Murray v. Chillemi

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Murray v. Chillemi

396 So. 2d 1222, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19302

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 1981

DocketNo. 79-697

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 396 So. 2d 1222 (Murray v. Chillemi) 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

Murray v. Chillemi, 396 So. 2d 1222, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19302 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal a $2,695 final judgment entered after a nonjury trial. The judgment was in favor of plaintiff, a real estate broker. We affirm.

The parties entered into a contract for the sale of real estate. Within this contract was a provision that seller would pay broker a seven per cent commission based upon the listed sale price if seller revoked the agreement before it expired. The trial court, based upon adequate evidence, found as a matter of fact that the seller did revoke the agreement prior to its expiration. The court entered judgment for a commission based on the listed sale price.

[1223]*1223On appeal the sellers argue the contractual provision was unenforceable because it was excessive and constitutes a penalty. Unfortunately, appellants did not raise this point before the trial court and we, therefore, cannot consider the issue. Nicholas v. First Interstate Development Corporation, 315 So.2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Since appellants failed to preserve the point, we have no alternative other than to affirm. We conclude that all other issues raised are also without merit and the final judgment is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

MOORE, BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal a $2,695 final judgment entered after a nonjury trial. The judgment was in favor of plaintiff, a real estate broker. We affirm.

The parties entered into a contract for the sale of real estate. Within this contract was a provision that seller would pay broker a seven per cent commission based upon the listed sale price if seller revoked the agreement before it expired. The trial court, based upon adequate evidence, found as a matter of fact that the seller did revoke the agreement prior to its expiration. The court entered judgment for a commission based on the listed sale price.

[1223]*1223On appeal the sellers argue the contractual provision was unenforceable because it was excessive and constitutes a penalty. Unfortunately, appellants did not raise this point before the trial court and we, therefore, cannot consider the issue. Nicholas v. First Interstate Development Corporation, 315 So.2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Since appellants failed to preserve the point, we have no alternative other than to affirm. We conclude that all other issues raised are also without merit and the final judgment is therefore affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

MOORE, BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

396 So. 2d 1222, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-chillemi-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack