Pointe Savings Bank v. Garshall

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pointe Savings Bank v. Garshall

610 So. 2d 705, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13512

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1992

DocketNos. 91-2205, 92-0136 and 92-0137

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 610 So. 2d 705 (Pointe Savings Bank v. Garshall) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

610 So. 2d 705, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pointe-savings-bank-v-garshall-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack