Velten v. Robertson, 80CA1163
| Decision Date | 05 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 80CA1163,80CA1163 |
| Citation | 671 P.2d 1011 |
| Parties | Bob VELTEN and Thomas Brady, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Olive ROBERTSON, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Derrick ZIMMERMAN, Woodside Realty Company, and Charles Oschner, individually and doing business as Woodside Realty Company, a Colorado corporation, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Louis A. Morrone, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Sherman & Howard, Raymond J. Turner, Denver, for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant.
Michael A. Littman, Wheat Ridge, for third-party defendants-appellees.
The seller, Olive Robertson, appeals a judgment granting specific performance of a real estate contract to buyers, Bob Velten and Thomas Brady. We reverse.
In January of 1979, Derrick Zimmerman, a real estate salesman, contacted seller to inquire about her willingness to sell a 10-unit apartment building. The seller would not agree to give the salesman an exclusive listing on the property, but, because seller indicated that she might consider selling the building, the salesman then contacted the buyers to inquire about their interest in the property.
Together with the salesman, the buyers prepared a receipt and option agreement. The salesman obtained the buyers' signatures on this contract. The salesman then presented this contract to the seller at her home and obtained her signature. The seller proposed a number of changes to the contract and an addendum was prepared. Two days later, the salesman also obtained the buyers' and seller's signatures on the addendum.
Neither the contract nor the addendum contained a provision which would require the seller to pay the salesman a commission because the salesman had indicated to the seller that he would be compensated by the buyers. In lieu of a cash commission, the buyers offered "to execute a note and deed of trust [secured by the property] in favor of [the salesman] in the sum of $5,000." The buyers also agreed that in the event the property were to be sold within the next year, the salesman would be entitled to 50% of the profits. Neither the salesman nor the buyers disclosed the details of this arrangement to the seller.
The seller refused to close because she believed that her request for a financial statement from the buyers constituted a counteroffer which was not accepted. The court, however, based on conflicting evidence, found otherwise. This finding is binding on this court on appeal. Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336 (1970).
The seller contended before the trial court, and now contends on appeal, that the trial court erred in granting specific performance to the buyers because the salesman failed to disclose his personal financial interest in the property and that, because the salesman was her agent as well as the buyers', this was a breach of his fiduciary duty of disclosure. We agree.
In M.S.R., Inc. v. Lish, 34 Colo.App. 320, 527 P.2d 912 (1974) we examined the elements of an agency relationship with a salesman. In Lish, the broker "contacted the defendant [seller] and told her he had procured a buyer, he prepared the contract, he obtained the signatures of the parties, and his employer ......
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Real Equity Diversification, Inc. v. Coville, 83CA0926
...agency relationship does not stand or fall on a determination of whether a commission was to be paid [to the broker]." Velten v. Robertson, 671 P.2d 1011 (Colo.App.1983). And, the "mere payment of a commission is not determinative of an agency relationship" for the purpose of entering a sum......
-
Little v. Rohauer, 83CA0693
...influence their actions. See Hickam v. Colorado Real Estate Commission, 36 Colo.App. 76, 534 P.2d 1220 (1975); see also Velten v. Robertson, 671 P.2d 1011 (Colo.App.1983). Thus, Coldwell, who knew that the contract required the title insurance commitment to be furnished by a specific date a......
-
Victorio Realty Group, Inc. v. Ironwood IX
...significance of that payment. While mere payment of a commission is not determinative of an agency relationship, see Velten v. Robertson, 671 P.2d 1011 (Colo.App.1983), the fact of such payment is sufficient here to defeat defendant's motion for summary judgment. Because plaintiff has shown......
-
Bay Shore Properties, Inc. v. Drew Corp.
...the sale. However, the receipt of a commission does not, standing alone, serve to create an agency relationship. See Velten v. Robertson, 671 P.2d 1011, 1012 (Colo.App.1983); see also 2A C.J.S. Agency § 40 (1973). The remainder of the evidence, including the depositions of James Alexander, ......
-
Third-party Malpractice Claims Against Real Estate Lawyers
...NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. MSR, Inc. v. Lish, 34 Colo.App. 320, 527 P.2d 912 (1974); Velten v. Robertson v. Zimmerman, 671 P.2d 1011 (Colo.App. 1983). See also, Earnest, "Implications of Zimmerman on Buyer Brokerage in Colorado," in the Real Estate Law Newsletter, this issue.......
-
Implications of Zimmerman on Buyer Brokerage in Colorado
...to the various parties in a real estate transaction should be resolved in light of those facts. NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. 671 P.2d 1011 (Colo.App. 1983). 2. 34 Colo.App. 320, 527 P.2d 912 (1974). 3. Ocrant v. Dean Witter and Co., Inc., 502 F.2d 854 (10th Cir. 1974). 4. Id. a......
-
Agency by Surprise: the Disclosure Dilemma in Real Estate
...5. Shriver v. Carter, 651 P.2d 436 (Colo. App. 1982). 6. Buttler v. Colorado Intern. Pancakes, Inc., 510 P.2d 443 (Colo.App. 1973). 7. 671 P.2d 1011 (Colo.App. 1983). 8. Id. at 1012. 9. Id. 10. 707 P.2d 1015 (Colo.App. 1985). 11. Id. at 1016. 12. Id. 13. S.Ct. No. 86SC106. On April 21, 1986......
-
Designated Brokerage: Colorado Real Estate Agency Law Evolves Again
...party acts on behalf of and under control of another). 6. See, e.g., Shriver v. Carter, 651 P.2d 436, 439 (Colo.App. 1982). 7. Velten, 671 P.2d 1011 (Colo.App. 8. Little, 707 P.2d 1015 (Colo.App. 1985); rev'd Rohauer v. Little, 736 P.2d 403 (Colo. 1987). 9. Velten, supra, note 7 at 1012 (li......