Raich v. Martha A. Gottfried, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Raich v. Martha A. Gottfried, Inc.

523 So. 2d 1254, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1021, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1627, 1988 WL 36884

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1527

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 523 So. 2d 1254 (Raich v. Martha A. Gottfried, Inc.) 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

Raich v. Martha A. Gottfried, Inc., 523 So. 2d 1254, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1021, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1627, 1988 WL 36884 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, and find no error by the trial court in concluding, based upon the evidence presented at trial, that the appellee real estate broker was entitled to the amount of the commission provided for in the exclusive listing agreement as damages, when the appellants, owners of the property, agreed to sell the property to a third party during the term of the listing agreement. Cf. Whitehurst v. Erstling, 184 So.2d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The trial court found that the appellants intentionally failed to refer the ultimate purchasers to the appellee broker as required by the terms of the listing agreement hence depriving the appellee of the commission provided in the agreement.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, and find no error by the trial court in concluding, based upon the evidence presented at trial, that the appellee real estate broker was entitled to the amount of the commission provided for in the exclusive listing agreement as damages, when the appellants, owners of the property, agreed to sell the property to a third party during the term of the listing agreement. Cf. Whitehurst v. Erstling, 184 So.2d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). The trial court found that the appellants intentionally failed to refer the ultimate purchasers to the appellee broker as required by the terms of the listing agreement hence depriving the appellee of the commission provided in the agreement.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 So. 2d 1254, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1021, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1627, 1988 WL 36884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raich-v-martha-a-gottfried-inc-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack