Betts v. McDonald's Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 August 1990 |
| Citation | 567 So.2d 1252 |
| Parties | Ira M. BETTS, Jr., individually and d/b/a Betts Properties v. McDONALD'S CORPORATION. 89-785. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William Dudley Motlow, Jr. of Porterfield, Harper & Mills, Birmingham, for appellant.
John A. Owens and Jeffrey L. Riley of Phelps, Owens, Jenkins, Gibson & Fowler, Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
Plaintiff Ira M. Betts appeals from the summary judgment in favor of defendant McDonald's Corporation on all counts of his complaint. At issue is a real estate brokerage fee that Betts, a licensed Alabama real estate broker, claims McDonald's owes him.
McDonald's contacted Betts in June 1988 about securing property in Fayette, Alabama, suitable for the construction of a McDonald's restaurant. After locating certain property owned by James F. Smith and David H. Patterson, Betts prepared a real estate contract with a total sale price of $81,500. The contract was signed on June 20, 1988, and provided, in part, as follows:
That same day, Betts and Smith and Patterson signed a "brokerage fee agreement," which required Smith and Patterson to pay Betts a broker's fee equal to 10% of the sales price, or $8,150. Also on that date, Betts signed a "broker's statement," which provided that "the aforementioned commission, fee or remuneration is due and payable from the seller only, and ... the purchaser has no obligation whatsoever for said commission, fee or remuneration."
McDonald's did not deposit the earnest money in escrow until sometime in November 1988. It nonetheless tested the soil and found it to be contaminated. 1 As a result, McDonald's informed Smith and Patterson that it did not want the property and instructed Betts to look for other land. Thereafter, McDonald's decided to go ahead with the purchase and attempted to take further soil samples, but was precluded from doing so by Smith and Patterson. 2 McDonald's subsequently filed suit, seeking a 30-day extension of the 180-day purchase period, as well as a preliminary injunction preventing Smith and Patterson from prohibiting it from entering the property to test the soil. The trial court granted both the extension and the injunction.
The transaction was later concluded and on the day of the closing, Smith and Patterson executed a warranty deed conveying the property to McDonald's; however, Smith and Patterson did not pay Betts his commission as they were obligated to do under the brokerage fee agreement. Betts subsequently sued McDonald's and Smith and Patterson and their wives, Frances and Barbara, on June 15, 1989, 3 alleging the following: interference with contractual or business relations; conspiracy to interfere with contractual or business relations; outrage; fraud; breach of contract; and, by amendment, waiver; estoppel; quantum meruit; and reformation. 4 After a hearing, the trial court on February 14, 1990, entered summary judgment for McDonald's on all counts. Betts appeals. Neither the Smiths nor the Pattersons are parties to this appeal.
The gist of Betts's claim for tortious interference is two-fold: 1) That McDonald's should have, at the very least, withheld the amount of Betts's commission on the date of the closing when it paid Smith and Patterson, and 2) that the delay by McDonald's in placing the earnest money in escrow led Smith and Patterson to refuse to pay Betts his commission. A review of the elements of the tort of intentional interference with contractual or business relations shows these claims to be without merit. In order to succeed on that cause of action, the plaintiff must prove the following:
Gross v. Lowder Realty Better Homes & Gardens, 494 So.2d 590, 597 (Ala.1986) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).
McDonald's based its motion for summary judgment on the broker's statement, which specifically obligated Smith and Patterson to pay Betts's commission. This document, however, would not have precluded an action for tortious interference if Betts could have shown that McDonald's had intentionally interfered with the brokerage fee agreement Betts had with Smith and Patterson or had intentionally interfered with Betts's business relations with Smith and Patterson.
There is no question that Betts had a contract with Smith and Patterson as well as ongoing business relations, nor is it disputed that McDonald's was aware of that contract and those relations. There is, however, no evidence that McDonald's intentionally interfered with the contract or the business relations.
McDonald's was required, under its real estate contract with Smith and Patterson, to pay them $81,500 on the date of closing. To pay them any less than that amount would have been a breach of that contract....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. City of Montgomery
...in favor of the individual defendants is due to be granted on all claims, the conspiracy claim also must fail. Betts v. McDonald's Corp., 567 So.2d 1252, 1255 (Ala. 1990). Accordingly, the court finds that summary judgment is due to be granted as to the plaintiff's conspiracy For the forego......
-
White Sands Group, LLC v. PRS II, LLC
...Soap Co. v. Ecolab, Inc., 646 So.2d 1366 (Ala.1994); Underwood v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 590 So.2d 170 (Ala.1991); Betts v. McDonald's Corp., 567 So.2d 1252 (Ala.1990); and Valley Props., Inc. v. Stahan, 565 So.2d 571 In theory, at least, the five-element scheme placed the burden on the......
-
GAS UTILITIES CO. OF ALA. v. SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS, CV-91-PT-00445-S.
...Inc., 562 So.2d 222 (Ala.1990). See also Public Systems, Inc., Inc. v. Towry, 587 So.2d 969 (Ala.1991) and Betts v. McDonald's Corp., 567 So.2d 1252 (Ala.1990). Southern took no "affirmative" actions. Further, for the same reasons discussed with reference to the antitrust preparedness issue......
-
Hale v. Sequoyah Caverns and Campgrounds, Inc.
...supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant must present substantial evidence in support of his position. Betts v. McDonald's Corp., 567 So.2d 1252 (Ala.1990). "[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgm......