Leckey v. Holst

California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 1929 No. Docket No. 5560.Published

Before: York

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A real estate broker is entitled to a commission for securing a tenant when they bring the parties together to negotiate a lease, regardless of whether the resulting lease agreement is legally binding or enforceable between the lessor and lessee.

Issues

Whether a broker is entitled to a commission if the lease agreement secured is not legally binding or enforceable.
Whether the trial court's findings regarding the broker's services and the account stated were supported by the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Plaintiff was not required to go further and the fact that the appellant and the proposed tenant executed a writing, which was not binding as between themselves, cannot affect plaintiff’s right to recover her commission”

“Unquestionably, the law is that a broker is the procuring cause of a transaction, when he has proved that he found a purchaser (or lessee) ready, able and willing to buy or lease the property upon the terms fixed”

YORK, J.

Plaintiff, a real estate broker, brought this action to recover broker’s commission. The defendant was the owner of property on Western Avenue in the city of Los Angeles, which she was desirous to improve with a building and to lease the same for a term of years. With this in mind, defendant (appellant here) made an oral agreement with plaintiff to secure a tenant for her property, whereupon the plaintiff introduced appellant to Sid Grauman, who wished to open a theater in the neighborhood of appellant’s lot on Western Avenue. The appellant, in company with the plaintiff, called at the office of Mr. Grauman on April 1, 1921, and an agreement was executed by the terms of which appellant agreed to build a theater and lease it to Mr. Grauman for a period of fifteen years at a monthly

[700]

rental of $850. Mr. Grauman was" to furnish certain equipment and the plans and specifications were to be subject to his approval.

On April 14, 1921, appellant made a contract with Arthur H. O’Brien, an architect, to furnish plans and specifications for the proposed theater building at an agreed price of $600, $500 of which was subsequently paid to him by appellant.

On May 31, 1921, plaintiff and appellant had a conference, at which time appellant asked plaintiff to pay her $350, which was commission due to her from plaintiff upon a prior transaction made between them. Plaintiff refused to make settlement of the $350, until appellant would give her note or a writing promising to pay plaintiff the $1,000 commission for the lease of the Western Avenue lot. After some discussion, an agreement was drawn whereby appellant agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $1,000 “for her efforts in securing the lease. The said amount of $1,000 to be paid when agreement is signed or else to be paid $50' per month for a period of 22 months for first two years of the rental period, which begins when the theater is completed.”

July 20, 1921, appellant signed an acceptance of the Edwards Building Company’s proposal to erect a theater building on the Western Avenue lot.

On January 28, 1922, Sid Grauman paid appellant $500 to reimburse her for the amount she had paid to architect O’Brien for plans and specifications, whereupon appellant agreed to release Grauman from any obligation accruing under the agreement to lease of April 1, 1921, and he wrote the word “cancelled” across the face of same.

Leckey v. Holst

AI Brief

YORK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief