Esslinger-Wooten-Maxwell, Inc. v. Lones Family Limited Partnership
A real estate broker sued for a commission on a lease and later sale that occurred years after its exclusive listing agreement and twelve-month protection period expired, claiming it was the procuring cause because it had introduced the seller to individuals affiliated with the eventual tenant/buyer. The Third District affirmed summary judgment for the seller, holding that where the parties executed a 'special' (express) contract with a defined protection period, the equitable procuring cause doctrine cannot be inferentially incorporated to override the written terms.
Key facts
- Real estate broker Esslinger-Wooten-Maxwell, Inc. sued seller Lones Family Limited Partnership for a real estate commission on a lease and subsequent sale that occurred approximately six years after expiration of an exclusive listing agreement and its twelve-month protection period.
- The broker claimed it was the procuring cause of the transaction because it had introduced the seller to individuals affiliated with the eventual tenant and buyer, despite the listing agreement and protection period having expired years earlier.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion gives brokers and sellers a clear rule: an express listing agreement with a negotiated protection period displaces the equitable procuring cause doctrine, and courts will not rewrite the bargain to extend… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.