Czapla v. Grieves, 4561

• Citation: 549 P.2d 650
• Decision Date: 12 May 1976
• Docket Number: No. 4561,4561
• Parties: Charles Kerry CZAPLA and Elizabeth Ann Czapla, Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Wayne GRIEVES, d/b/a Grieves Real Estate and Insurance, et al., Appellees(Defendants below).
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

Page 650

549 P.2d 650

Charles Kerry CZAPLA and Elizabeth Ann Czapla, Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. Wayne GRIEVES, d/b/a Grieves Real Estate and Insurance, et al., Appellees(Defendants below).

No. 4561.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 12, 1976.

Wade Brorby, Morgan & Brorby, Gillette, for appellants, on brief.

Edward S. Halsey, Newcastle, for appellees, on brief.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLINTOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

RAPER, Justice.

The plaintiffs-appellants brought an action against defendants-appellees for specific performance of a land sales contract or damages for breach of contract if specific performance could not be granted. The district court denied any relief to plaintiffs. It is from that judgment and appeal.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, were looking for pasture land and contacted the defendant Grieves, a real estate broker. Later Grieves called plaintiff-husband advising he had a listing of what he thought plaintiffs wanted. He showed plaintiffs his listing from the owners, which was made in the following form:

'Listed by Wayne A. Grieves

'UNIFORM SALES AGENCY CONTRACT

'Dated 4/26 1974

'In consideration of your agreement to use your efforts to find a purchaser for the property described herein, I hereby grant to you the exclusive right and privilege for the term of 6 months from date hereof to make sale of the property described as (land described) for the sum of $19,000.00 payable in cash (or with my consent for a lesser sum or on other terms) which price includes all incumbrances, and all taxes of every kind and nature, except as herein mentioned.

'The term 'sale' shall be deemed to include any exchange or trade to which I consent. In the event of an exchange or trade, you are permitted to represent and receive compensation from both parties.

'If, during said period, the property is sold by you or me or anyone else; or if you produce a purchaser ready and willing to purchase the property; or if within six months after the expiration of said period a sale is made to any person to whom the property has been shown by you I agree to pay you a commission of 7% on the Total Sale Price and _ _% on the remainder.

'I will execute and deliver a quit claim deed free of all incumbrances except none and furnish abstract and tax history certified down to date of sale.

'You are hereby authorized to place a 'For Sale' sign on said property and to remove all other 'For Sale' signs and to have access to the building or buildings on the property for the purpose of showing the same at reasonable hours. We (I) hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this contract.

'/s/ Lillian M. Dabney

'/s/ Ernest R. Benhart

'Taxes

129.47 Benhart

52.32 Dabney'

The plaintiff signed and delivered to Grieves two standard purchase offer forms because defendant-appellee Dabney owned 320 acres and defendant-appellee Benhart owned 800 acres of the total tract. The total of the two offers was the listed price. Grieves mailed the offers to the owners, both of whom were elderly persons, residing in San Diego. Plaintiffs made a deposit with Grieves on each of the parcels and received receipts noting their purpose.

At the time of signing, Grieves indicated to plaintiffs that 'this was as good as sold, that the deal would be final.' Plaintiff-husband dropped into defendant Grieves' office shortly thereafter and discovered the price had gone up a thousand dollars because of minerals going with the land. Plaintiffs were agreeable. Grieves again assured him that the deal was final. Mr. Czapla called the broker-defendant several times and was told because the sellers were older people and lived in San Diego, it would take time but reassured him.

Sometime later, it developed that another party, Engle, lessee of the lands, had entered the picture and was dealing directly with Dabney and Benhart. In the scene also appeared an individual by the name of McHorney, a step-grandson of Benhart, also living in San Diego, who was helping the owners as a contact and in an advisory capacity because of their age.

Offers started flying; the plaintiffs got up to $26,000.00. The owners then accepted an offer of $26,500.00 from Engle and plaintiffs finally offered to meet it. Engle did not negotiate through Grieves and Grieves had never gone to him in an attempt to sell the land on behalf of the owners. The plaintiffs insist that because of Grieves' confident representations that the property would be sold to them, they had bought fencing for several hundred dollars; had made other expenditures in time and travel to arrange a joint fencing project with the federal Bureau of Land Management and financing arrangements; had spent $73.33 in phone calls; and had lost interest on the deposits made. Total damages they claimed as a result amounted to around $800.00.

Grieves candidly admitted that since he had an exclusive listing on the property, he did represent to plaintiffs his optimistic views that they would get the property. He denied telling them to go ahead and arrange for fencing with the Bureau of Land Management or financing. Mr. Czapla is a loan officer with the Wyoming Production Credit Association, so hardly needed financing advice. The evidence does not show Grieves ever informed plaintiffs that their offer had been accepted. The owners never did sign an acceptance in the space provided on the standard offer form, nor sign anything other than the exclusive listing with the defendant Grieves.

The issues are: (1) was there a contract in effect by which plaintiffs were entitled to specific performance requiring conveyance by the defendants-owners to them? and (2) are plaintiffs entitled to money damages if specific performance does not lie?

The first question can be answered rather quickly. The applicable part of the statute of frauds, § 16-1, W.S.1957, states that:

'In the following cases every agreement shall be void unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith:

'* * *

'Fifth-Every agreement or contract for the sale of real estate, * * *.'

No writing was produced by plaintiffs subscribed by the owners of the land or anyone on their behalf, authorized in writing by them. The written listing agreement did not authorize Grieves to accept on their behalf, nor did he sign an acceptance. This issue was settled by Wallis v. Bosler, 1952, 70 Wyo. 129, 246 P.2d 771. In Wallis, appears a fine analysis of § 16-1. The court concluded that while it may be different in other states, particularly where the statute of frauds contained the phrase 'signed by the party to be charged or by his authorized agent,' the section, as written and in effect ever since 1871, stating, 'subscribed by the party to be charged therewith', (emphasis added), means exactly what it says. This court stated:

'* * * As we view it, the statute means that 'the party to be charged'...