On July 11, 2007 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Pimlott, Steven Derrick,
and
Bosshardt Realty Inc,
in the District Court of Sarasota County.
Preview
IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR
SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA
STEVEN DERRICK PIMLOTT,
Plaintiff,
VS. Case No. : 2007 SC 004603 SC
Judge: Phyllis R. Galen
BOSSHARDT REALTY, INC., ne 3S 2
Defendant. Bae oO rm
| pon GO =
SUE ps
Ce
See 7
PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING STATEMENT =: ot ~ 2
TSO
1. Bosshardt Realty, Inc. did not have sole and absolute discretion to decide how the
commission was paid because there is no valid agreement giving them such authority. The
Independent Contractor’s Agreement (Defense Exhibit A) is invalid because:
a) The Broker named in the agreement is Bosshardt Realty Services, Inc. The Defendant is
Bosshardt Realty, Inc. They are two different entities.
b) The agreement is signed on behalf of the Broker by “McKay”. Defendant testified that
Carol Bosshardt was initially the Broker at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. and later Mr. Minton
became the broker. At no time was “McKay” the Broker at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. and
therefore “McKay” lacked authority to bind the company.
c) The transaction occurred and the commission was earned on August 15", 2006 whereas
the Independent Contractor Agreement expired on December 3!*', 2005. Therefore the
distribution of the commission was outside the scope of this agreement.
d) A contract is invalid if it compels either party to commit an illegal act. Florida Statute
475 requires that a Sales Associate with an active license be employed by only one
Broker. Records on file with the Florida Department of State, Department of Business
and Professional Regulation show that from September 2004 until February 2006
Plaintiff was employed by Bosshardt Realty, Inc. The Independent Contractor Agreement
compels Plaintiff to act as a Sales Associate for Bosshardt Realty Services, Inc. That
would be illegal.
2. The usual and customary practice at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. was to compensate only the
Agent or Agents who had worked on the transaction. It was not usual and customary to
compensate an Agent who had not touched the file. It was the expectation of every Agent at
Bosshardt Realty, Inc. that they would be compensated in this way. This was the de facto
agreement between Broker and Agents in operation at Bosshardt Realty, Inc.
The Defendant stipulated that Mr. Rauscher did not work on the file at all and did not provide
any assistance to the Plaintiff.
iit4. On the instruction of Mr. Minton, there was a verbal agreement between the Plaintiff and Mr.
Rauscher to divide commissions on this and other transactions where Mr. Minton had
provided the listing. Although it was company policy for afl such agreements to be in
writing, this agreement was not documented.
5. Mr. Rauscher testified that his understanding of the verbal agreement was that all
commissions were to be divided 50/50. Plaintiff testified that his understanding of the verbal
agreement was that only the listing side commissions were to be divided 50/50. Mr. Rauscher
agreed that the Plaintiff's understanding of the verbal agreement was different and that the
Plaintiff believed that only the listing side commission was to be split 50/50. A verbal
agreement requires a “meeting of the minds” in order for it to be a valid gnd enforceable
contract. There was clearly, by Mr. Rauscher’s own admission, no “meeting of the minds ’.
Thus there is no valid and enforceable contract to split commissions between th~ Plaintiff and
Mr. Rauscher.
Since there was no valid and enforceable agreement on how to split commissions and the Broker
did not have “sole and absolute discretion to decide how the commission was paid’, the
Defendant acted without authority. The commission should have been split according to the de
facto agreement between Broker and Agents in operation at Bosshardt Realty, Inc.
Therefore I ask for judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
DATED this 2O-w day of October, 2007
10314 Baltusrol Pl.
Bradenton, FL 34202
Phone: (941) 524-5428
Facsimile: (866) 400-3352
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that the Defendant, BOSSHARDT REALTY, INC. has been provided with a copy of
this notice of PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING STATEMENT via USPS mailed to $532-A N.W. 43"
Street, Gainesville, FL 32653, on this 200 day of October, 2007.
Document Filed Date
October 24, 2007
Case Filing Date
July 11, 2007
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA STEVEN DERRICK PIMLOTT, Plaintiff, VS. Case No. : 2007 SC 004603 SC Judge: Phyllis R. Galen BOSSHARDT REALTY, INC., ne 3S 2 Defendant. Bae oO rm | pon GO = SUE ps Ce See 7 PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING STATEMENT =: ot ~ 2 TSO 1. Bosshardt Realty, Inc. did not have sole and absolute discretion to decide how the commission was paid because there is no valid agreement giving them such authority. The Independent Contractor’s Agreement (Defense Exhibit A) is invalid because: a) The Broker named in the agreement is Bosshardt Realty Services, Inc. The Defendant is Bosshardt Realty, Inc. They are two different entities. b) The agreement is signed on behalf of the Broker by “McKay”. Defendant testified that Carol Bosshardt was initially the Broker at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. and later Mr. Minton became the broker. At no time was “McKay” the Broker at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. and therefore “McKay” lacked authority to bind the company. c) The transaction occurred and the commission was earned on August 15", 2006 whereas the Independent Contractor Agreement expired on December 3!*', 2005. Therefore the distribution of the commission was outside the scope of this agreement. d) A contract is invalid if it compels either party to commit an illegal act. Florida Statute 475 requires that a Sales Associate with an active license be employed by only one Broker. Records on file with the Florida Department of State, Department of Business and Professional Regulation show that from September 2004 until February 2006 Plaintiff was employed by Bosshardt Realty, Inc. The Independent Contractor Agreement compels Plaintiff to act as a Sales Associate for Bosshardt Realty Services, Inc. That would be illegal. 2. The usual and customary practice at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. was to compensate only the Agent or Agents who had worked on the transaction. It was not usual and customary to compensate an Agent who had not touched the file. It was the expectation of every Agent at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. that they would be compensated in this way. This was the de facto agreement between Broker and Agents in operation at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. The Defendant stipulated that Mr. Rauscher did not work on the file at all and did not provide any assistance to the Plaintiff. iit4. On the instruction of Mr. Minton, there was a verbal agreement between the Plaintiff and Mr. Rauscher to divide commissions on this and other transactions where Mr. Minton had provided the listing. Although it was company policy for afl such agreements to be in writing, this agreement was not documented. 5. Mr. Rauscher testified that his understanding of the verbal agreement was that all commissions were to be divided 50/50. Plaintiff testified that his understanding of the verbal agreement was that only the listing side commissions were to be divided 50/50. Mr. Rauscher agreed that the Plaintiff's understanding of the verbal agreement was different and that the Plaintiff believed that only the listing side commission was to be split 50/50. A verbal agreement requires a “meeting of the minds” in order for it to be a valid gnd enforceable contract. There was clearly, by Mr. Rauscher’s own admission, no “meeting of the minds ’. Thus there is no valid and enforceable contract to split commissions between th~ Plaintiff and Mr. Rauscher. Since there was no valid and enforceable agreement on how to split commissions and the Broker did not have “sole and absolute discretion to decide how the commission was paid’, the Defendant acted without authority. The commission should have been split according to the de facto agreement between Broker and Agents in operation at Bosshardt Realty, Inc. Therefore I ask for judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. DATED this 2O-w day of October, 2007 10314 Baltusrol Pl. Bradenton, FL 34202 Phone: (941) 524-5428 Facsimile: (866) 400-3352 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that the Defendant, BOSSHARDT REALTY, INC. has been provided with a copy of this notice of PLAINTIFF’S CLOSING STATEMENT via USPS mailed to $532-A N.W. 43" Street, Gainesville, FL 32653, on this 200 day of October, 2007.