Howell v. Steffey
| Decision Date | 20 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 3543.,3543. |
| Citation | 204 A.2d 695 |
| Parties | Margaret HOWELL, Appellant, v. Eugene F. STEFFEY, t/a E. F. Steffey, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Harry L. Ryan, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
Appellant, Margaret Howell, sued appellee, Eugene F. Steffey, and Mr. and Mrs. John W. Carroll, for her share of a real estate broker's commission obtained by Steffey upon the sale of certain real property in Virginia owned by the Carrolls. From an adverse judgment in the trial court, she has appealed.
Mrs. Howell was a licensed broker in the District of Columbia but not in Virginia at the time of the sale. Steffey was licensed in both jurisdictions. Early in 1960 she received a listing for the property in question from one Moore, a Virginia broker, who agreed to share with her and one Middleton, another Virginia broker, any commission arising from the sale of the property should any one of them procure a purchaser. She then obtained authorization from the owners of the property to show and advertise it. As a result of the advertising, Steffey contacted Mrs. Howell concerning the property. With the consent of her associating brokers, it was agreed that Steffey could also list the property and share equally in any commission arising from any sale which might be consummated by any one of the four. By March 1961 the property was still unsold and Mrs. Howell left for Texas to undergo surgery. Prior to her departure she agreed with Steffey to continue the cooperative agreement in effect.
On July 31, 1961, the property, still being unsold, was withdrawn from the market by the owners. Letters to this effect were sent to all brokers involved except Mrs. Howell who was still in Texas. A few weeks after this notice of withdrawal, the owners allowed Steffey, upon his request, to show the property to a new prospect. It was made clear by the owners at this time that they did not desire to revive the listing previously given and that Steffey's agency was to terminate after he had shown the property and negotiated with this one prospect. Subsequently the property was sold to this prospect by Steffey. Appellant does not claim to be a procuring cause of the sale. Upon her return from Texas, she learned of the sale and demanded her share of the commission. When Steffey refused to share it with her, she filed suit against him and the owners.1
In order for one broker who is not the procuring cause of a sale to receive a share of the commission from a sale effected by another, it is necessary (1) that there be a valid, existing and applicable agreement for the division of the commission;: (2) that the first broker shall have performed his part of the agreement; and (3) that the second broker shall have actually received the commission. Under such circumstances the agreement is binding and enforceable and the rights of the parties" are governed by its terms and the proper construction thereof rather than by the contract of sale or exchange or by rules which customarily govern the rights of real estate brokers to commission for the sale of land.2 Since Mrs. Howell admitted she was not the procuring cause of the ultimate sale and there was no denial that Moore, Middleton, Steffey and Mrs. Howell had orally agreed to share equally in the commission if any one of the four was successful in effecting a sale of the property, the only questions here are whether the agreement was valid and whether it was in existence and enforceable at the time of the sale by Steffey.
Steffey takes the position that the Virginia statute3 prohibiting a licensed Virginia broker from paying a commission to an unlicensed person invalidates the oral agreement to share the commission. His position is not well taken. Statutes like the Virginia law here involved regulating the real estate business and requiring brokers and salesmen to procure licenses are designed to protect the public from fraud and misrepresentation, and dishonest and incompetent brokers. Massie v. Dudley, 173 Va. 42, 3 S.E.2d 176 (1939). This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheaton v. Ramsey
...does not exist when persons engaged in the same profession or trade are dealing at arm's length with each other. See Howell v. Steffey, 204 A.2d 695 (D.C.1964); Edmonds v. Fehler & Feinauer Construction Co., 252 F.2d 639 (6th Cir. 1958); Wilson v. Stearns, 123 Cal.App.2d 472, 267 P.2d 59 (1......
-
Bowlerama, Inc. v. Woodside Realty Co.
...in another state, cooperates with a broker licensed in the state where the sale occurs in procuring a purchaser. Howell v. Steffey, D.C.App., 204 A.2d 695 (1964). "The obvious purpose of the Act in question was to protect the public from being forced to deal with dishonest or unscrupulous r......
-
Maxwell v. Michael P. Doyle, Inc.
...De Benedictis v. Gerechoff, 134 N.J.Super. 238, 242-43, 339 A.2d 225, 228 (1975) (internal citations omitted). See also Howell v. Steffey, 204 A.2d 695, 696 (D.C.1964) (when one broker who was not the procuring cause of a sale sues another broker for a share of the commission, the rights of......
-
ALCOA CONCRETE & MASONRY v. STALKER BROS.
...Appellant had no valid defense to this claim, and the trial court correctly adjudged recovery." Id. at 570. In Howell v. Steffey, 204 A.2d 695 (D.C.App.1964), the plaintiff, a realtor licensed in the District of Columbia, sued a Virginia licensed real estate broker for a share of the commis......