Legal Opinion

Schmalzried v. Findley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 13, 1981No. 80-601PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The summary judgment entered below is reversed because the record reflects a genuine, triable issue as to whether the plaintiff-brokers earned their commission by producing a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase on terms acceptable to the defendant-seller, and upon which he actually and specifically agreed. Hopkins v. Gibson Furniture, Inc., 312 So.2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Jerry Norris, Inc. v. Ackel, 311 So.2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Cammack v. Leonhardt, 302 So.2d 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); see generally, Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966).

Reversed.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Holl v. TalcottSupreme Court of Florida · 1966
  2. Cammack v. LeonhardtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
  3. Hopkins v. Gibson Furniture, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975
  4. Jerry Norris, Inc. v. AckelDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1975

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. MID-FLORIDA REALTY ASSOCIATES v. TruesdellDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  2. Era Newman-Greenstein Real Estate Co. v. KapelowDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988