Paris v. Cooper

Decision Date07 April 1981
Docket NumberNo. 61513,61513
Citation279 S.E.2d 507,158 Ga.App. 212
PartiesPARIS v. COOPER.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

John W. Chambers, John W. Chambers, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.

Kevin C. Greene, Robert L. Mote, Atlanta, for appellee.

DEEN, Presiding Judge.

1. The note in question was given by the Georgia defendant, incident to his purchase of Florida real estate, as a part of the agreed consideration in his Georgia contract with the plaintiff, a Georgia broker who had not complied with the Florida licensing law. The general rule is that if a broker is licensed according to the laws of the state where his contract of employment is made he may recover a commission notwithstanding he is not licensed according to the law of the situs of the property. 159 A.L.R., Anno., pp. 266, 274 (II-5). That such rule is applicable in this state is evident from Tillman v. Gibson, 44 Ga.App. 440(2), 161 S.E. 630 (1931), a case on all fours with our present decision. There Gibson, a Georgia real estate broker not licensed in Florida, entered into a listing contract in Georgia with the owner of Florida land, and procured a purchaser who in the sale contract assumed the liability for brokerage commissions pursuant to which he executed a promissory note to Gibson. On failure to pay, Gibson brought the action, which met with the defense that the land was located in Florida, a state in which the plaintiff broker was not licensed, and under the laws of which contract for commissions would accordingly be null and void. This court held such argument invalid, since contracts not specifying otherwise are to be governed by the law of the place where they are made; the validity of the Georgia agreement is to be governed by Georgia Law, and, that being so, the purchaser contracting in Georgia to be liable for commissions earned by a Georgia broker will not be defeated merely because the broker was not licensed by the state of Florida where the land was located. Id., p. 443, 161 S.E. 630.

2. As they appeal on the motions for summary judgment, the facts of this case are as follows: Defendant Cooper had been a client of Paris for a number of years; Paris had acted as broker or consultant with Cooper in a dozen prior transactions and had instructions to notify him of real estate which he might have an interest in acquiring. Hearing that the tract of land here involved was for sale he informed Cooper, and furnished him with an appraisal and geological survey. Cooper then requested that Paris inspect the property, which he did, the parties agreeing that Cooper would be paid for his services as consultant 10 percent of the sale price. Paris performed a number of services in Georgia including working closely with Cooper's attorneys, obtaining a new property appraisal, setting up an earnest money escrow account, arranging for a survey, dealing with at least five banks in efforts to arrange financing, arranging for soil tests, etc. The sale contract was drawn up by Cooper's attorneys and signed by Cooper in Atlanta, and all closing documents were executed by Cooper in Atlanta. We have no hesitancy in ruling that Paris was entitled to a commission in accordance with his agreement with Cooper under Code § 84-1402 which provides in part that one acting in the capacity of a real estate broker within this state must first obtain a Georgia real estate broker's license. To hold otherwise would be to require that no Georgia broker could enter into a Georgia contract regarding land in a foreign situs without being licensed in both states, since it is clear that Paris' actions in Georgia constituted a real estate brokerage transaction in this state. That Georgia recognizes the right of out of state brokers to make such contracts without subjecting them to double licensing demands is clear from Mathews v. Greiner, 130 Ga.App. 817, 204 S.E.2d 749 (1974). In that case, licensed Virginia brokers contracted in Virginia with Georgia landowners to find a Virginia purchaser for the tract. This court held that where there was a Virginia contract performance of which occurred in that state the Virginia brokers were entitled to commission...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Crosby v. Wenzoski
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 14, 1982
    ...obtained pursuant to that law or procedure. Colodny v. Krause, 136 Ga.App. 379, 380, 221 S.E.2d 239. See also Paris v. Cooper, 158 Ga.App. 212, 215, 279 S.E.2d 507. This enumeration of error is without merit, and the trial court did not err in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment......
  • Economou v. Economou, A90A0325
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • June 12, 1990
    ...the action, or if the judgment was procured by fraud. Osborne v. Bank of Delight, 173 Ga.App. 322, 323, 326 S.E.2d 523; Paris v. Cooper, 158 Ga.App. 212, 279 S.E.2d 507. As the record demonstrates that no such objections are warranted, the appellant has evaded those grounds, and in both the......
  • Barber v. State
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • April 7, 1981

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT