Staubus v. Reid, 12789
| Decision Date | 16 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 12789,12789 |
| Citation | 652 S.W.2d 293 |
| Parties | Jewell I. STAUBUS, Plaintiff, v. Lewis R. REID d/b/a Barry County Real Estate of Monett, Missouri, Defendant-Respondent, and Robert Justus and Mary Justus d/b/a United Farm Agency of Aurora, Missouri, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David P. Vandagriff, Monett, for defendant-respondent.
Joseph D. Woodcock, Aurora, for defendants-appellants.
Plaintiff, the previous owner of a Barry County farm which she sold to the Browns, filed an interpleader action (Rule 52.07, V.A.M.R.) against defendants Reid and Justus to determine which of the defendants was entitled to the $20,000 real estate sales commission for the sale of the farm. The trial court adjudged that defendant Reid was entitled to the commission less $250 attorneys fees to plaintiff's lawyer for bringing the interpleader action. Defendants Justus appealed.
The farm was placed with both set of defendants as brokers under an open listing agreement, an arrangement which awards the sole commission to the first broker to produce a ready, willing and able buyer and who first notifies the seller that he has such a buyer. The arrangement is aptly referred to as the "race of the contract."
In June 1981 the Browns came to Barry County from Nebraska hopefully looking for land to be used in their occupation of raising horses. The Browns had no prior contacts with defendants and denied having seen the advertisements of defendants anent the farm. Upon their arrival in Barry County, the Browns espied one of Reid's real estate signs and noted his address and telephone number. However, their arrival was early morning and they found few real estate offices open save that of defendants Justus. Mr. Justus supplied the Browns with various advertising flyers, one of which described plaintiff's farm, and drove the Browns to that location. As it was then raining, the trio stayed mostly in the automobile as they spent some 45 minutes inspecting the farm except for the interior of the farmhouse for which Justus then had no key. Albeit Justus offered to obtain a key, the Browns said they did not particularly care to see the inside because, as the Browns testified at trial, their initial reaction to the farm was negative as the exterior of the house was not to their liking and the asking price was more than they wanted to spend. Justus then proceeded to take the Browns to inspect other farms before returning to his office. In due time plaintiff was notified by Justus that he had shown her farm to the Browns.
The same day the Browns had been with Justus, they contacted Reid, looked at property and found none satisfactory to them. Nevertheless, the Browns arranged with Reid to see another farm the following day. The farm they saw on the morrow was plaintiff's farm which they had viewed a day earlier, although they did not tell Reid they had already seen the property until their second tour had been completed. During the tour conducted by Reid, the Browns were able to inspect more of the property than done under Justus' showing, and, in addition, were able to see inside the house twice which they recounted was "one of the big drawing points" in their decision to buy. The Browns also testified that Reid was more knowledgeable concerning the farm and how it could be adapted to raising horses. In all, the Browns and Reid spent three or four hours inspecting the farm and the structures thereon.
After viewing the farm a second time, the Browns told Reid that they had previously seen the farm, though they had signed no contract, and that they were now interested in buying the farm. Since the price was more than they had wanted to spend, Reid began to help them with the financing. Reid's work included acting as intermediary between the Browns and plaintiff and negotiating an arrangement whereby plaintiff would personally finance the sale. He spent a substantial amount of time and money in getting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Enochs
...events which, without break in continuity and without interruption in negotiations, eventually culminates in the sale. Staubus v. Reid, 652 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Mo.App.1983). Appellants point to a temporal "gap" in respondent's evidence, that period between December 1981 and December 1983 durin......
-
Roger Crane & Associates, Inc. v. Felice
...agent. He tried to be the procuring agent but ultimately he was not. Decisions from other jurisdictions are in accord. Staubus v. Reid, 652 S.W.2d 293 (Mo.Ct.App.1983) (broker's efforts must set in motion a series of events which, without break in continuity, eventually culminates in a sale......
-
Mapes v. City Council of City of Walsenburg
...see also Bossow v. Bowlway Lanes, Inc., 161 Ill. App.3d 983, 113 Ill.Dec. 27, 514 N.E.2d 809 (1987); Staubus v. Reid, 652 S.W.2d 293, 293-94 (Mo.Ct.App.1983)(open listing agreement awards sole commission to the first broker to produce a ready, willing, and able buyer, and who first notifies......
-
Syputa v. Druck Inc., 38366-3-I
...356, 451 P.2d 296 (1969).10 Roger Crane & Assocs., Inc. v. Felice, 74 Wash.App. 769, 777, 875 P.2d 705 (1994) (citing Staubus v. Reid, 652 S.W.2d 293 (Mo.Ct.App.1983)).11 Willis, 109 Wash.2d at 754, 748 P.2d 621.12 See Felice, 74 Wash.App. at 776, 875 P.2d 705.13 For example, the independen......