Sherman Agency v. Carey

Decision Date24 April 1978
Docket NumberNo. C-1292,C-1292
Citation577 P.2d 759,195 Colo. 277
PartiesThe SHERMAN AGENCY, a Colorado Corporation, Petitioner, v. J. J. CAREY, a/k/a Lou Carey, Ben Gay, Carey Realty Company, a ColoradoCorporation and Ben Gay, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Respondents.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Misuraca & Beyers, James L. Beyers, Santa Rosa, Cal., Rothgerber, Appel & Powers, Robert S. Slosky, Denver, for petitioner.

Alan E. Karsh, P.C., Denver, for respondents.

GROVES, Justice.

The Sherman Agency appealed a judgment denying its claim against defendants J. J. Carey (Carey) and Carey Realty Company for a commission on the sale of a Canadian ranch. The court of appeals, Colo.App., 568 P.2d 75 affirmed. The Sherman Agency petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which we granted. We affirm.

Carey owned an option to purchase the ranch. This was represented by an option. $200,000 of the option price was payable on or before December 31, 1969. If it was not paid Carey would lose all rights to the ranch.

On June 20, 1969, Carey entered into a listing agreement for the ranch with The Sherman Agency. Naiman, the president of The Sherman Agency, drafted the agreement, which provided:

"This is your authorization and exclusive right to sell or exchange my property known as V Bar V Ranch . . . at a price of $1,500,000 with terms or trade acceptable to me. This authorization shall continue for a period of 180 days from this date. I agree to pay you a fee of 6% Based on the sales price or fair market value of the property if an exchange is consummated. This fee will be in cash only in the event that over $300,000 is generated to me in the sale or exchange."

Acting under this agreement, Naiman brought together Carey and Ben Gay of Ben Gay, Inc. (Gay), and negotiations commenced. Consideration was given to a merger between Carey and Gay, with the $200,000 payment being made from funds furnished by Gay and from the proceeds of a $50,000 loan to be made by Naiman to Gay. On December 29, 1969 Ben Gay advised Naiman that he was no longer interested in the transaction as structured. Carey then went to Ben Gay and prevailed upon him to resume negotiations.

On December 31, 1969 Carey and Gay entered into an agreement entitled "Loan Agreement and Option" wherein Gay loaned Carey $200,000 payable December 31, 1970. $50,000 of the loan was borrowed from a bank by Gay. The $200,000 was paid to the optionor leaving a remainder of approximately $600,000 to be paid by Carey on the option price. The Carey-Gay agreement further provided that Gay had the option to purchase Carey's equity in the ranch by cancelling all of Carey's indebtedness to Gay.

On October 15, 1970, Gay exercised its option under the Carey-Gay agreement and succeeded to Carey's interest in the ranch. The trial court characterized the transaction as a sale, and found the consideration to be the cancellation of Carey's debt to Gay, plus the assumption of Carey's liability to the optionor of the land. The trial court also found that, as additional compensation, Carey received the right to 905 shares of Ben Gay, Inc. stock. The trial court found, however, that there was insufficient evidence to place a value on these minority shares in a closely held corporation.

We agree with the construction of the listing agreement adopted by the trial court and the court of appeals: the phrase, "at a price of $1,500,000 with terms or trade acceptable to me" authorized commission only in the event of variations in terms other than price. Thus, if The Sherman Agency was to receive a commission it was required to produce a buyer willing to pay...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • DeBry v. Noble
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1995
    ...does not allow a second plenary appeal. Butterfield v. Okubo, 831 P.2d 97, 101 n. 2 (Utah 1992); see also Sherman Agency v. Carey, 195 Colo. 277, 577 P.2d 759, 761 (1978). Issues not presented in the petition for certiorari, or if presented, not included in the order granting certiorari or ......
  • F.D.I.C. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1992
    ...that issue raised only in answer brief cannot be fairly within the issues raised by petition for certiorari); Sherman Agency v. Carey, 195 Colo. 277, 280, 577 P.2d 759, 761 (1978) (holding that Supreme Court would not consider issue not mentioned in petition for certiorari even though matte......
  • Gerner v. Sullivan, 87SC294
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1989
    ...legislation and that, if it had accrued after July 1, 1972, the "preponderance" standard would have been used. See Sherman Agency v. Carey, 195 Colo. 277, 577 P.2d 759 (1978) (entitlement to real estate sale commission); Security Nat'l Bank v. Peters, Writer & Christensen, Inc., 39 Colo.App......
  • Caldwell v. Consolidated Realty and Management Co.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1983
    ...the broker as the author of the instrument. See Morgan v. Golder, 8 Ariz.App. 438, 446 P.2d 948, 949 (1968); Sherman Agency v. Carey, 195 Colo. 277, 577 P.2d 759, 761 (1978); Boutelle v. Chrislaw, 34 Wis.2d 665, 150 N.W.2d 486, 492 (1967); McCartney v. Malm, 627 P.2d 1014, 1020 (Wyo.1981). ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Burdens of Proof in Colorado Civil Actions
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 23-1, January 1994
    • Invalid date
    ...24. Fort Logan Mental Health Center v. Industrial Commission, 665 P.2d 139, 140 (Colo.App. 1983). 25. E.g., Sherman Agency v. Carey, 577 P.2d 759, 761 (Colo. 1978) (entitlement to real estate commission); Security National Bank v. Peters, Writer & Christensen, 569 P.2d 875, 882 (Colo.App. 1......

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