Opinion ID: 1907334
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the Brokers Procure the Sale?

Text: The brokerage agreement provided that the brokers would receive all sales proceeds in excess of $1 million if they were able to procure a sale [of Act Realty's property] with the school board of Dade County Florida as the buyer. At trial, the primary question was whether the brokers did, in fact, procure the eventual sale. The trial court found that they clearly did. According to the trial court, the brokers proved that they initiated the negotiations, took affirmative action to bring the buyer and seller together, and that the transaction was closed and they were entitled to the agreed commission. Act Realty appealed this ruling to the district court, which did not reach the issue because it decided that the agreement was facially illegal. Because we quash the district court's decision on that issue, whether the brokers were a procuring cause of the sale becomes relevant. Many Florida courts, over a long period of time, have discussed the requirements for procuring a real estate sale. See Osheroff v. Rauch Weaver Millsaps & Co., 882 So.2d 503, 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (explaining that [t]he law in this area has been well established for quite some time, although its application to a given set of facts is a bit more troublesome), review denied, 898 So.2d 938 (Fla.2005). The seminal case on the subject is Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 19 So.2d 876 (1944), where we explained that [i]f the broker has brought the parties together and a sale is effected as a result of continuous negotiations inaugurated by him, he will not be defeated in his effort to recover compensation simply because of a variation between the original terms stated by the owner and those finally accepted. Id. at 878. Interpreting Taylor, the district courts have recognized that to earn a commission a broker must perform two essential tasks: First, the broker must initiate[ ] negotiations by doing some affirmative act to bring buyer and seller together. Ehringer v. Brookfield & Assocs., 415 So.2d 774, 775-76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Second, the broker must remain involved in the continuing negotiations between the seller and the buyer, unless the seller and buyer intentionally exclude the broker from the negotiations. Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., 761 So.2d 415, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Shuler v. Allen, 76 So.2d 879, 883 (Fla.1955), and Sheldon Greene & Assocs. v. Rosinda Invs., N.V., 475 So.2d 925, 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)), review denied, 780 So.2d 914 (Fla. 2001). Whether a broker has performed these tasks is a question of fact that the [fact-finder] must determine from the surrounding circumstances. Osheroff, 882 So.2d at 505 (citing Easton-Babcock & Assocs. v. Fernandez, 706 So.2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). Appellate courts uphold such determinations when supported by competent, substantial evidence. See, e.g., Brickell Bayview Real Estate, Inc. v. Cooper, 691 So.2d 1094, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We conclude that competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the brokers procured the sale of Act Realty's property to the School District. The record shows that the brokers initiated negotiations by faxing to the School District a letter authorizing them to negotiate the sale of Act Realty's property. At that point, the School District had already developed an interest in Act Realty's property, but had not yet contacted Act Realty to begin negotiations. In fact, Act Realty's owner testified that he did not know that the School Board was interested in his property when he met with the brokers. The brokers' fax was the affirmative act setting in motion the negotiations between Act Realty and the School District. Ehringer, 415 So.2d at 775. The record also shows that the brokers remained involved in the continuing negotiations. Siegel, 761 So.2d at 417. One of them, Martin-Hidalgo, testified that she communicated with the School District's real estate director every couple weeks. She asked the director for a copy of the agenda that was presented to the school board at a preliminary hearing and forwarded it to Act Realty. She also discussed the land and surrounding land values with two of the School District's appraisers. When the District made its first offer of $800,000, she conveyed it to Act Realty and then reported back that it was too low. The other broker, Perez-Urrutia, advised Act Realty to negotiate the sales price jointly with Cease, who controlled the adjacent property. Act Realty apparently took his advice. Cease testified that he took over negotiations for both properties with respect to price. Perez-Urrutia thereafter maintained constant contact with Cease, speaking with him practically every day. Thus, substantial, competent evidence supports the trial court's finding that the brokers were a procuring cause of the sale.