Hodges-Ward Associates, Inc. v. Ecclestone, HODGES-WARD
| Decision Date | 18 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | HODGES-WARD,No. 59917,59917 |
| Citation | 273 S.E.2d 872,156 Ga.App. 59 |
| Parties | ASSOCIATES, INC. v. ECCLESTONE et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sam F. Lowe, Jr., Sam F. Lowe, III, Atlanta, for appellant.
William F. Clark, Emmett J. Bondurant, II, M. Jerome Elmore, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellant Hodges-Ward (hereafter Ward), a licensed real estate broker, sued appellees Ecclestone, Bannon and MacKay, purchasers of two office buildings in Atlanta (hereafter Buckhead Towers) and Citizens and Southern Realty Investors (hereafter CSRI), the owners and sellers of the property. Ward seeks to recover a real estate commission allegedly due him, as well as punitive damages, as a result of an alleged conspiracy between the buyers and sellers to deprive him of his commission. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants and Ward appeals.
In October, 1977 Ward was contacted by Byrd, a real estate salesman from Florida, about Ecclestone, a prospective buyer for Buckhead Towers. Ward and Byrd were familiar with the property as a result of their dealings with CSRI regarding the sale of the property to another prospective buyer. Ward had had frequent contact with an employee of CSRI, Johnston, who was responsible for providing information about Buckhead Towers to prospective buyers. At Byrd's request, Ward promptly sent detailed information about the property to Ecclestone, including mortgage and tax information.
Ward's first personal contact with Ecclestone was on November 5, 1977 when Ecclestone came to Atlanta to inspect various real estate. Byrd arranged for Ward to meet Ecclestone and thereafter Ward showed him Buckhead Towers. During the November 5th meeting, Ward told Ecclestone that he (Ward) would look to Ecclestone for his commission since CSRI would not pay a commission. Ward admits that no agreement was ever reached regarding the amount of the commission but discussion between Ward and Ecclestone continued through November and December, 1977 on the subject. At the time of their meeting, Ward encouraged Ecclestone to contact an employee of CSRI personally known to Ecclestone to get additional information about the property which had been unavailable to Ward.
On December 5, 1977 Bannon, Ecclestone's attorney and president of MacKay, Inc., submitted a written offer to Johnston from MacKay, Inc. to purchase Buckhead Towers from CSRI. A purchase contract bearing Bannon and Johnston's signatures was executed on December 19, 1977 and the sale was closed on December 30, 1977 with Bannon, Ecclestone and representatives of defendant CSRI present at the closing. Bannon purchased the buildings as part of a tax-free exchange of properties with Mrs. Ecclestone. Under the exchange agreement MacKay purchased the subject property and swapped it with Mrs. Ecclestone for another property. Thus, Mrs. Ecclestone ended up with the subject property. Mrs. Ecclestone admits that her husband took care of all her properties and that she knew nothing of the details of the transaction, indicating that her husband was acting on her behalf in this transaction; this was unknown to Ward. Ward knew nothing about the closing until January 12, 1978, although he claims that throughout the period between November 5, 1977 until January 12, 1978 he and Ecclestone continued to discuss the commission.
There is some dispute regarding the events that transpired after the Ward-Ecclestone meeting on November 5, 1977. Ward claims that he continued to be in contact with Ecclestone regarding Buckhead Towers; that he called Johnston at CSRI with an offer from Ecclestone and orally registered Ecclestone as his client at that time; that he continued his attempts to obtain further information; and that he continued to talk to Ecclestone about a commission. Ecclestone claims he does not recall any further contact with Ward after their meeting and denies there was any further discussion about a commission.
All parties agree that CSRI owed no commission to Ward. CSRI also denies knowledge of any discussions regarding a commission between Ward and Ecclestone. Johnston, Ward's contact at CSRI, testified by deposition that he was familiar with Ward as a real estate broker, and that he had frequent contact with Ward from August, 1977 until January, 1978. Johnston recalled having a conversation with Ward sometime in December regarding Ward's relationship to Ecclestone but has no recollection of any offer made in November by Ward on behalf of Ecclestone. Johnston also testified that he submitted an offer from Bannon on behalf of MacKay, Inc. on or about December 2, 1977. It is unclear when Johnston became aware of the relationship existing between Ecclestone, Bannon and MacKay. Johnston's signature as assistant vice president for CSRI appears on the sales contract entered into by Bannon for MacKay, Inc. on December 19, 1977. He also testified that he recalled a conversation with Ward "at some point in time in late December," when he advised Ward that Ecclestone was still "very much in the ball game." Johnston also testified that he had met Bannon at the office of CSRI on or about December 1, 1977, although Ecclestone was not with him at the time.
1. Appellant contends it was error for the trial court to grant summary judgment to all the defendants because there are genuine issues of fact in this case. In order to establish a conspiracy existed to deprive him of a real estate broker's commission, appellant must show that the commission was earned ; that he, as the plaintiff-broker, has been the procuring or efficient cause of the ultimate sale; and that there has been a wrongful interference with the broker and the purchaser. Woodall v. McEachern, 113 Ga.App. 213, 220, 147 S.E.2d 659 (1966). In determining whether or not a broker was the procuring cause of the sale where there is no exclusive contract to sell, it must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyperdynamics Corp. v. Southridge Capital Mgmt. LLC
...Ga. 386, 388, 144 S.E.2d 749 (1965). See also Dee v. Sweet, 218 Ga.App. 18, 22(4), 460 S.E.2d 110 (1995); Hodges-Ward Assoc. v. Ecclestone, 156 Ga.App. 59, 62(1), 273 S.E.2d 872 (1980); Grainger v. Jackson, 122 Ga.App. 123, 128(2), 176 S.E.2d 279 (1970). Construing the record in the light m......
-
B & R REALTY, INC. v. Carroll
...defendant." Christopher Investment Properties v. Cox, 219 Ga.App. at 443(1), 465 S.E.2d 680. See also Hodges-Ward Assoc. v. Ecclestone, 156 Ga.App. 59, 61-62(1), 273 S.E.2d 872 (1980) (even though owner/agent owed no commission to buyer's broker, buyer's broker could recover as procuring ca......
-
Perimeter Realty v. Gapi, Inc.
...to deprive the brokers of a commission, the brokers must first show that the commission was earned. Hodges-Ward Assoc. v. Ecclestone, 156 Ga.App. 59, 61(1), 273 S.E.2d 872 (1980). 21. Life Care Ambulance v. Hosp. Auth. of Gwinnett County, 202 Ga.App. 864, 868, 415 S.E.2d 502 (1992). 22. Bul......
-
Fields Realty & Ins. Co. v. Teper
...the seller was aware of the negotiations. Gibbs v. Nixon, 154 Ga.App. 463, 466, 268 S.E.2d 670 (1980); see Hodges-Ward Assocs. v. Ecclestone, 156 Ga.App. 59(1), 273 S.E.2d 872 (1980); Tidwell & Yarbrough Realty Co. v. Foster, 123 Ga.App. 192(2), 180 S.E.2d 259 (1971). The realtor did not do......