Keeler v. Glendon

California Court of Appeal Apr 20, 1954 No. Civ. 19987; Civ. 19988Published

Before: Drapeau

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Real estate brokers are not entitled to a commission when the buyer and seller fail to reach a meeting of the minds on all material terms of a sale, as no valid and enforceable agreement was ever consummated.

Issues

Whether real estate brokers are entitled to a commission when a sale is never completed due to a failure to reach an agreement on material terms.
Whether the brokers produced a buyer who was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property on the seller's terms.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Before a broker is entitled to compensation, the negotiations which he is authorized to make must be concluded or conducted to the state where, as to all the material or essential terms of the sale, there is a meeting of the minds”

“The duty assumed by him (the broker) is to bring the principal and the customer to an agreement, and until this is done, his right to commissions does not accrue.”

“it follows therefore that in the cases at bar the brokers are not entitled to any commissions.”

DRAPEAU, J.

These cases involve a controversy over brokers’ commissions claimed upon a sale of real estate that never was made, and a contract of sale that never was entered into.

Defendants, George L. Glendon and Perle E. Glendon, husband and wife, owned a 23-unit apartment house on San Vicente Boulevard in Santa Monica. They also owned the furniture in 21 of the units. They advertised the property for sale. Whereupon plaintiff Louis P. Shiffman, a real estate broker, contacted them. They told him they would sell for $210,000.

Later on another real estate broker, plaintiff W. E. Keeler, told Mr. Shiffman that he had a client, Mrs. Mabel C. Gross, who would buy the apartment house for $185,000.

On Thursday, October 11, 1951, Mr. Keeler and Mrs. Gross looked the property over. Mrs. Gross authorized Mr. Keeler to offer $185,000 for it, and gave him an order on an escrow company for $1,000, to use to bind the offer. On the evening of that day Mr. Keeler and Mr. Shiffman went to see Mr. and Mrs. Glendon at their home. Most of the time was spent convincing Mr. and Mrs. Glendon that they should cut down their asking price to the offered price.

Defendants finally said that they would sell for the offered price. Then the brokers presented to them a printed form, entitled “Deposit Receipt.” Blanks in the form had been filled in in Mr. Shiftman’s handwriting. It had theretofore been signed by Mabel C. Gross.

The handwriting described the property, “including all furniture and furnishings on premises.” The handwriting also stated that the purchase price was to be $25,000 down, $25,000 secured by a first trust deed, and $135,000 secured by a second trust deed.

Mr. and Mrs. Glendon did not sign this document.

They said that some of the tenants owned some of the furnishings in the apartments, and they themselves had some personal furnishings there that they did not want to sell. And Mrs. Glendon told the brokers that she and her husband would have to have a chattel mortgage on the furniture, and that an inventory would have to be taken.

[636]

Keeler v. Glendon

AI Brief

DRAPEAU, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief