From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Futch v. Consolo

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 26, 1969
227 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

No. 69-24.

November 4, 1969. Rehearing Denied November 26, 1969.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Harold R. Vann, J.

Robert C. Lane, Miami, for appellants.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson Ward, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.


Appellants were plaintiffs below, who brought this action to recover a commission, allegedly owed them by the appellees, due to the sale of real property. At trial, the court entered a directed verdict in favor of the appellees, finding that there was no issue of fact for the jury to determine and that as a matter of law, appellees were entitled to final judgment in their favor. We affirm the entry of directed verdict. The record on appeal shows that the broker here voluntarily abandoned his efforts to find a purchaser for the property within a reasonable time, and further, that the appellees did not interfere with the broker's efforts.

Therefore, the final judgment being appealed is hereby affirmed. See Shuler v. Allen, Fla. 1955, 76 So.2d 879.


Summaries of

Futch v. Consolo

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Nov 26, 1969
227 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

Futch v. Consolo

Case Details

Full title:M.D. FUTCH AND KAY BEST, APPELLANTS, v. PHILLIP R. CONSOLO AND CELIA A…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Nov 26, 1969

Citations

227 So. 2d 736 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969)