Ledford v. Faulkner
| Citation | 661 S.W.2d 475 |
| Parties | Charles E. LEDFORD, Movant, v. Paul D. FAULKNER, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1983 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
W. Earl Dean, Dean, Dean & Dean, Harrodsburg, for movant; John S. Palmore, Frankfort, of counsel.
A. Dale Bryant, Jackson, for respondent.
This appeal is from a summary judgment dismissing the complaint of Ledford against Faulkner in which he demanded specific performance of a written agreement between the two or the recovery of $707,000 in damages.
The issue is whether KRS Chapter 324, the Real Estate Brokers' Statute, applied to this transaction and rendered the contract unenforceable for the reason that Ledford did not have a real estate broker's license.
Ledford and Faulkner were acquaintances for many years before the events leading to this suit, both being involved in the buying and selling of oil and gas properties for their own benefit. Faulkner was also in the drilling business and had drilled water wells on Ledford's property. Prior to this, Ledford had sold a block of his leases to Sun Oil Company on terms he believed were favorable. While Faulkner was drilling on Ledford's property they began discussing the possibility of a similar sale of Faulkner's leases in Powell and Wolfe counties to Sun Oil.
On September 1, 1981, they signed a written memorandum of their intent to pursue such a sale to Sun. Pursuant to its terms, Ledford was to receive half of any royalties on Faulkner's property paid by Sun and "other reversionary interest" in return for his procurement of the deal for Faulkner. Faulkner was to receive all cash from the sale and the other half of the royalties and reversionary interest. The agreement was to be valid for 30 days. By September 15, 1981, Ledford had tentatively made a deal with Sun regarding the Faulkner leases. Faulkner then refused to complete the deal and Ledford sued for specific performance or damages in the alternative.
The circuit court found that Ledford was acting as an unlicensed real estate broker in violation of Chapter 324 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes and dismissed his complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. This appeal followed.
This Court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and the summary judgment of the circuit court because Ledford was not a broker as defined by the statute. The act complained of was a single transaction and being a broker was not his "whole or partial vocation."
Where there is an apparent conflict between statutes or sections thereof, it is the duty of the court to try to harmonize the interpretation of the law so as to give effect to both sections or statutes if possible. Here it is appropriate because KRS 324.010(2) provides that "one act" shall constitute working as a broker, and KRS 324.010(1)(a) states that a broker is one who sells or offers for sale property or an interest in property as a "whole or partial vocation." Read together, these sections of the statute mean that "one act" constitutes an offense but only if done by a person engaged in selling property or offering property for sale "as a whole or partial vocation."
Chapter 324 applies only to real estate brokers and salesmen. The trial court did not find that Ledford was a broker. The most the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Morris, 96-SC-790-DG
...S.W.2d 688 (1977) (interrelated sections of a single integrated statute must be construed in harmony with one another); Ledford v. Faulkner, Ky., 661 S.W.2d 475 (1983) (a court has a duty to harmonize apparent conflicts between statutes or sections thereof); Vogt v. City of Louisville, Ky.,......
-
Com. ex rel. Morris v. Morris, 96-SC-790-DG
...S.W.2d 688 (1977) (interrelated sections of a single integrated statute must be construed in harmony with one another); Ledford v. Faulkner, Ky., 661 S.W.2d 475 (1983) (a court has a duty to harmonize apparent conflicts between statutes or sections thereof); Vogt v. City of Louisville, Ky.,......
-
Lockridge v. Hale
...include the protection of the public from unscrupulous and incompetent brokers, and to provide good business ethics. Ledford v. Faulkner, Ky., 661 S.W.2d 475 (1983). Sims v. Reeves, Ky., 261 S.W.2d 812 (1953). No case has construed the statute since the 1984 amendment. It is reasonable to a......
-
Pearce v. Univ. of Louisville
...primary legislative body of each county may enact an ordinance creating a deputy sheriff merit board....”).32 Ledford v . Faulkner, 661 S.W.2d 475, 476 (Ky.1983).33 St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 140 S.W.3d 510, 570 (Ky.2004).34 Osborne v. Commonwealth, 185 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Ky.2006) (“In short,......