WESTSHIPS V. REEL DEAL

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2007 » WESTSHIPS V. REEL DEAL

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 05-0735

Case Date: 09/26/2007

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007
Opinion filed September 26, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D05-735 Lower Tribunal No. 02-25503 ________________

Westship World Yachts, LLC,
Appellant, vs.

Reel Deal Yachts, Inc.,
Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Roberto M. Pineiro, Judge. Fowler White Boggs Banker and Ceci Culpepper Berman and D. Finn Pressly, for appellant. Zarco Einhorn Salkowski & Brito and Robert Zarco and Michelle M. Odio, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, J., and SCHWARTZ and FLETCHER, Senior Judges. PER CURIAM.

The judgment entered below on a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffappellee-yacht broker Reel Deal Yachts, Inc., for a commission on the sale of a vessel built and owned by the defendant-appellant Westship World Yachts, LLC, is reversed with directions to enter judgment for the appellant. This holding is based on the conclusion that, viewing the record in the required light most favorable to the verdict winner, 1 there is no evidence that the efforts of the appellee or anyone acting on its behalf were a procuring cause of the sale, which would clearly have taken place as a 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); Stadler Commercial Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Waste

For this purpose, we assume arguendo that the items of evidence objected to by appellant were properly admitted. But see Standley v. White, 326 So. 2d 68, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)("Agency may not be proved by a declaration of the putative agent in the absence of the principal."); Aerovias Panama, S.A. v. Air Carrier Engine Serv., Inc., 195 So. 2d 230, 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)(same); but cf. Blunt v. Tripp Scott, P.A., ___ So. 2d ____, ____ (Fla. 4th DCA Case no. 4D05-4833, opinion filed, Aug. 1, 2007)[32 Fla. L. Weekly D1835, D1835] ("reliance of a third party on the apparent authority of a principal's agent must . . . rest in the actions of or appearances created by the principal, see Rushing v. Garrett, 375 So. 2d 903, 906 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and `not by agents who often ingeniously create an appearance of authority by their own acts[]' Taco Bell of California v. Zappone, 324 So. 2d 121, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)[]" (quoting Lensa Corp. v. Poinciana Gardens Ass'n, 765 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000))); Spence, Payne, Masington & Grossman, P.A. v. Philip M. Gerson, P.A., 483 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(same), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 1986). 2

1

Servs., Inc., 519 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kotler v. Morris Kroop, Inc., 354 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1978); Dixson v. Kattel, 311 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Reversed and remanded. SCHWARTZ and FLETCHER, Senior Judges, concur.

3

Westship World Yachts v. Reel Deal Yachts Case No. 3D05-735 SHEPHERD, J., dissenting. The question presented to the jury was whether or not a local yacht broker, Reel Deal Yachts, Inc., was the procuring cause of the sale of a high-end luxury yacht manufactured by Westship World Yachts, LLC, to Searay Holdings, Inc. Acknowledging the high standard the appellants were required to meet, Tenny v. Allen, 858 So. 2d 1192, 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("A motion for directed verdict should be granted only where no view of the evidence, or inferences made therefrom, could support a verdict for the non-moving party."), the majority concludes there was no evidence from which the jury could have reached a verdict for Reel Deal in this case. I respectfully disagree. A brief narrative of the

evidence presented at the trial is necessary to explain my conclusion. 2 THE TRIAL This case arises out of the August 2002 purchase by Ramon Baez of a 103' Westship custom yacht in the name of his company, Searay. According to the record of the trial, Reel Deal broker and owner, Marcos Morjain, conceived the idea of selling the yacht to Baez just six months earlier, in February 2002, as he

2

As done by the majority, see supra p.2, n.1, I assume, arguendo, that certain disputed items of evidence were properly admitted. 4

was completing the sale of a sister ship to Juan Bellaparte. Bellaparte is Baez's friend. Morjain initiated the execution of his idea by contacting longtime Baez attach

Download WESTSHIPS V. REEL DEAL.pdf