Haskins v. Crumley

DORAN, J. Plaintiff Haskins is a licensed real estate broker, and also a real estate operator, buying and selling on his own account. The appellant John W. Crumley is a licensed building contractor and real estate developer. In late 1952 plaintiff agreed to conduct a selling campaign for defendant in respect to houses defendant was building for speculation. [525]An “openlisting” authorization for one year was first signed; in March, 1954, a second “exclusive right to sell” was signed, and on June 23, 1954, at defendants’ request, plaintiff relinquished this exclusive right. It is claimed that at the time of this cancellation, defendants were indebted to plaintiff in respect to various matters.

The present controversy is particularly concerned with two of the transactions between the parties. One of these relates to what is known as the “Wise transaction,” in which plaintiff negotiated a sale for defendants to Wise, earning a commission of $462.50. By a written addenda to a letter plaintiff inadvertently acknowledged payment in full of all commissions covering a group of houses of which the Wise transaction was a part. A few days later, upon discovery of the error plaintiff by letter advised defendants of the error, and at the trial, after proper foundation, a carbon copy of this letter was admitted in evidence. It is appellants’ contention that the Wise commission has been paid in full.

In reference to the “Cantlay lots transaction,” it appears that on January 26, 1954, plaintiff had entered into an escrow agreement to purchase Lots 225 and 239 of Tract 8197, depositing $100 in escrow, the transaction being handled by Dorothy Gassier, plaintiff’s saleswoman. Defects in title showed up, and about April 14, 1954, plaintiff was notified that merchantable title was available as to Lot 225, and that it would be some time before the other lot title was cleared up. During this escrow period, plaintiff had received a cash offer of $2,500 for Lot 225.

The trial court found that in April, 1954, plaintiff offered to sell to defendant Crumley all interest in the escrow for $875 for each lot; Crumley was thereupon substituted as purchaser of Lot 225, and the escrow refunded to plaintiff $50 of the original deposit, and retained the $50 balance on account of Lot 239 which still remained in escrow. About October 5, 1954, plaintiff discovered that the defendant had built a house upon the other lot, namely, Lot 239, and an investigation disclosed that this lot had been conveyed to defendant. The escrow company and defendant were notified immediately of the irregularity in handling the escrow, and appropriate demands made.