Gray v. Horne

DRAPEAU, J.

pro

tem.

Appeal from a judgment against the plaintiff after demurrer to complaint was sustained without leave to amend.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff’s assignor rendered services to the defendants of the reasonable value of $3527 in re-financing and refunding of numerous claims against, and indebtedness of, the defendants; in securing reduction, compromise and satisfaction of claims, judgments and indebtedness of the defendants; and in procuring extensions of time for the payment, compromise and satisfaction of said claims, judgments and items of indebtedness. “That said claims, judgments and items of indebtedness were, or appeared to be, liens against certain real property and/or leases thereupon located in the City of Long Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, belonging to defendants. ’ ’

The demurrer raised the sole question to be determined on this appeal, namely: Whether or not the services described in the complaint were embraced within those defined in the California Real Estate Act as services of a real estate broker. If they are broker’s services, concededly, the complaint fails to allege that the assignor of the plaintiff had a realty broker’s license, and, concededly, the complaint fails to state a cause of action. (California Real Estate Act, section 20;

Davis

v.

Chipman,

210 Cal. 609 [293 Pac. 40].)

But, if the services so described are not within the provisions of the California Real Estate Act, the complaint does state a cause of action and the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, and the judgment based thereon, were improperly made. In such a case, whether the plaintiff’s assignor holds a broker’s license or not is immaterial.

(Lewis

v.

Scazighini,

130 Cal. App. 722 [20 Pac. (2d) 359] ;

Allen

v.

Vanderbeck,

132 Cal. App. 242 [22 Pac. (2d)