Case Name: REALTY MARTS, INC., Appellant, v. Mae H. BARLOW and William C. Coe, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-05-20
Citations: 312 So. 2d 544
Docket Number: No. V-161
Parties: REALTY MARTS, INC., Appellant, v. Mae H. BARLOW and William C. Coe, Appellees.
Judges: McCORD, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 312
Pages: 544–546

Head Matter:
REALTY MARTS, INC., Appellant, v. Mae H. BARLOW and William C. Coe, Appellees.
No. V-161.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 20, 1975.
Barry Z. Rhodes and John M. Davis of Fitzgerald, Johnston & Davis, Milton, for appellant.
Patrick G. Emmanuel of Holsberry, Emmanuel, Sheppard, Mitchell & Condon, Pensacola, for appellees.

Opinion:
BOYER, Acting Chief Judge.
This litigation arises out of an oral open listing agreement under which the sellers of land were to pay broker a commission upon its procuring a purchaser of the land. The broker, appellant-plaintiff, sued sellers, appellees-defendants, for the commission. The trial court sitting without a jury granted sellers' motion for involuntary dismissal at the conclusion of broker's case in chief and, thereafter, rendered a judgment in favor of sellers. Broker has taken this appeal. The issue here is whether the evidence presented by broker established a prima facie case that broker was the procuring cause of the purchase of sellers' land.
In mid-July 1972, sellers orally agreed with broker's salesman that if the salesman produced a purchaser of their land for $6,000.00 an acre net to them, they would pay the broker a commission of ten percent. Sellers informed the salesman that other brokers were also attempting to sell the land.
Thereafter, the salesman rode by the property, obtained a topographical sketch, contacted a prospective purchaser, walked over the property with the prospect, discussed the possibilities of developing the land with the prospect and his engineer, and then discussed the terms of a sale with him. On or about IS August 1972, the salesman prepared a sales contract which was submitted to the prospect but rejected, as he could not come up with the required binder. A few days later, the salesman discovered that the prospective purchaser had gone direct to the sellers and negotiations for a sale of the property were going on between them. He telephoned the sellers and inquired if his commission would be paid as he was the procurer of the purchaser. Sellers stated they would discuss the matter with their attorney.
Sellers and the prospective purchaser executed a sales agreement on 18 October 1972 incorporating terms similar to those in the sales contract prepared by the salesman and rejected by the purchaser. On 30 December 1972, the sale was consummated.
The evidence, aborted by the granting of the motion for involuntary dismissal, indicates that appellant was the procuring cause of the sale, and the property was in fact sold to appellant's prospect. A realtor is under no obligation to notify the property owner every time the property is shown. In the case sub judice the record supports the position that appellant did everything that was required by a realtor to be done in order to entitle the realtor to a commission. An amount equal to the realtor's commission was even added to the sale price and paid by the purchaser.
Appellant having made a prima facie case that he was the procuring cause of the sale and that he gave timely notice to appellees, the able and learned trial judge erred in granting the motion for involuntary dismissal at the conclusion of appellant's case. We, accordingly, reverse and remand with directions that the trial court hear such further evidence as may be adduced and thereupon enter a final judgment on the merits.
It is so ordered.
McCORD, J., concurs.
MILLS, J., dissents.