Esslinger-Wooten-Maxwell, Inc. v. Lones Family Limited Partnership
A real estate broker sued a property owner for a commission on a sale that closed six years after its exclusive listing agreement and twelve-month protection period expired, invoking the procuring cause doctrine. The Third District affirmed summary judgment for the owner, holding the written exclusive listing agreement was a 'special contract' whose express protection period could not be superseded by inferentially incorporating the equitable procuring cause doctrine.
Key facts
- Real estate broker Esslinger-Wooten-Maxwell, Inc. sued property owner Lones Family Limited Partnership seeking a commission on a property sale that closed approximately six years after the exclusive listing agreement and its twelve-month protection period had expired.
- The broker invoked the procuring cause doctrine, arguing it should recover a commission because it had introduced a prospect to the property, even though the actual sale occurred long after the protection period lapsed and involved a different buyer and an intervening broker.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion gives sellers and brokers a clear statement that a negotiated protection period in an exclusive listing agreement displaces the equitable procuring cause doctrine, distinguishing Venturvest (oral brokerage… — 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.