Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Plaza Tower Realty Group, LLC v. 300 South Duval Associates, LLC

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

May 24, 2017

Plaza Tower Realty Group, LLC, Appellant,
v.
300 South Duval Associates, LLC, and The Union Labor Life Insurance Company, Appellees.

         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

         An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal No. 14-26949, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

          Vezina, Lawrence & Piscitelli, P.A., and Michael Piscitelli and Jodi N. Cohen (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

          Woodbury, Santiago & Correoso, P.A., and Michael Woodbury and Margaret Brenan Correoso, for appellees.

          Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., and Matthew J. Conigliaro (Tampa), for the Florida Association of Realtors, Inc., d/b/a Florida Realtors, as amicus curiae.

          Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

          ROTHENBERG, J.

         The plaintiff below, Plaza Tower Realty Group, LLC ("the Broker"), appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of defendants 300 South Duval Associates, LLC ("300 South Duval") and The Union Labor Life Insurance Company ("Union Labor") (collectively, "the Lenders"). The trial court determined that, pursuant to the Exclusive Agency Listing Agreement ("listing agreement") between the Broker and the developer, Kleman Plaza, LLLP ("the Developer" or "Owner"), the Broker did not have an "ownership interest" in the deposits retained by the Developer and subsequently remitted from the Developer to the Lenders to reduce the balance of the Developer's construction loan after contracted purchasers failed to close.

         Based on the clear and unambiguous language in the listing agreement, we conclude that the Broker did have an "ownership interest" in a portion of the retained deposits because the listing agreement identifies the retained deposits as the particular fund from which the Broker will be paid any commission due and owing in the event that a unit fails to close. Therefore, we reverse the final summary judgment entered in favor of the Lenders, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         I. FACTS

          In May 2004, the Broker and the Developer entered into the listing agreement, which includes the following provisions that govern the resolution of the issue raised in this appeal:

7. Compensation. As compensation for all services to be rendered to Owner by Broker during the term of this Agreement, Owner and Broker agree that, subject to the terms hereinafter set forth, Broker shall be deemed to have earned and be entitled to receive sales commissions only in accordance with the following:
(e) Anything contrary herein notwithstanding, Broker shall not be entitled to any commission whatsoever as to the sale of a Unit which fails to close for any reason whatsoever, including, without limitation, the default of Owner, provided, however, that in the event that a contract is cancelled and/or a sale fails to close for any reason whatsoever, and Owner retains the purchaser's deposits in connection therewith, then, in such event, Broker shall be paid a commission equal to one third of the amount of the retained deposits less all ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.