AUCTION COMPANY OF AMERICA v. RUSSELL REVOCABLE TRUST (2021)

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.

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.

PER CURIAM.