Strong v. Chisolm

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Strong v. Chisolm

422 So. 2d 974, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 29319

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2403

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 422 So. 2d 974 (Strong v. Chisolm) 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

Strong v. Chisolm, 422 So. 2d 974, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 29319 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an. appeal from a judgment granting appellants’ specific performance of a land sales contract and a broker’s commission upon specified conditions. Upon review of the record we find that there is substantial competent evidence to support the judgment of the trial court as to the conditions of the decree. Under such circumstances we are bound to uphold the court’s resolution of the factual issues resolved by the judgment. Mori v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 380 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Coble v. Agnew, 128 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). We also conclude that the trial court acted properly in resolving those issues relating to the authority of the broker and the broker’s entitlement to a commission. See e.g. Whitson v. Owens, 94 Fla. 1201, 115 So. 512 (1927); Black v. Clifton, 284 So.2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); and Delucca v. Flamingo Corp., 121 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an. appeal from a judgment granting appellants’ specific performance of a land sales contract and a broker’s commission upon specified conditions. Upon review of the record we find that there is substantial competent evidence to support the judgment of the trial court as to the conditions of the decree. Under such circumstances we are bound to uphold the court’s resolution of the factual issues resolved by the judgment. Mori v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America, 380 So.2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Coble v. Agnew, 128 So.2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). We also conclude that the trial court acted properly in resolving those issues relating to the authority of the broker and the broker’s entitlement to a commission. See e.g. Whitson v. Owens, 94 Fla. 1201, 115 So. 512 (1927); Black v. Clifton, 284 So.2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); and Delucca v. Flamingo Corp., 121 So.2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 974, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 29319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strong-v-chisolm-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack