Irwin v. Klimper (1922) · DecisionDepot

Irwin v. Klimper

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Feb 14, 1922 No. Civ. No. 3521.Published

Before: Conrey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the escrow instructions did not constitute a valid contract for the payment of a real estate commission because the condition precedent—the completion of the sale—had not been performed.

Issues

Whether the escrow instructions satisfied the requirements of Civil Code section 1624 for a written agreement to pay a real estate commission.
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a commission when the sale of the property had not been completed.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think that the memorandum does not constitute an agreement authorizing or employing the plaintiffs to sell the property or a- promise to pay the commission.”

“they are not entitled to recover upon the facts shown in the record, because it has not been proved that the condition has been performed upon which alone the money would be payable.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CONREY, P. J.

Pursuant to the unwritten request of the defendant, the plaintiffs procured for the defendant a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy and pay for certain real property at a stated price.

[1]

Thereupon the defendant signed and delivered to the Hollywood National Bank escrow instructions dated April 10, 1920, which were addressed to the bank and were in part as follows:

“I will hand you a deed executed by - to Elinor J. Middleton, covering the following described property: [stating description of the property, amount and conditions of payment to be made by the purchaser].

“Pay your escrow charges, also the charges for Cont. certificate of title and recording above.

“Pay all encumbrances of record necessary to show title as above.

“Property subject to all 1920-1921 taxes.

[435]

“Insurance to be assigned free.

“Interest to be adjusted as of date of closing.

“Irwin and Henry Realty Company, 5459 Hollywood Blvd., commission $342.50 hold your check for balance for me. ...”

Mrs. Middleton deposited with the bank the required sum and complied with the conditions required of her by the terms of the escrow. At the time of the trial of this action the money remained with the bank and the purchaser was willing to “go on with the deal.” Nevertheless, for reasons which do not appear, the property has not been conveyed to the purchaser. We are not informed whether the failure to complete the sale is caused by willful refusal of the vendor or by her inability to furnish a satisfactory title.

The plaintiffs have prosecuted this action to recover an alleged indebtedness of the defendant to them in the sum of $342.50 for their services in procuring the purchaser for the described real property. It was alleged in the complaint that for said services the defendant promised and agreed in writing to pay. The writing hereinabove described is the only document proved to have been signed by the defendant relating to said transaction. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals therefrom.

Irwin v. Klimper

AI Brief

Synopsis

CONREY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief