Case Name: TAM-BAY REALTY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph S. CASPER and Kevin L. Stoneburner, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-04-08
Citations: 506 So. 2d 1069
Docket Number: No. 86-597
Parties: TAM-BAY REALTY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph S. CASPER and Kevin L. Stoneburner, Appellees.
Judges: DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 506
Pages: 1069–1069

Head Matter:
TAM-BAY REALTY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph S. CASPER and Kevin L. Stoneburner, Appellees.
No. 86-597.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
April 8, 1987.
Rehearing Denied May 7, 1987.
Howard L. Killian, Tampa, for appellant.
Hala Mary Ayoub, of Fowler, White, Gil-len, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellee Casper.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of the seller and the buyer in this action for a real estate broker's commission brought by the broker against them. The broker's complaint alleged in three counts that (1) the seller breached his oral contract for a commission with the broker who was the procuring cause of the sale, (2) the seller and the buyer conspired to defeat the broker of its rightful commission, and (3) the buyer was guilty of tor-tious interference with the contractual relationship existing between the seller and the broker. As a predicate to the entry of summary judgment, the court found that no contract ever existed between the seller and the broker; therefore, there could be no action against the seller and, since no contract existed, no action could lie on the conspiracy and tortious interference counts.
There may or may not have been a contract between the seller and the broker. If there was, the seller may or may not have breached it. Our review of this record reveals conflicting evidence on those issues precluding a factual determination at this early stage of the case.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.