Foundations of the Procuring Cause Doctrine

These are stories about real estate agents in Florida. They get their money from selling houses, so when there’s a dispute over who should get paid, it’s a big deal. The legal principle that comes into play is called the procuring cause doctrine, and it applies to both residential and commercial real estate. It’s a principle that’s important for Florida lawyers to understand, and it’s likely to come up in their careers. To really grasp it, you can look at five different Florida Supreme Court cases. In Florida, the procuring cause doctrine was established in Taylor v. Dorsey in 1944. This case involved a situation where a seller accepted an offer brought by an agent and then later reconsidered the terms of the sale. The court ruled that the agent still deserved to be paid a commission for bringing the buyer, even if the sale didn’t close. So basically, if an agent brings a buyer who the seller ends up accepting, the agent should still get paid, even if the sale falls through. After a court case called Taylor, Florida lawyers and courts were trying to figure out what “continuous negotiations” meant. The Supreme Court said it meant the agent had to keep talking to the owner and the potential buyer. They later said that an agent who stopped talking to the owner for a long time couldn’t claim a commission, and might even lose their right to sell the property. So, for an agent to earn their commission, they have to keep everyone talking and stay in touch from the start of the sale to when the buyer’s offer is accepted. The third foundation of real estate sales is that if there is an exclusive right to sell agreement in place, the procuring cause doctrine doesn’t apply. This means that the contract between the agent and the property owner determines the agent’s commission, not who was the cause of the sale. In the case of Darracott v. Hemphill, the court found that the procuring cause doctrine did not apply because the agent stopped trying to make a sale after the owner told him to. The court also said that the doctrine does not apply when there is an independent cause of a sale, like the pressure from the school board on the owner. So basically, the procuring cause doctrine doesn’t always apply, especially when there are other reasons for a sale to happen. In Florida, the procuring cause doctrine has been clarified and simplified by the Supreme Court. It basically says that an agent can claim to have caused a sale if they started negotiations between the buyer and seller and stayed involved in the negotiations. This applies unless the buyer and seller intentionally exclude the agent. Some exceptions still apply, but these are the main things to consider when deciding if an agent deserves a commission. The procuring cause doctrine in Florida has been shaped by many court cases, showing that fairness is always changing and can be seen from different perspectives. This means that the rules for real estate agents and their commissions can vary based on the specific situation. Even though some owners and agents may have negative experiences, most are reasonable and fair. The basic concepts of the doctrine exist to protect both agents and owners. Michael Cavendish is a lawyer in Jacksonville, Florida, who has degrees in law and anthropology. He has written a book called Orange Blossom Jurisprudence. This information is provided by the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/foundations-of-the-procuring-cause-doctrine/