AUCTION COMPANY OF AMERICA v. RUSSELL REVOCABLE TRUST

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 24, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1914
Lower Tribunal No. 18-8683
________________
Auction Company of America,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
vs.
Russell Revocable Trust, et al.,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William
Thomas, Judge.
Florida Bankruptcy Group, LLC, and Kevin C. Gleason (Hollywood),
for appellant/cross-appellee.
Vincent F. Vaccarella, P.A., and Peter L. Meltzer (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellees/cross-appellants.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Auction Company of America appeals the trial court’s order granting
summary judgment and entry of final judgment for Russell Revocable Trust
UAD March 21, 1990, as restated December 17, 2009, and Charles Russell
(collectively “Russell Trust”). Russell Trust cross appeals the trial court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of Auction Company on its
counterclaim. We affirm for the following reasons.
The “exclusive right of sale” contract governing the parties’ relationship
terminated, as did any extended protection period, prior to Russell Trust’s
sale of the subject property. On the cross-appeal, the auction agreement
under review created no duty or obligation on the part of Auction Company
to collect a deposit and Russell Trust has pointed to no law that would
indicate that an auctioneer has a non-contractual legal duty to collect a
deposit from a bidder before allowing a bid to be placed at auction. In the
absence of such a duty, Auction Company is not liable to Russell Trust.
Wallace v. Dean, 3 So. 3d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 2009) (“A duty of care is a
minimal threshold legal requirement for opening the courthouse doors.”)
(quotations and citation omitted). Moreover, there was no implied contract
between Auction Company and its president Jim Gall—Gall’s performance
of the auction was nothing more than his carrying out of Auction Company’s
obligation under the agreement.
2
Auction Company also appeals the trial court’s order granting Russell
Trust its entitlement to attorneys’ fees for defending against Auction
Company’s complaint. As Russell Trust properly points out, however, the trial
court did not fix an amount of fees. Without a fee award amount, this issue
is not ripe for appellate review. Diaz v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d
735, 736–37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
3