05-2593 REAL ESTATE V. GURKIN

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2006 » 05-2593 REAL ESTATE V. GURKIN

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 05-2593 REAL ESTATE V. GURKIN

Case Date: 11/22/2006

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2006

REAL ESTATE WORLD FLORIDA COMMERCIAL, INC., Appellant,

** ** ** CASE NO. 3D05-2593

vs. ** LOUIS GURKIN and PATRICIA GURKIN, Appellees. ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 02-27700

Opinion filed November 22, 2006. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Victoria Platzer, Judge. Law Offices of Steven Friedman and Steven Friedman, for appellant. Stuart L. Koenigsberg, for appellees.

Before COPE, C.J., and FLETCHER and ROTHENBERG, JJ. COPE, C.J. This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a real estate commission case. commission The trial court ruled that the alleged oral was too vague and indefinite to be

agreement

enforced.

We respectfully disagree with that legal conclusion

and remand for further proceedings. There is a sharp disagreement between the parties about all of the facts of this case. Because this is an appeal from a

summary judgment, we accept for present purposes the version of the facts most favorable to the nonmoving party, plaintiff-

appellant Real Estate World Florida Commercial, Inc. ("broker"). The plaintiff is a real estate brokerage firm. The

plaintiff asserts that one of the firm's agents, Mr. Chemaissem, entered into an oral and brokerage Patricia agreement for with the defendantssale of two

appellees,

Louis

Gurkin,

commercial properties owned by the Gurkins. According to Mr. Chemaissem, he followed up his

conversation with the Gurkins with a letter stating what he believed had been agreed to. The letter stated in part:

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gurkin: It was a pleasure speaking with you on November 27, 2001. As per our conversation, it is my understanding that in the event Real Estate World Florida Commercial, Inc. (R.E.W.F.C.I.) obtains a purchaser for your property at the terms stated below, you will pay R.E.W.F.C.I. a professional fee of six percent (6%) of the sales price stated below or at any other price or terms upon which you agree. Price: Property: $4,000,000 7430 SW 59th Court (29 Apartment Building) 7500 SW 59th Avenue (18

2

Terms:

Apartment Building) All cash or Buyer to obtain new financing

IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT YOU ARE FREE TO SELL YOUR PROPERTY YOURSELF OR THROUGH ANY OTHER BROKER WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION TO R.E.W.F.C.I. This agreement shall expire in twelve (12) months. R.E.W.F.C.I. is working in a nonrepresentative capacity. (Emphasis added; some emphasis deleted). For present purposes we assume that the letter correctly stated the parties' understanding. As stated, the alleged

agreement called for a six percent commission if the broker produced a buyer ready, for willing, $4 and able all to purchase or with the new

identified financing.

properties

million

cash

Alternatively, if the Gurkins reached an agreement

to sell the properties to the buyer at a different price, then the commission agreement would be six percent of the different price. The trial court entered summary judgment for the owners finding the agreement unenforceable because the language "or at any other price or terms upon you which agree" was too vague and indefinite. The trial court reasoned that since the sale price

was subject to negotiation between the Gurkins and any buyer, the commission amount would vary according to the sale price and would be too indefinite an amount to enforce. We disagree.

3

If the parties provide a practicable method for determining compensation there is no indefiniteness or uncertainty that will prevent the agreement from being an enforceable contract. See

May v. Sessums & Mason, P.A., 700 So. 2d 22, 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (quoting 1 Corbin on Contracts,

Download 05-2593 REAL ESTATE V. GURKIN.pdf