Giese v. Tarp
Decision Date | 13 May 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 9820,9820 |
Citation | 440 P.2d 521,92 Idaho 243 |
Parties | K. E. GIESE and Louise Giese, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Clements H. TARP and Rosa Tarp, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Gigray, Boyd & Downen, Caldwell, for appellants.
Bruce O. Robinson, Nampa, for respondents.
This action arose out of an exchange of real properties. Respondent K. E. Giese is a licensed Nampa real estate broker. He and his wife sued appellants Clements H. Tarp and Rosa Tarp (son and mother), jointly and severally, to recover the balance owed on a promissory note made to Gieses by Tarps as commission paid with respect to an exchange of properties between Tarps and Leon and Gay McKay.
Appellants admitted making the note but contended K. E. Giese had so negligently conducted the exchange transaction that there had been no consideration for the note. They also counterclaimed for damages allegedly resulting from Giese's negligence. 1 1 The central point of appellants' argument concerned the amount of indebtedness encumbering some real property owned by McKay which appellants received as encumbered in the exchange transaction. Appellants claim K. E. Giese led them to believe they were assuming a $13,000.00 indebtedness when in fact the debt was $15,000.00.
The district court entered judgment for respondents on the promissory note and against appellants on their counterclaim. Finding no error in that judgment we affirm.
The parties are not in conflict concerning the pertinent principles of law: a real estate broker is an agent standing in fiduciary relation to his principal; 2 and the broker is obligated to exercise on behalf of his principal reasonable care and skill or such care and skill as is ordinarily possessed and exercised by real estate brokers. 3 The issue presented for determination on this appeal is a question of fact, whether the record adequately supports the district court's findings that respondent K. E. Giese had not been negligent in his conduct of the exchange transaction. The rule of law governing determination of this issue is also undisputed: this Court will not disturb findings of fact based on substantial though conflicting evidence. 4
The following facts appear from the record. The promissory note sued upon was a renewal note executed February 17, 1964, in the amount of $1,071.50. The original note apparently had been executed December 15, 1962, and no payments had been made on it. The renewal note matured April 17, 1964, and on that day Tarps paid $239.28 on it, leaving a balance due of $832.22. The note provided for six per cent interest and attorney's fees in the event of an action for collection. Respondents had made a guaranteed endorsement of the original note and sold it to the Idaho First National Bank. After appellants refused to honor the note the bank reassigned it to respondents.
Before the property exchange, appellant Rosa Tarp owned a farm in Canyon County and her son, appellant Clements H. Tarp, worked the farm and he took the profits from it. Sometime in 1961 the farm was listed for sale with respondent K. E. Giese for $110,000.00.
In the summer of 1962, Leon McKay wanted to move from his farm in Ada County to a larger place. At about that time, Giese brought Clements Tarp out to see McKay's farm. Soon thereafter, Giese went out by himself to McKay's farm and discussed possible terms of trade between Tarps and McKays for the two farms. McKay testified it was his understanding from the beginning that no cash was to change hands: 'It was all equity, transferring of the equities.' Giese made several trips back and forth between the parties to the exchange. There was an offer from Tarps which McKay rejected, sending back a counter offer.
October 27, 1962, McKays and Tarps executed articles of agreement for the exchange of their farms. As executed, this document contains several inked-in changes all of which were initialed by Tarps. The proper interpretation of these alterations presents the central difficulty of the present controversy.
The articles of agreement provide that McKays will purchase Tarps's farm by transferring to Tarps McKays' equity in McKays' own farm and by McKays assuming and agreeing to pay the balances of Tarps' encumbrances on Tarps' farm, consisting of one escrow contract and one promissory note. The stated value of Tarps' farm for purposes of the exchange was $91,880.76. Originally, before alteration by the inked-in changes, the articles of agreement stated the total value of McKays' farm as $42,500.00, of which $27,500.00 was attributed expressly to McKays' equity and $15,000.00 was stated as the balance of a certain escrow contract encumbering the farm; and besides transferring their equity McKays were to furnish (by assuming and agreeing to pay certain debts) 'the balance of the ($91,880.76 total) purchase price,' such 'balance' being recited as $64,380.76. The initialed inked-in changes were: McKays' equity in their farm became $29,500.00; the 'balance of the purchase price' became $62,380.76. The stated amount of the certain escrow contract encumbering McKays' farm stayed $15,000.00. Nevertheless, the recited total value of McKays' farm was not altered; it remained $42,500.00. Thus, the values (total, equity and encumbrance) ascribed to McKays' farm by the modified articles of agreement are not in harmony (i. e. $29,500.00-equity, plus $15,000.00-encumbrance, equal $44,500.0, not $42,500.00).
Respondent K. E. Giese testified that the inked-in changes were made because Leon McKay 'found fault' with the original articles of agreement. A basic fault found by McKay, Giese said, was that
'he wouldn't take 27-5 for his equity in his 80 acres (McKays' farm). He wanted $2,000.00 more than that for his equity. He wanted 29-5. * * * I changed the items to fit Mr. McKay, to get his signature, as he would not sign it the way it was. We changed it to where he would sign it, and then I took it back to the Tarps with the changes, explained the changes carefully to them, told them they would * * * have to pay 29-5 for Mr. McKay's equity in the 80 acres that Mr. Tarp would take in trade. That is why the changes are on the original preliminary Agreement. I changed the $62,380.76 ('balance of the purchase price') and raised that.
'That had to be changed in order to make it fit, because of the additional $2,000.00 that McKay demanded for his equity in the place that he was willing to trade in to Mr. Tarp. I took this back to the Tarps and explained it to them, in detail, exactly what was involved, and got their initials on the contract. As was stated, I was not in my office.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Leon McKay testified the articles of agreement instrument first was presented to him before it was altered and the changes initialed. McKay's testimony contains the following:
'Q Was there more than one offer made to you before you finally settled on the terms?
'A Yes, there was.
'Q By this paper (the articles of agreement) or possibly other papers?
'A Yes.
'Q Approximately how many times?
'A Just once.
'Q Just one more before you signed this?
'A Yes, before we signed the Agreement there was an offer. It wasn't the same Agreement that we had before. He went back with my offer to Mr. Tarp.
'Q When you signed this particular Agreement were these pencil marks and the initials on it?
'A As I recall, they were.'
Appellants testified to the contrary that each of them understood the modified agreement to represent that there would be only a $13,000.00 encumbrance on McKays' farm ($42,500.00 agreed valuation less $29,500.00 equity), though the document expressly states such encumbrance ('certain escrow contract') to be in the amount of $15,000.00. Appellant Clements H. Tarp testified he thought McKay was supposed to 'pay it (the $15,000.00 figure) down' to $13,000.00. Respondent K. E. Giese testified, as quoted above, that the confusion in figures exists because he 'goofed' and did not raise the agreed total value figure from $42,500.00 to $44,500.00. But the Tarps both insisted that at no time before the sale did either know that the McKay property had an encumbrance with a balance of $15,000.00.
December...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zwick v. United Farm Agency, Inc.
...94 A.L.R.2d, Later Case Service, page 162, as follows:'Cal.-Stiefel v. McKee, 11 Cal.App.3d 263, 81 Cal.Rptr. 565.'Idaho.-Giese v. Tarp, 92 Idaho 243, 440 P.2d 521 (citing annotation).'N. C.-Carver v. Lykes, 262 N.C. 345, 137 S.E.2d 139 (citing annotation).'5 12 Am.Jur.2d Brokers § 89, p. 8......
-
Rexburg Realty, Inc. v. Compton
...the farm.' "1 Mallory v. Watt, 100 Idaho 119, 594 P.2d 629 (1979); Cooke v. Iverson, 94 Idaho 929, 500 P.2d 830 (1972); Giese v. Tarp, 92 Idaho 243, 440 P.2d 521 (1968); Rogers v. Hendrix, 92 Idaho 141, 438 P.2d 653 (1968).2 12 Am.Jur.2d, Brokers, Sec. 201, reads as follows:"In the absence ......
-
Mallory v. Watt
...in an agency relationship. A real estate broker is an agent standing in a fiduciary relation to his principal. Giese v. Tarp, 92 Idaho 243, 440 P.2d 521 (1968). Because of this relationship, the agent is obligated to exercise reasonable care, skill, and judgment in securing the best bargain......