Circle Realty Co. v. Gottlieb, 79-260
| Citation | 267 Ark. 160,589 S.W.2d 574 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-260,79-260 |
| Parties | CIRCLE REALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Harold GOTTLIEB, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
James Howard Smith, P. A., Little Rock, for appellant.
R. Julian Glover, Hot Springs, George E. Pike, Jr., Little Rock, for appellee.
This case arises from the verdict of a jury on a suit between two Arkansas real estate brokers over the division of a sales commission. A verdict granting one broker half of the commission from the sale by the other broker is brought here on appeal as a matter of right.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict; failing to grant judgment n. o. v.; failure to give proffered instructions; and that the contract sued upon was illegal and unenforceable. We agree with the trial court in rejecting the request for a directed verdict and refusing to grant a judgment n. o. v.; also, that the requested jury instructions were not proper and the contract sued upon was valid and enforceable.
Appellee, Harold Gottlieb, a licensed real estate broker in Hot Springs, Arkansas, received information from a New York broker in July 1976 which related to certain property in Hot Springs which the New York broker claimed to have listed for sale. The New York broker was not authorized to sell real estate in Arkansas. The information sent to appellee generally described the property for sale but contained a considerable amount of incorrect information. Appellee made several unsuccessful attempts to sell the property in 1976. Sometime in March of 1977 appellee contacted Rainey Realty, Inc. of Little Rock about working on the sale of the property; however, Rainey suggested Circle Realty Company, a licensed real estate company in Little Rock, might be more likely to find a buyer than Rainey. A representative of Circle Realty Company, Mike Hedrick, discussed the possible sale of the property with appellee on the same date. Appellee left information with Rainey who subsequently passed it on to Circle. Appellee testified he reached an agreement with Circle that if a sale was made by either Circle or Rainey the commission would be divided 50-50 between the two Little Rock brokers on one hand and the appellee and the New York broker on the other. This was denied by appellant during the trial. Rainey testified he always intended to give appellee some kind of a referral fee. Appellant, Circle Realty, subsequently determined the New York broker did not have an exclusive listing nor an Arkansas license. Appellant and appellee jointly showed the property to a prospect who eventually purchased the property. However, appellant had to dig up most of the information about the property in order to make the sale. The property was sold in May of 1977 but no part of the commission was given to appellee and the appellant refused to pay him anything. The contention was that appellee's claim for participation in the commission came through the New York broker who was not authorized to do business in Arkansas and, therefore, the contract was void.
Appellee filed suit in the Pulaski Circuit Court against Rainey and Circle claiming half of the $30,000 commission which had been paid to Circle. His suit was based upon the alleged oral agreement between the Arkansas brokers. Rainey settled with appellee prior to submission of the case to the jury and was dismissed from the suit. Appellant resisted the claim and the jury awarded appellee $15,000. The commission had been paid by the purchaser pursuant to agreement prior to the sale.
Appellant insisted all the way through the transaction and trial, and continues to do so in this Court, that an essential element of the contract was that appellee must prove the New York broker held a valid property listing from the owner. This was the basis for the motion for a directed verdict and for the judgment n. o. v. This was also the main element in the refused jury instructions. Appellant freely admits it was app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Little, 82-17
...serious questions about the authenticity of this rim, it was for the jury to decide which witnesses to believe. Circle Realty Co. v. Gottlieb, 267 Ark. 160, 589 S.W.2d 574 (1979). Actually we cannot say it was essential in this particular case that Artie Little produce the accident There is......
-
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Hutcherson, 85-123
...favorably to the appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict and judgment. Circle Realty Co. v. Gottlieb, 267 Ark. 160, 589 S.W.2d 574 (1979); Swink & Co., Inc. v. Carroll McEntee & McGinley, 266 Ark. 279, 584 S.W.2d 393 (1979). Although we have been invi......
-
Maas v. Merrell Associates, Inc., CA
...where the out-of-state brokers were licensed. The only Arkansas case cited by the parties on this point is Circle Realty Co. v. Gottlieb, 267 Ark. 160, 589 S.W.2d 574 (1979). In that case two brokers licensed in Arkansas agreed to divide a commission, but it was later claimed that the agree......
- Farrco Const. Co. v. Goleman