Paris v. Hilton, 352 So.2d 534 (Fla. App. 1 Dist., 1977)

352 So.2d 534
John P. PARIS, Appellant,
v.
L. Charles HILTON, Jr., et al., Appellees.
No. FF-470.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 18, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 22, 1977.

Jerry W. Gerde of Davenport, Johnston,
Harris, Gerde & Harrison, Panama City, for
appellant.

William E. Williams of Mahoney, Hadlow
& Adams, Jacksonville, for appellees.

RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.

By this interlocutory appeal, Paris seeks
review of an adverse final summary judgment
granting the rescission and cancellation of two
promissory notes held by Paris. The trial court’s
basis for granting the summary judgment was its
finding that the notes were given as
consideration for Paris’s services as a real estate
broker within the State of Florida at a time that
he was not registered as a Florida real estate
broker pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes.

Paris and appellee Cooper are both
residents of the State of Georgia. In mid-1973,
Paris, a licensed real estate broker in Georgia,
learned that certain Gulf County, Florida,
acreage was on the market. Paris followed an
energetic course of action that ultimately led to
the formation of a binding contract for sale of
the land between appellees Hilton & Associates
and Cooper. Paris’s activities in conjunction with
the sale of this property included numerous
telephone calls from Atlanta to Panama City,
Florida, for the purpose of discussing the real
estate and the terms of its sale with one of the
owners; a one day visit to the property
which included three hours of “walking” the
land and photographing it; preparing Dr.
Cooper’s written offer to purchase, as well as
working with Cooper’s attorneys on the sales
contract; returning to Panama City for further
discussions and negotiations concerning the
contract; and attending the closing of the sale in
Panama City during February of 1974.

Paris received his $315,070 commission in
the form of a $215,070 note secured by the real
property and a check for $100,000 from Cooper.
By prior arrangement, Paris returned the
$100,000 to Cooper and, in turn, was given a
check for $25,000 and a demand note for
$75,000. Cooper subsequently refused to honor
the notes and sought their rescission and
cancellation.

The services performed by Paris clearly fall
within the provisions of Section 475.01(2),
Florida Statutes, as being duties to be performed
by real estate brokers or salesmen. It is
undisputed that Paris was not licensed either as a
broker or as a salesman in the State of Florida.
While it is true that the purpose of the Real
Estate Licensing Act is to protect the public
from being forced to deal with dishonest or
unscrupulous real estate operators, rather than to
permit one party to gain unconscionable
advantage by avoiding a just obligation which he
has contracted to pay, 1 the statute also protects
the public in general from untrained and
unsupervised real estate operators. To this end,
the legislature of this state has decreed that
contracts to pay the commissions of real estate
brokers or salesmen, who are not registered as
such in the State of Florida at the time such
services are rendered, are entirely void as a

matter of public policy, and the courts have
ruled that recovery may not be had either under
the contract or under the theory of quantum
meruit. 2

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

—————
1 Geneva Inv. Ltd. v. Trafalgar Developers Ltd.,
274 So.2d 581 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973), cert. disch.
285 So.2d 593 (Fla.1973), appeal after remand
305 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). Paris
argues strongly that because he is licensed to
practice in Georgia, the citizens of Florida are
not exposed to the dangers that the statute seeks
to restrict. Paris argues, just as strongly, that it is
inequitable and unconscionable to allow Cooper
to avoid his contractual obligation to pay him his
commission for services rendered.

2 Bradley v. Banks, 260 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3rd
DCA 1972); Wegmann v. Mannino, 253 F.2d
627 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 358 U.S. 824, 79
S.Ct. 37, 3 L.Ed.2d 63 (1958).

No Comments
Flat Flat Fee MLS Broker Provider Reporting and Industry News