Marotta v. Iroquois Realty Co.
Citation | 412 N.E.2d 797 |
Decision Date | 24 November 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 3-280A51,3-280A51 |
Parties | Thomas J. MAROTTA, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. IROQUOIS REALTY COMPANY, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Lea Anne Bernstein, Zionsville, for appellant.
This is an appeal by defendant-appellant Thomas J. Marotta from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee Iroquois Realty Company, enforcing payment of a commission allegedly due under an agreement to sell real estate. Marotta raises the following issues for review:
(1) whether the judgment is contrary to law because Iroquois failed to comply with IC 1971, 25-34-1-9 (Burns Code Ed.);
(2) whether the trial court erred in excepting a condition contained in the purchase agreement;
(3) whether the amended judgment is erroneous; and
(4) whether the trial court failed to consider the intent of the parties.
Marotta contends that the judgment is contrary to law insofar as Iroquois failed to comply with IC 1971, 25-34-1-9 (Burns Code Ed.). 1 That statute provides as follows:
"In all actions for the collection of a commission or other compensation for the sale of real estate and filed in the courts of this state after October 1, 1949, it shall be alleged and proved therein that at the time the cause of action arose the party seeking relief was a duly licensed real estate broker or real estate salesman of the state of Indiana."
The argument advanced is that Iroquois introduced no evidence at trial to indicate it was a duly licensed real estate broker. This contention is unavailing.
It appears from the record that Marotta admitted Iroquois was a duly licensed broker, both in his responsive pleading and in the pretrial order. His answer reads in relevant part as follows:
The pretrial order provides in part:
1. The indebtedness of the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
2. Whether the conduct of the Defendant was malicious and guilty of wanton disregard of the rights of the Plaintiff.
3. The validity of the Choate purchase agreement.
4. Whether or not the Plaintiff performed the services required under the Choate purchase agreement.
5. The indebtedness of the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
6. Whether or not the Plaintiff performed the services required under the Davis purchase agreement.
7. Whether or not the Plaintiff used fraud and false pretenses to obtain moneys from the Defendant.
8. The extent of damages of the Plaintiff and Defendant, if any."
A pretrial order stipulation is conclusive upon the parties and the judicial tribunal unless it is withdrawn, amended or supplemented as provided by Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 15(B) and Trial Rule 16(I-J). Wynder v. Lonergan (1972), 153 Ind.App. 92, 286 N.E.2d 413. Moreover, a pretrial order delineating the issues of the case supplants the allegations raised in the pleadings and controls all subsequent proceedings in the case. Thus the issues become those found by the trial court's pretrial order. City of Hammond, Lake County v. Drangemeister (1977), Ind.App., 364 N.E.2d 157.
Obviously the matter of compliance with IC 1971, 25-34-1-9 was not a triable issue. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Marotta withdrew his admission in the pretrial order or that the order was modified to reflect a factual controversy over Iroquois's status as a licensed broker.
To counter this conclusion Marotta maintains that compliance with IC 1971, 25-34-1-9 is not a proper subject for admissions or waiver since it involves the capacity to sue. 2 Analysis of decisions from other jurisdictions fails to support that position. Albers v. Fitschen (1966) 274 Minn. 375, 143 N.W.2d 841 involved an action to enforce payment of a broker's commission for the sale of real estate. In response to defendant's contention that the judgment should be vacated because plaintiff's complaint failed to allege, as required by statute, that he was a licensed real estate broker, the court noted:
As against the allegation that plaintiff failed to show it was a licensed real estate broker under a similar statute, that being an essential element of proof for recovery of a commission, the court in White v. Watson Enterprises, Inc. (1973) 129 Ga.App. 203, 199 S.E.2d 357, overruled on other grounds Mock v. Canterbury Rlty. Co. (1980) 152 Ga.App. 872, 264 S.E.2d 489, opined:
And in Sonnenblick-Goldman of Miami Corp. v. Feldman (1972) Fla.App., 266 So.2d 48 there appears the following language:
Cf. Albert-Hopkins Corp. v. Caputo (1970) 357 Mass. 765, 258 N.E.2d 70 ( ).
Marotta next urges that the trial court erred in excepting a condition contained in the purchase agreement between himself and the Choates. The challenged finding reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Neville, 1-481A104
...Consolidated School District v. State ex rel. Manchester Community Schools, (1973) 261 Ind. 17, 300 N.E.2d 59; Marotta v. Iroquois Realty Co., (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 797; Lewis v. Davis, (1980) Ind.App., 410 N.E.2d 1363. The manner in which T.R. 15(B) coordinates with T.R. 16(J) was di......
-
F. W. Means & Co. v. Carstens
...cause had not been set for trial, nor had the issues been delineated in a pretrial conference. See, TR. 16(J); Marotta v. Iroquois Realty Co. (1980), Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 797; City of Hammond, Lake County v. Drangmeister (1977), 173 Ind.App. 476, 364 N.E.2d Therefore, the issues which might......
-
Capitol Builders, Inc. v. Shipley
...v. Gallmeyer, (1980) Ind.App., 402 N.E.2d 1295. Lewis v. Davis, (1980) Ind.App., 410 N.E.2d 1363, 1366. Accord, Marotta v. Iroquois Realty Co., (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 797. T.R. 16(J), covering the pre-trial order, acknowledges this general rule, but explicitly provides that the pre-tri......
-
Koppers Co., Inc. v. Inland Steel Co.
...on appeal on account of the error thus committed. Smith v. State (1984), Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1105, 1115-16; Marotta v. Iroquois Realty Co. (1980), Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 797, 801. Because Koppers permitted the jury to be so instructed without objection, it cannot now be heard to Koppers next arg......