Pointe Savings Bank v. Garshall

610 So. 2d 705, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13512
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 23, 1992·No. Nos. 91-2205, 92-0136 and 92-0137·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court found as a fact that under the terms of their commission agreement, the appellee-mortgage broker was only entitled to a commission from appellant if the loan applications that she originated were actually closed. Nevertheless, the trial court ordered the bank to pay commissions on loan applications which did not close. This was error, notwithstanding that only the bank was responsible for the decisions to reject those applications prior to closing on them. E.g. Harding Realty Inc. v. Turnberry Towers Corp., 436 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Warter v. Bancroft Hotel Assocs., 285 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Hanover Realty Corp. v. Codomo, 95 So.2d 420 (Fla.1957). Therefore, the final judgment and order regarding attorney’s fees and costs are reversed.

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., and MOE, LEROY H., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Pointe Savings Bank v. Garshall, 610 So. 2d 705, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13512 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

610 So. 2d 705 (Pointe Savings Bank v. Garshall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Scott v. Simpson
774 So. 2d 881 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Strickland v. State
610 So. 2d 705 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)