against Milgrim and Losek in all respects. Our decision does not preclude the parties from pursuing any claims for indemnification.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 So. 2d 417, 1999 WL 72326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koslovsky-realty-inc-v-losek-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack