Sharkey v. Snow
Decision Date | 27 July 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 72--286,72--286 |
Citation | 13 Ill.App.3d 448,300 N.E.2d 279 |
Parties | Orville SHARKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David L. SNOW and Sharon L. Snow, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Donald Zeglis, Momence, for plaintiff-appellant.
Armen R. Blanke, Kankakee, for defendants-appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Kankakee County dismissing the complaint of plaintiff for a real estate brokerage fee. The order stated that the complaint failed to allege the production by plaintiff of a buyer for the real estate in question under terms fixed in the listing contract. The premises were not in fact sold.
The complaint under consideration stated in its relevant parts as follows:
'1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Orville Sharkey was a duly licensed real estate broker in the State of Illinois, maintaining office under the name of Sharkey Real Estate, 5 Edgeview Road, Momence, Illinois.
2. That the defendants, David L. Snow and Sharon L. Snow, were at all times mentioned the owners of twenty-two acres of land in Yellowhead Township, Kankakee County, Illinois, improved with two dwellings.
3. That on February 20th, 1971, the defendants did list their property known as the David Snow Property with the said plaintiff for sale under an exclusive listing contract, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit 'A' and made a part hereof, for the sum of $59,500.00 cash, said exclusive sales contract to run through June 20, 1971, and did subsequently orally agree that an old farm tractor, of little value, would be sold as part of the premises.
4. That thereupon the plaintiff, Orville Sharkey, doing business as Sharkey Real Estate did advertise said property for sale in various newspapers both in Kankakee County and Cook County and did arrange for Continental Real Estate Inc. of Cook County to assist him in the sale of said premises under his direction and control and did show said premises to many prospective customers.
5. That thereupon on June 6, 1971, the said plaintiff through the assistance of Continental Real Estate Inc., did secure an offer to purchase said premises from David W. Deruntz and Mildred K. Deruntz, for the sum of $59,500.00 and did attempt to tender from June 6, 1971 said contract to the said defendants but that said defendants had left the State of Illinois and did not return until June 19, 1971, whereupon the said plaintiff informed the defendants that he had the premises sold at the listed price to the aforesaid persons, a copy being attached as Exhibit 'B'.
6. That the prospective purchasers secured a Commitment for a mortgage loan pursuant to said contract, a copy of which is attached and marked Exhibit 'C' and made a part hereof, on June 11th, 1971, prior to the expiration of the exclusive listing contract and that accordingly the said defendants could then and there have sold the premises for $59,500.00 cash as per the listing contract with the plaintiff.
7. That never-the-less (sic) the defendants refused to consummate said contract and advised plaintiff that they were removing the premises from the market and that accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to a six per cent selling commission to-wit: Three Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Dollars ($3570.00).'
Exhibit 'A' to the complaint, a copy of the listing agreement, bears the signatures of defendants as owners and plaintiff as realtor. It grants plaintiff the exclusive right to sell property described as the 'David Snow Property' for the cash sum of $59,500 within 4 months of the February 20, 1971 instrument or until June 20, 1971. Upon such sale, defendants are required to furnish '* * * complete abstract showing good and merchantable title to the premises' or, in the alternative, 'to furnish a Title Guaranty Policy'. A commission of 6% Of the sales price is set forth as plaintiff's compensation for bringing about the contemplated sale.
Exhibit 'B' to the complaint, which is a copy of the proposed 'contract for sale of real estate' obtained by plaintiff purportedly pursuant to the listing agreement, identifies the prospective purchasers as David W. Deruntz and his wife Mildred K. Deruntz, is executed and bears the date of June 6, 1971. The purchasers agree to purchase for $59,500 on the terms as set forth in the contract, property commonly known as 'Yellowhead Township, Grant Park, Illinois'. The contract further provides that the sale is to include numerous specified items of '* * * fixtures and personal property, if any, now on the premises, for which a bill of sale is to be given * * *'. The contract recites that ability to procure certain mortgage financing, and the time for closing is fixed as July 15, 1971, or 20 days following notice to the owners that the contemplated financing has been obtained. Defendants are required to give possession of the premises to the purchasers within 11 days after the closing and before July 26, 1971, and if such possession requirements are not the sum of $10 per day shall be paid by defendants until delivery is made.
Certain conditions appear on the back side of the contract document, some of which are as follows: Condition 'a.' recites that the seller is to deliver to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
EMPLOYERS REINS. v. E. Miller Ins. Agency
...where the allegations in a pleading conflict with the facts disclosed in an exhibit, the exhibit controls. See Sharkey v. Snow, 13 Ill.App.3d 448, 300 N.E.2d 279 (1973); McCormick v. McCormick, 118 Ill.App.3d 455, 74 Ill.Dec. 73, 455 N.E.2d 103 (1983). Accordingly, where the language of the......
-
Davis v. Keystone Printing Service, Inc.
...purposes. (First National Bank of Oak Lawn v. Minke (1981), 99 Ill.App.3d 10, 13, 54 Ill.Dec. 499, 425 N.E.2d 11; Sharkey v. Snow (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 448, 451, 300 N.E.2d 279.) Facts stated in such exhibits are considered the same as having been alleged in the complaint. Ford v. Universit......
-
Outboard Marine Corp. v. James Chisholm & Sons, Inc.
...173.) Factual matters in such exhibits which conflict with the allegations of a complaint negate such allegations. (Sharkey v. Snow (1973), 13 Ill.App.3d 448, 330 N.E.2d 279.) Although a motion to dismiss admits all facts well pleaded as well as all reasonable inferences therefrom favorable......
-
Gagnon v. Schickel
...of the complaint, this allegation is rebutted by the gift letter the plaintiff attached to his complaint. See Sharkey v. Snow, 13 Ill.App.3d 448, 451, 300 N.E.2d 279, 281 (1973) (“exhibits attached to [a] complaint [become] a part thereof for all purposes [citation], and the factual matters......