Liebowitz v. Wright Properties, Inc., 81-1010
| Decision Date | 02 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1010,81-1010 |
| Parties | 35 UCC Rep.Serv. 862 Jack S. LIEBOWITZ, Appellant, v. WRIGHT PROPERTIES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Irvin S. Rever of Blank, Williams & Benn, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
H.L. Cooper, Jr., of O'Connell, Cooper, Parrish & McBane, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a final judgment for $10,000 rendered in favor of appellee, Wright Properties, Inc., a real estate brokerage company. The trial court held that appellant Jack Liebowitz had defaulted on a contract for the purchase of real estate in which Wright was the broker and Liebowitz the purchaser, and that Liebowitz had also wrongfully stopped payment on a $20,000 check given to Wright as a deposit on the purchase.
Wright filed a complaint, alleging alternatively that it was entitled to $10,000 either as a commission due under the purchase and sale contract breached by Liebowitz or as damages for Liebowitz's action in stopping payment on the deposit check. Liebowitz admitted execution of the contract and the dishonored check, but denied liability on the grounds that he did not employ Wright as a broker and that Wright was not the real party in interest entitled to the proceeds of the dishonored check or damages for breach of the sales agreement. Liebowitz also claimed that he was fraudulently induced into entering into the agreement.
Initially, we uphold the trial court's finding that Liebowitz failed to prove the defense of fraud. This court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Delgado v. Strong, 360 So.2d 73 (Fla.1978). Upon review of the record we find substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's holding on this issue.
We also decline to treat the issue raised by Liebowitz of whether a broker may recover against a defaulting purchaser in the absence of an express agreement by the purchaser to pay the broker's commission. We do so because we conclude that Wright was entitled to recover on other grounds.
Liebowitz acknowledges, at page 7 of his initial brief, "Appellee's claim would be valid if there were a deposit." He relies for his defense on the fact that he stopped payment on the check and, therefore, he asserts, no fund was created from which Wright could collect. That may be so but it does not necessarily leave appellee without a remedy.
As the designated escrow agent, Wright was a "holder" as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code, section 671.201(20), Florida Statutes (1981), which states:
"Holder" means a person who is in possession of a document of title or an instrument or an investment security drawn, issued or indorsed to him or to his order or to bearer or in blank.
Wright's right to recourse against Liebowitz is therefore supported by the provisions of section 673.507(2) which provides:
Subject to any necessary notice of dishonor and protest, the holder has upon dishonor an immediate right of recourse against the drawers and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardinier, Inc., In re
...in making the sale of the property. There was no consideration flowing between the broker and the buyer. See Liebowitz v. Wright Properties, 427 So.2d 783, 785 (Dist.Ct.App.) (broker's services not consideration to buyer if contract expressly provides that seller will pay broker), review de......
- Spa Creek Servs., LLC v. S.W. Cole, Inc.
-
Great Western Bank and Trust Co. v. Pima Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...consideration must flow from an escrow agent to a payor in order to achieve holder-in-due-course status. Liebowitz v. Wright Properties, Inc., 427 So.2d 783 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983). Transamerica, however, did provide consideration for this transaction. Transamerica transferred title of the p......
- H&J Contracting, Inc. v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc.