Gertz v. Allen
| Decision Date | 02 November 1979 |
| Citation | 376 So.2d 695 |
| Parties | Jenny GERTZ, Trustee v. Leonard F. ALLEN, III, Individually and d/b/a The Allen Agency, et al. 78-257. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jenny Gertz, pro se, as trustee.
J. Donald Banks, Mobile, for appellee, Leonard F. Allen, III, individually and d/b/a The Allen Agency.
Philip H. Butler, Montgomery, and T. R. Ward, Abbeville, for appellees, Mathison.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment. Leonard F. Allen brought this action seeking a declaration that he either be paid a commission for arranging the sale of certain real property or should recover a portion of the earnest money placed in escrow by the buyer.
On July 8, 1975, Leonard F. Allen, a real estate agent, entered into a listing agreement with C. C. Mathison and J. C. Mathison. The agreement provided that Allen was to attempt to furnish a willing and able purchaser for certain land owned by the Mathisons. The Mathisons agreed to pay Allen a ten percent (10%) real estate commission.
As a result of Allen's efforts Jenny Gertz, trustee for a private spendthrift trust, entered into a contract with the Mathisons for the purchase of the property. At this time Allen became entitled to a commission on the gross amount of the sale price or, in the event the buyer defaulted, to a portion of the $15,000 earnest money which had been placed in escrow.
The sale was never consummated. The buyer, Gertz, claimed that certain conditions in the contract were not met by the sellers, thereby justifying her refusal to complete the transaction. The sellers contended that these conditions were conditions subsequent and that Gertz never intended to consummate the sale unless an immediate resale of the property could be arranged.
Allen filed suit for declaratory judgment against the sellers, the buyer and the escrow company. He asserted that should the court determine that the sellers breached the contract of sale, then he is entitled to a commission of $150,000; or, in the alternative, should the court determine that the buyer breached the contract, then he is entitled to his share of the earnest money held in escrow.
The trial court, after hearing evidence Ore tenus, held that the buyer, Gertz, breached the contract and that Allen and the Mathisons were entitled to the $15,000 escrow payment. From this judgment Gertz appeals. We affirm.
As this is an Ore tenus case, the decree below is favored with a presumption of correctness and the trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manderson & Associates, Inc. v. Gore
...of the parties, to be deduced from the entire instrument." Cobbs v. Fred Burgos Constr. Co., 477 So.2d 335, 338(3) (Ala.); Gertz v. Allen, 376 So.2d 695, 697(2). Applying Alabama rules of contract interpretation, see Division 3, above, and the precedent of Cobbs and Gertz, we find that the ......
-
Ex Parte Johnson
..."Ex parte Sealy, L.L.C., 904 So.2d 1230, 1232-33 (Ala.2004)." Ex parte Scrushy, 940 So.2d 290, 293 (Ala. 2006). 5. See Gertz v. Allen, 376 So.2d 695, 697 (Ala. 1979) ("Whether a provision in a contract is a condition precedent is dependent, not upon formal words, but upon the intent of the ......
-
Thomas v. Davis
...on appeal unless clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Leslie v. Pine Crest Homes, Inc., 388 So.2d 178 (Ala.1980); Gertz v. Allen, 376 So.2d 695 (Ala.1979). This rule is especially applicable in cases where the trial court makes its findings of fact after hearing conflicting evidence; eve......
-
Rutledge v. Bank of Heflin
...above discussion, coupled with the presumptions of the ore tenus rule (Silverman v. Charmac, Inc., 414 So.2d 892 [Ala.1982]; Gertz v. Allen, 376 So.2d 695 [Ala.1979] ), we hold that, under the facts of this case, the findings of the trial court are not palpably wrong, without supporting evi......