Kowalski v. Wilder

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kowalski v. Wilder

233 So. 2d 159, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6628

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1970

DocketNo. 69-728

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 So. 2d 159 (Kowalski v. Wilder) 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

Kowalski v. Wilder, 233 So. 2d 159, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6628 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were defendants below in an action brought by the appellee to recover a real estate brokerage commission allegedly owed to the appellee as a result of the appellants’ sale of certain property. A jury trial was had upon the issues framed by the pleadings, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the appellee. Final judgment was entered thereon, and the appellants filed their motion for new trial and motion for judgment n. o. v. Both motions were denied, and the appellant now contends that the court erred in failing to grant them a new trial.

The motion'for new trial is directed to the court’s discretion, and in this case, the record shows that ample and substantial evidence had been submitted to the jury to sustain their finding that the appel-lee was indeed entitled to the brokerage commission he claimed. The defense which had been offered by the appellants at trial was that the listing agreement between sellers-appellants and broker-appellee was incomplete, and that the buyer produced by the broker was not ready, willing and able to buy on terms acceptable to the appellant. Both these defenses presented factual issues for the jury’s resolution, and we see no justification to disturb the jury’s finding.

Therefore, it is our holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied the appellants’ motion for new trial.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were defendants below in an action brought by the appellee to recover a real estate brokerage commission allegedly owed to the appellee as a result of the appellants’ sale of certain property. A jury trial was had upon the issues framed by the pleadings, and a verdict was rendered in favor of the appellee. Final judgment was entered thereon, and the appellants filed their motion for new trial and motion for judgment n. o. v. Both motions were denied, and the appellant now contends that the court erred in failing to grant them a new trial.

The motion'for new trial is directed to the court’s discretion, and in this case, the record shows that ample and substantial evidence had been submitted to the jury to sustain their finding that the appel-lee was indeed entitled to the brokerage commission he claimed. The defense which had been offered by the appellants at trial was that the listing agreement between sellers-appellants and broker-appellee was incomplete, and that the buyer produced by the broker was not ready, willing and able to buy on terms acceptable to the appellant. Both these defenses presented factual issues for the jury’s resolution, and we see no justification to disturb the jury’s finding.

Therefore, it is our holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied the appellants’ motion for new trial.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 So. 2d 159, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kowalski-v-wilder-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack