Plumbing Industry Program, Inc. v. Good, 59-547

• Decision Date: 26 May 1960
• Docket Number: No. 59-547,59-547
• Citation: 79 A.L.R.2d 1060,120 So.2d 639
• Parties: PLUMBING INDUSTRY PROGRAM, INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, Appellant, v. M. N. GOOD, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 639

120 So.2d 639

79 A.L.R.2d 1060

PLUMBING INDUSTRY PROGRAM, INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, Appellant, v. M. N. GOOD, Appellee.

No. 59-547.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 26, 1960.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1960.

Leo M. Alpert, Miami, for appellant.

Nestor Morales, Miami, for appellee.

PEARSON, Judge.

This is a suit for a real estate commission. The appeal is by the defendant, lessor, from a final judgment entered at the conclusion of a trial without a jury. The controlling question is whether the judge correctly construed a memorandum providing for a commission under certain circumstances, and we reverse.

On January 17, 1955, the plaintiff, broker, brought together John Hancock, Mutual Life Company, as tenants, and Plumbing Industry Program, as landlord. Prior to entering into a three-year lease, the landlord signed the following memorandum:

'I, or we, the Lessor herein agrees to pay M. N. Good, Realtor, for negotiating the lease herein, brokerage commission in accordance with the schedule of rates of the Miami Board of Realtors, upon signing of lease, Should lessee, successors or assigns, exercise its option to renew or extend said lease on the same and/or additional space, and Lessor, successors or assigns, agree to pay M. N. Good, Realtor, and additional commission in accordance with the schedule of rates of the Miami Board of Realtors upon Lessee, successors or assigns, exercising said option to renew or extend said lease.'

The option provision in the lease reads as follows:

'17. On or before the 30th day of November, 1957, the Lessee may elect to renew this lease for two (2) year(s) from the date of its expiration, upon the same terms, covenants and conditions, and at an annual rental of Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Dollars ($3,720).'

On December 15, 1957 when the original three-year lease had been in effect two years and nine and one-half months the tenant and the landlord entered into a new lease for five years. This new lease provided for the cancellation of the unexpired term under the original lease. Although the new lease included the space covered by the original lease, it also included an additional area which approximates the area of two ordinary rooms. The new lease required the landlord at his own expense to make certain alterations upon the premises. In addition the landlord was required to provide parking accommodations. After the execution of the new lease the broker made demand for the payment of a commission.

The broker as plaintiff filed his complaint at law in which he alleged his qualification as a broker, his employment and the negotiation of the original lease. He then set forth the memorandum above quoted and claimed as follows:

'The Plaintiff further alleges that the said John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. exercised its option to renew the lease, or in the alternative, it entered into a new lease with the Defendant; that in either event, the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the extended lease, or new lease, and became entitled to a regular brokerage commission, but that same has been refused. The Defendant has refused to pay the commissions of the Plaintiff alleging that he is not entitled to brokerage commissions for the extended lease or for the new lease.

'The Plaintiff does not know exactly upon what terms and conditions the subsequent lease was extended but the Plaintiff claims that...