Spalding v. Bennett

California Court of Appeal Aug 22, 1928 No. Docket No. 3536.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a real estate broker is entitled to commissions when they are the procuring cause of a lease executed on terms acceptable to the owner, regardless of whether the owner later concludes the transaction without the broker's aid. The evidence sufficiently supported the trial court's findings that the appellants employed the respondent and agreed to pay the commission.

Issues

Whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings regarding the employment of the broker and the agreement to pay commissions.
Whether the broker abandoned his employment and waived his right to commissions by the destruction of the initial contract and deposit check.
Whether the broker is entitled to commissions when the owner executes the lease directly with the clients procured by the broker.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where a broker is the efficient cause of procuring a customer who is ready, willing, and able to lease property upon the terms specified by the owner in the contract of employment, or upon terms acceptable to the owner, he is entitled to his commissions.”

“After a broker has procured a customer willing and able to lease property upon terms acceptable to the owner, neither the principal nor the customer may defeat the claim of the broker to his compensation by concluding the transaction without the broker’s aid.”

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for broker’s commissions for procuring a fifty-year lease of real property.

The complaint contains two counts, the first of which is based upon an alleged oral promise to pay a specified sum for services for procuring the lease, while the second count claims compensation upon a

quantum meruit.

The transaction is not within the provisions of the statute of frauds, since it was neither an agreement to purchase nor sell real estate, which, in the absence of a memorandum in writing, is prohibited by section 1624 of the Civil Code and section 1973 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The complaint alleges that the respondent was a duly licensed real estate broker doing business in the city of Los Angeles; that the appellants were the owners of lot 1, block 7, of Wright’s Subdivision of lots 78, 95 and 96 of McDonald’s Tract of the city of Los Angeles; that on November 19, 1923, the appellants employed respondent to negotiate a fifty-year lease of said premises upon specific terms mentioned at $250 per month as rental for the first five years, $400 per month for the following five years and an increased rental of $100 per month for each succeeding five-year period until the termination of the lease; that the efforts of respondent resulted in securing the customers who subsequently executed said lease upon the exact terms specified by the appellants. The first count alleged that appellants

[580]

agreed to pay respondent for said services a sum equivalent to the amount fixed by the Los Angeles Realty Board schedule of broker’s commissions for similar transactions. The second count prayed for judgment upon a

quantum, meruit.

Upon trial the court found all the allegations of the complaint to be true; that the commissions which were fixed by the schedule of the realty board for such services were $4,225, and that said sum was also a reasonable compensation therefor. Judgment was thereupon rendered in favor of the respondent for the sum of $4,225, together with interest thereon, aggregating the sum of $4,814.04.

The appeal is based solely upon a charge that the findings of the court are not supported by the evidence. It is claimed that (1) there is no evidence of the employment of respondent as an agent to procure the lease; (2) there was no agreement to pay for such services, either a specified sum, or the reasonable value thereof, and (3) the respondent abandoned his employment and thereby waived his commissions.

Spalding v. Bennett

AI Brief

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief