Mealey v. Orlich
| Decision Date | 16 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 13561,13561 |
| Citation | 585 P.2d 1233,120 Ariz. 321 |
| Parties | Jacqueline A. MEALEY, dealing with her sole and separate property, Appellant, v. Sam ORLICH d/b/a Associated Brokers, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Stanley M. Jerman, Phoenix, for appellant.
Leibsohn, Eaton, Gooding & Romley by Jeffrey M. Proper, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal by defendant Jacqueline A. Mealey (seller) from a summary judgment granted by the Maricopa County Superior Court in favor of Sam Orlich (broker), and from denial of the motion for summary judgment made by seller. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 47(e), 17A A.R.S., Rules of the Supreme Court. We reverse and remand.
Only one issue is before us: Whether, in regard to a brokerage commission, a sale pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4651, Uniform Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, (Act), must be treated as a sale under condemnation. We hold it must.
Broker entered into an exclusive listing agreement with seller that entitled broker to a commission if the property described therein were sold, exchanged, rented, or leased during the period of the contract, whether or not as a result of his efforts.
During the term of the agreement, seller received a letter from the U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, entitled "Right of Way Notice." It contained a legal description of seller's land and informed her that it was "the intention of the Bureau of Reclamation to acquire fee title . . . to the land required for the Granite Reef Aqueduct . . . which will affect the above described land." It further stated that each affected landowner would receive additional notice of the final impact on his land. Seller later received another letter from the same agency. In it the government "propose(d) to acquire" a specified piece of her land and indicated the price it would pay. It also stated that the information therein was furnished pursuant to § 4651(3) of the Act. It closed by adding: "Your cooperation in this transaction will be appreciated."
Seller accepted the terms offered by the government. No formal condemnation proceeding was brought.
When broker learned of the sale he demanded payment of the brokerage commission and, upon seller's refusal, brought suit for breach of contract. Broker admits on appeal that the term "sale" in the listing agreement does not cover a condemnation sale and that such sale would not give rise to a commission.
It is beyond question that the United States Government has the authority to condemn property for public use. However, in the Act, Congress established certain policies to govern land acquisitions by federal agencies whenever practicable.
The Act, in § 4651(1), directs that the agency concerned shall make "every reasonable effort to acquire . . . real property by negotiation." It provides in § 4651(3) that, prior to such negotiations, the agency shall provide the owner of desired real property a written statement of the amount the agency has established as just compensation.
The legislative purpose of the Act as set out in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc., 2004AP2322.
...title to real estate through condemnation proceedings does not constitute a sale, transfer or assignment."); cf. Mealey v. Orlich, 120 Ariz. 321, 585 P.2d 1233, 1234 (Ariz.1978) (broker conceded that the term "sale" in listing agreement did not cover "condemnation sale" and would not give r......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peaton
...to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we may direct the trial court to enter such a judgment. See, e.g., Mealey v. Orlich, 120 Ariz. 321, 585 P.2d 1233 (1978); Holt v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 157 Ariz. 471, 477, 759 P.2d 617, 623 (App.1987), vacated on other grounds, 157 Ariz. 477, 75......
-
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc.
...if they are entitled to that as a matter of law and there are no genuine issues of material fact precluding it. See Mealey v. Orlich, 120 Ariz. 321, 585 P.2d 1233 (1978); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Peaton, 168 Ariz. 184, 812 P.2d 1002 (App.1990). II. Standard of Review ¶8 On appeal f......
-
Nat'l Tax Lien Redemption Servs. L.L.C. v. Rivers
...the court may review the order along with one granting summary judgment "to avoid piecemeal litigation") (citing Mealey v. Orlich, 120 Ariz. 321, 322(1978), and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Peaton, 168 Ariz. 184, 194 (App. 1990)).DISCUSSION¶12 We review a trial court's disposition on summa......