Siegel v. Landquest, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D99-2567.,5D99-2567. |
| Citation | 761 So.2d 415 |
| Parties | David A. SIEGEL, Appellant, v. LANDQUEST, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael E. Marder and David R. Lenox of Greenspoon, Marder, Hirschfeld, Rafkin, Ross & Berger, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.
Joseph H. Williams of Troutman, Williams, Irvin, Green & Helms, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee Landquest, Inc.
David A. Siegel appeals a summary judgment finding that he is not entitled to a real estate commission on the sale of the Osceola Trace property (Osceola Trace) made by the 535 Land Trust to the Osceola Development Project, a limited partnership. Because the record contains differing versions of the facts surrounding the sale of Osceola Trace, we vacate the summary judgment and remand for resolution of the disputed facts.
Siegel alleged in his pleadings before the trial court that he is a licensed real estate broker and the President of Central Florida Investments, Inc. ("CFI"). CFI owns 101 acres adjacent to Osceola Trace and Siegel had developed the idea of creating a trade and exposition center on the two parcels in a joint venture. In pursuit of the concept, he introduced Robert L. Miller, a real estate developer and officer of the entity that ultimately purchased Osceola Trace property, to Steven Leitner, the attorney and agent of the seller of Osceola Trace. The purpose of the introduction was to discuss the future joint development of the parcels. Siegel alleges that he specifically informed Miller and Leitner that he was acting in the capacity of both broker and principal. Following the initial introduction, Siegel admits that he allowed Miller to carry on all negotiations with Leitner with respect to the joint venture concept, but argues that Miller, nonetheless, kept him informed of the progress of the negotiations and that he, Siegel, continued to be involved in the political and community aspects of the proposed venture. Siegel asserts further that he was intentionally excluded from the final negotiations which resulted in Miller deciding to buy Osceola Trace without paying Siegel a broker's commission.1
The seller claims that Siegel only showed Miller the adjoining property owned by Siegel's company, CFI, thereby suggesting that Siegel never attempted to sell Osceola Trace to Miller. The seller further suggests that Siegel only "voluntarily" introduced Miller to Leitner, and that while the idea of a possible joint venture was discussed, it was eventually rejected. It was only after Leitner rejected the joint venture that Miller and Siegel discussed the purchase of Osceola Trace. At that point, Siegel advised that he would not make a financial investment and that ended Siegel's involvement. Miller and Leitner then negotiated the sale of the property and as a precaution, the contract for sale addressed the potential claims by Siegel and another broker known as Landquest.2 The seller emphasizes that Siegel neither mentioned that he expected a commission nor requested a listing to market Osceola Trace.
The fact that Leitner and Siegel did not execute a specific listing agreement or specifically discuss the amount of a commission does not summarily defeat Siegel's claim for a commission. Siegel seeks a commission on the theories of implied contract, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, and alleges that he informed both Miller and Leitner that he would be acting as both broker and owner in the contemplated transaction. In the absence of a special contract, a broker is entitled to a commission when he or she is the "procuring cause" of a sale. See generally Ralph E. Boyer, Florida Real Estate Transactions, § 2.05 (1999); Florida Real Property Sales Transactions, § 2.20 (1997)( that the question of whether a broker was the procuring cause of a sale is one of the most difficult to determine). The seminal case on the subject, Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 19 So.2d 876, 878 (1944), explained that a broker will be entitled to a commission as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., Inc.
...seller and the buyer," unless "the seller and buyer intentionally exclude the broker from the negotiations." Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., 761 So.2d 415, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Shuler v. Allen, 76 So.2d 879, 883 (Fla.1955), and Sheldon Greene & Assocs. v. Rosinda Invs., N.V., 475 So.2......
-
Westship World Yachts v. Reel Deal Yachts
...result of direct contact between the principals regardless of any of the conduct upon which Reel Deal relies. See Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., 761 So.2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), review denied, 780 So.2d 914 (Fla.2001); Earnest & Stewart, Inc. v. Codina, 732 So.2d 364, 365-66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999......
-
Media Services Group v. Bay Cities Comm., 99-15367
... ... BAY CITIES COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellant ... No. 99-15367 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., 761 So.2d 415 ... (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Although the district court made no ... ...
-
Merle Wood & Assoc.s Inc v. Trinity Yachts LLC
...agreement between the parties that a commission is due and owing upon performance of certain obligations. See Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., 761 So. 2d 415, 416-17 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ("In the absence of a special contract, a broker is entitled to a commission when he or she is the 'procuring c......