Macaluso v. Lipinski

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Macaluso v. Lipinski

235 So. 2d 525, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6423

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1970

DocketNo. 69-458

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 So. 2d 525 (Macaluso v. Lipinski) 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

Macaluso v. Lipinski, 235 So. 2d 525, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6423 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Macaluso brought this action in the lower court to recover a broker’s commission for procuring a purchaser for property owned by appellees, based on a non-exclusive oral listing to sell the property. The lower court entered a summary judgment for appellees, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact. We affirm.

The record shows that the sale was consummated in January, 1968, on terms and price entirely different from those of the original listing as well as those of the counteroffer of the ultimate purchaser submitted by Macaluso and rejected by appellees in June, 1967. Macaluso failed to show, after the management of the property had been taken from him and placed with another broker, that appellees participated in his negotiations to sell the property or had any knowledge of the fact that such negotiations were going on. Shuler v. Allen, Fla.1955, 76 So.2d 879; Burbridge [526]*526v. Berk, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 785; accord Walter S. Hardin Realty Co. v. Barolo, Fla.App.1966, 198 So.2d 334.

Affirmed,

PIERCE, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Macaluso brought this action in the lower court to recover a broker’s commission for procuring a purchaser for property owned by appellees, based on a non-exclusive oral listing to sell the property. The lower court entered a summary judgment for appellees, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact. We affirm.

The record shows that the sale was consummated in January, 1968, on terms and price entirely different from those of the original listing as well as those of the counteroffer of the ultimate purchaser submitted by Macaluso and rejected by appellees in June, 1967. Macaluso failed to show, after the management of the property had been taken from him and placed with another broker, that appellees participated in his negotiations to sell the property or had any knowledge of the fact that such negotiations were going on. Shuler v. Allen, Fla.1955, 76 So.2d 879; Burbridge [526]*526v. Berk, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 785; accord Walter S. Hardin Realty Co. v. Barolo, Fla.App.1966, 198 So.2d 334.

Affirmed,

PIERCE, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 So. 2d 525, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macaluso-v-lipinski-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack