Busbin v. Suburban Realty, Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 30824,30824 |
| Parties | J. E. BUSBIN v. SUBURBAN REALTY, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rupert A. Brown, Athens, George B. Brooks, Crawford, Grady C. Pittard, Jr., Athens, for appellant.
Gregory M. Perry, Commerce, for appellee.
Certiorari was granted in this case to review the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Suburban Realty, Inc. v. Busbin, 136 Ga.App. 850, 222 S.E.2d 627 (1975). Division 1 of that opinion held that the language of the sale contract 'contemplates an actual sale of the realty before the right to commission arises' and that the case fell within the ruling made in Ragsdale v. Smith, 110 Ga.App. 485, 138 S.E.2d 916 (1964). There is no assignment of error on this portion of the ruling in Division 1. See Rule 36(c), Supreme Court (1975). Division 2 of the opinion holds that, 'Even though a right to commission may be dependent upon the actual consummation of the sale, recovery is allowed where the consummation is prevented by the refusal or interference of the seller.' Error is assigned on Division 2 of the opinion. Held:
1. This is controlled by Ragsdale v. Smith, 110 Ga.App. 485, 138 S.E.2d 916, supra, which holds that where an actual sale of the realty is necessary before the right to commission arises and the option contract between the property owner and a would-be purchaser is void and unenforceable, the provision in such contract for the payment of a commission is likewise void and unenforceable. Also Wallace v. Adamson, 129 Ga.App. 792, 201 S.E.2d 479 (1973). The cases of Roberts v. Prater & Forrester, 29 Ga.App. 245(1), 114 S.E. 645 (1922); Rowland & Rowland v. Kraft, 31 Ga.App. 593, 121 S.E. 526 (1923); and Broyles v. Haas, 51 Ga.App. 374, 378, 180 S.E. 517 (1935), which hold that even though a right to commission may be dependent upon the actual consummation of the sale, recovery is allowed where the consummation is prevented by the refusal or interference of the seller, are not applicable where the contract is void and unenforceable.
The ruling made in Division 2 is therefore reversed.
2. The motion of Bessie W. Busbin alleging that she is the executrix of the will of her deceased husband and requesting that she be made a party on appeal is granted. Rule 30(b)
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B & R REALTY, INC. v. Carroll
...in the contract of listment." Roberts v. Prater & Forrester, 29 Ga.App. 245(1), 114 S.E. 645 (1922). Compare Busbin v. Suburban Realty, 236 Ga. 783, 225 S.E.2d 316 (1976) (this rule not applicable where sales contract not enforceable). And, if the Carrolls and Balchucks intended to thwart t......
-
Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc. v. Nodvin, C83-1212A.
...the defendant did not have an obligation under the contract to pay the plaintiff its commission.12 Busbin v. Suburban Realty, Inc., 236 Ga. 783, 225 S.E.2d 316 (1976). In fact, the jury specifically found that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages on its breach of contract claim. In......
-
Kinard Realty, Inc. v. Evans
...124 Ga.App. 160, 183 S.E.2d 33. It follows then that appellant had no contractual right to commissions (see Busbin v. Suburban Realty, Inc., 236 Ga. 783(1), 225 S.E.2d 316), and that there could be no actionable conspiracy to interfere with the right to commissions. See National City Bank v......
-
Stone Mountain Abstract Co. v. Alcovy Rlty. Co.
...the Supreme Court's overruling of Suburban Realty, Inc. v. Busbin, 136 Ga.App. 850(2), 222 S.E.2d 627 (1975) (Busbin v. Suburban Realty, Inc., 236 Ga. 783(1), 225 S.E.2d 316 (1976)) make the cases cited in Suburban Realty, 136 Ga.App. 850(2), 222 S.E.2d 627, supra, inapplicable to the case ......