Case Title: STROMBERG BROWN v SEATON RANCH C

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-10-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12226 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1972 E. C. STROMBERG, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, SEATON RANCH CONPAIfY and D O R O T H Y M. SFATON, Defendants and Appellants. ............................................... M A T T BROWN, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, SEATON RANCIT COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Paul G. Hatf i e l d , .Tudge presiding. Counsel of Record : For P l a i n t i f f and Appellant : Swanberg, Koby & Swanberg, Great Fall-s , Montana. Randall Swanberg argued, Great F a l l s , Montana, For Defendants and Appellants : Graybi-11, Graybill, O s t r e m & Warner, Great F a l l s , Montana. Donald Ostrem argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. J. Vaughan Barron argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. For P l a i n t i f f and Respondent : Harris, Jackson & Utick, Helena, Montana. L. V. Harris argued, Helena, Montana. Submitted: June 20, 1972 ( $ 1 19 !I..'- Decided : F i l e d : T8T 1 9 107$ M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court, This i s an appeal from a judgment entered by the d i s t r i c t court of the eighth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Cascade, Hon. Paul G. Hatfield presiding, without a jury. Judgment was entered upon findings of f a c t and conclusions of law which found the p l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, was the e f f i c i e n t procuring cause of the s a l e of the Seaton ranch t o the Glacier Colony of Hutterites f o r $810,000 and e n t i t l e d t o a r e a l e s t a t e commission i n the amount of $40,500, together with attorney fees i n the amount of $3,783.56, plus costs. P l a i n t i f f E. C. Stromberg, a r e a l e s t a t e broker, f i l e d an action against defendants Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy Seaton t o recover a r e a l e s t a t e commission f o r the s a l e of the Seaton ranch. Later p l a i n t i f f Matt Brown, a r e a l e s t a t e broker, f i l e d an action against defendant Seaton Ranch Company, a corporation, f o r recovery of a r e a l e s t a t e commission f o r the s a l e of the same ranch. Defendants moved t o have the two cases consolidated under Rule 42(a), M.R.Civ. P. Both p l a i n t i f f s , r e s i s t e d but the cases were consolidated by the court. Seaton Ranch Company owned a large ranch near Fort Shaw i n Cascade County. Ed Seaton, husband of defendant Dorothy Seaton, managed the ranch u n t i l h i s death i n 1965. Thereafter Dorothy Seaton took over the management and became owner of a l l the stock i n the corporation, After her husband's death, Dorothy Seaton sold the machinery and p a r t of the livestock and entered i n t o approximately twenty nonexclusive l i s t i n g s with various r e a l e s t a t e brokers f o r the s a l e of the ranch, including a l i s t i n g with E.C. Stromberg dated May 17, 1966, and a l i s t i n g t o Matt Brown, dated December 9,1966. Stromberg's l i s t i n g contract contained no expiration date and was t o remain open u n t i l e i t h e r the contract was terminated o r the ranch was sold. The Brown l i s t i n g contract had an expira- t i o n date of June 15, 1967, although a blank space was l e f t i n the l a s t paragraph of the Brown l i s t i n g r e l a t i n g t o the number of days a f t e r the expiration date during which Brown could re- cover a commission i n the event of a sale. Both Stromberg and Brown s o l i c i t e d the Glacier Colony. Soon a f t e r obtaining h i s l i s t i n g on May 17, 1966, Stromberg con- tacted a group of prospective customers and imparted t o them a l l of the pertinent information regarding the Seaton ranch. Among these prospective customers was M r . John Entz of the Glacier Colony. M r . Entz, secretary-treasurer of the Glacier Colony, had advised Stromberg p r i o r t o May 1966, t h a t the Glacier Colony desired land i n the Great F a l l s area. After receiving the r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g from M r s . Seaton, Stromberg made two personal v i s i t s t o the Glacier Colony, the f i r s t i n May or June 1966, and the second sometime i n the spring of 1967. Both times he gave informa'tion about the Seaton ranch t o M r . Entz and attempted t o i n t e r e s t him i n the ultimate purchase of the ranch. Stromberg a l s o made several telephone c a l l s t o Entz regarding the possible s a l e of the property and wrote two l e t t e r s t o Entz dated January 5, 1967 and June 27, 1967, both of which discussed the Seaton ranch. M r . Entz v i s i t e d Stromberg's o f f i c e on several occasions, the l a s t v i s i t being on July 12, 1967. I n July 1967, some members of the Glacier Colony went t o ~tromberg's o f f i c e i n Great F a l l s , expressed a desire t o be shown the Seaton ranch, and asked f o r an appointment f o r t h a t purpose. Stromberg never made the appointment nor showed them the ranch. The l a s t contact by Stromberg with e i t h e r Mrs. Seaton o r the o f f i c e r s of t h e Glacier Colony was on July 12, 1967, when he wrote a l e t t e r t o M r . Entz apologizing for h i s failure to make an appointment. ~tromberg's testimony a t t r i a l was: "Like I told you before, you reach a saturation point on contacts and work with people. There i s some point there where they indicated they were going t o come back, I was certainly not going t o go there the next day and lead them by the hand and say ' l e t ' s go'. I t Matt Brown specialized i n ranch properties and during the period from 1965 t o December 1966, he obtained three nonexclusive l i s t i n g s t o s e l l the Seaton ranch, one from E d Seaton and two from Dorothy Seaton. H e had already spent considerable time on t h i s property when he received the l i s t i n g i n question here. Prior t o the June 15, 1967, expiration of h i s l i s t i n g , Brown on or about M a y 24, 1967, i n response t o a c a l l from the Glacier C,olony drove t o the colony and spent two t o two and one-half hours giving the leaders of the colony information on one other ranch and complete details on the Seaton ranch. They did not indicate they had ever seen the Seaton ranch but showed an interest i n it. The only deterrent t o t h e i r interest was an outstanding lease of the farm land t o one Charles Jacobsen, but they advised Matt Brown that he could overcome that obstacle. Upon leaving the colony, Brown advised them t o contact him when they were ready t o look a t the ranch. Within a day or two a f t e r enlisting the interest of the Glacier Colony, on M a y 27, 1967, Brown went t o see Dorothy Seaton a t the ranch and advised her the Glacier Colony was interested i n buying the ranch and ascertained that she would not object t o selling to Hutterites. Brown then went t o the home of Charles Jacobsen, the lessee of the Seaton ranch farm land i n Fairfield, Montana, and attempted to find out what it would take t o buy out the lessee's interest. H e was unsuccessful i n obtaining a figure, Subsequently, the leaders of the Glacier Colony went to ~acobsen's home a t Fairfield, their purpose being t o deal directly with him i n attempting to buy h i s leasehold interest. They offered him $60,000, but he demanded $80,000. A t that time they advised Jacobsen they were buying the Seaton ranch. A few days a f t e r h i s v i s i t s t o Mrs. Seaton and t o Charles Jacobsen, Brown had another telephone c a l l from the leaders of the Glacier Colony indicating they were i n Great Falls and wanted to go out t o look a t the ranch. This was on June 21, 1967, five days a f t e r the expiration date i n ~rown's listing. Brown met the colony leaders and drove them i n h i s car t o the Seaton ranch. H e spent the entire afternoon showing the ranch, arriving a t 2 p.m. and returning t o h i s home between 7:30 t o 8:00 p.m. H e showed the leaders of the colony a large part of the ranch and they exhibited an interest i n seeing the entire ranch property. The&owing of the ranch on June 2 1 was cut short when ~ r o w n ' s automobile was damaged when it slipped i n t o a r u t , but he was able t o drive the leaders back t o Great Falls. To complete the showing, arrangements were made for Brown t o take the Hutterites t o breakfast the next morning and then take them back t o the ranch and complete the showing. However, early the next morning, one of the Hutterites called Brown a t h i s home and stated that they had received a c a l l and would have t o return t o the colony and so would not be able t o return t o the Seaton ranch. The next day, June 22, 1967, Brown mailed a l e t t e r t o John Entz expressing disappointment that he had been unable t o show them the entire ranch, offering further information and urging them t o make a cash offer. A day or two l a t e r Brown called M r s . Seaton and asked t o meet her either a t the ranch or a t h i s office. She requested that he meet her a t Weissman's store i n Great Falls, as she did not want t o meet him a t the ranch. A t t h i s meeting Brown reported t o her h i s activity i n showing the ranch t o the Glacier Colony leaders and their failure t o meet him for the breakfast and further showing of the ranch property. A week or ten days l a t e r , a f t e r receiving no reply t o h i s l e t t e r of June 22, Brown called the Glacier Colony t o see i f they did not want t o come back t o see the Seaton ranch again, H e talked t o one of the leaders and was told "forget it, now, Brown, II After Brown was told t o "forget it", he took no further action, thinking the Hutterites would wait u n t i l the Jacobsen farm lease had expired and that they would come back t o him. It was unknown to him that the colony had voted t o buy the ranch and had continued t o v i s i t the Seaton ranch throughout the balance of the summer of 1967, and during the winter of 1968. Neither did he know that the leaders of the Glacier Colony during the same period of time were negotiating directly with Mrs. Seaton, without going through him, doing so one time i n company with another broker, Leonard Doran, and on several occasions by themselves, It was also unknown t o Brown that Mrs. Seaton was contacting Charles Jacobsen during the f a l l of 1967 and winter of 1968, t o determine whether or not he would l e t h i s lease prevent a sale of the ranch t o the Glacier Colony. The colony leaders were negotiating directly with Dorothy Seaton or her f i s c a l agent, a brother-in-law. Neither Brown nor Stromberg were aware of these dealings, During t h i s time she sold a parcel of five to s i x thousand acres for around $40,000 and a parcel of 160 acres for $6,000; and i n March 1968 sold the balance of the ranch t o the Glacier Hutterites for $810,000, subject t o the leasehold interest of Charles Jacobsen. Leonard Doran, a r e a l estate broker, had a l i s t i n g i n 1966 but when he went t o the ranch with the colony members he had no valid listing. The colony leaders indicated that he was t h e i r broker but admitted they worked around him i n the end, After t r i a l the d i s t r i c t court entered the following findings of fact and cod.usions of law: "FINDINGS O F FACT "1. Defendants1 motions for dismissal should be denied, and p l a i n t i f f , Matt ~rown's offered evidence of excerpts from the deposition of Dorothy M. Seaton should be received. "2. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, i s and has been a r e a l estate broker, licensed by the State of Montana since 1958, and engaged i n the sale of ranch properties a t Great Falls, Montana, and in the surrounding area. "3. Defendant, Seaton Ranch Company, is a Montana corporation which owned a large ranch, known as the Seaton Ranch, i n Cascade County, Montana, near Fort Shaw, u n t i l March 27, 1968, and defendant, Dorothy M. Seaton, i s and has been the owner of the e n t i r e beneficial interest i n said corporation and i n complete control of the corporation. "4. O n December 9, 1967, defendants employed plain- t i f f , Matt Brown, a s a r e a l estate broker to s e l l the Seaton ranch, under a written contract of employment. The written contract provided that Matt Brown had a 'non-exclusive1 right t o s e l l the ranch u n t i l June 15, 1967, and l i s t e d a price of $900,000. The contract, also provided: I I f you o r any other agents or brokers cooperating with you find a buyer ready and willing t o enter into a deal for said price and terms or any such other price and terms as I may accept, or any time during your employment you place m e i n contact with a buyer t o or through whom a t any time within days a f t e r terminating said employment, I may s e l l or convey said property, I agree t o pay you i n cash for your services a corn- * - - mission equal i n amount- t o 5 % of the selling price. I The contract further provided: I I agree t o pay any sum a Court may ad- judge a s reasonable attorneys' fees i n case s u i t or action is filed on t h i s contract.' The space permitting the insertion of the period of time during which the broker would be entitled t o a commission for a sale consummated t o a party with whom the broker placed the s e l l e r ' i n contact1 was not specifically discussed by the parties a t the time they entered into the contract, but the conduct of the re- spective parties and the course of dealing between them, viewed i n the l i g h t of the customs and usages i n the sale of large ranches, clearly establishes that it was the intention of the parties t o allow a reasonable t i m e a f t e r the expiration date during which the broker would be entitled t o the commission. " 5 . Plaintiff, Matt Brown, had had two e a r l i e r non-exclusive l i s t i n g s on the Seaton ranch, before he obtained the l i s t i n g on December 9, 1966, under which he had obtained a great deal of information and done a great deal of work, which had given him an extensive familiarity with the details of the ranch and permitted him t o represent it and discuss it with prospective buyers. "6.011 o r about M a y 26, 1967, before the expira- tion date of h i s l i s t i n g , Matt Brown received a tele- $me c a l l from the Glacier Colony of Hutterites, near Cut Bank, Montana, inquiring a s t o the availability of large ranches. On M a y 26, 1967, he went from Great Falls t o Cut Bank and attempted t o reach the colony, but took a wrong road and was compelled t o stay over- n i t e i n the Glacier Hotel i n Cut Bank. The next mom- ing, on M a y 27, 1967, he went t o the headquarters of the colony and m e t with the leaders of the colony, and gave them information on one other ranch and de- tailed information on the Seaton ranch. The leaders of the colony expressed a keen interest i n the Seaton ranch, having only one objection -- that there was a lease on the farm land on the ranch t o a Charles Jacob- sen which would not terminate u n t i l the end of the 1970 crop season -- and they urged Matt Brown t o take action t o attempt t o dispose of the outstanding leasehold interest, assuring him they would buy the ranch i f he would do so. "7. Within a day or two a f t e r he had interested the Glacier Colony i n the Seaton ranch, and before the expiration date of h i s l i s t i n g on June 15, 1967, Matt Brown went t o the Seaton ranch and informed Dorothy M. Seaton of the interest of the Glacier Colony i n the purchase of the ranch, securing her assurance that she would not object t o selling t o Hutterites. H e also made two v i s i t s t o Charles Jacobsen i n attempts t o make a deal t o buy the outstanding leasehold interest i n the farm land held by him. "8. O n June 21, 1967, Matt Brown met the leaders of the Glacier Colony i n Great Falls, and drove them out t o the Seaton ranch, where he spent a substantial amount of t i m e going over the ranch with them and showing it t o them. After experiencing d i f f i c u l t y i n getting h i s car stuck, he took them back t o Great Falls, and made arrangements t o take them t o breakfast, the next morning, and then take them back out t o finish looking a t the ranch. "9. The next morning, June 22, 1967, Matt Brown received a telephone c a l l from one of the leaders of the Glacier Colony advising that personal matters re- quired that they return t o the colony, near Cut Bank, and that they would not be able t o go back t o finish looking a t the Seaton ranch. Later, the same day, Matt Brown wrote a l e t t e r t o John Entz, Secretary-Treasurer of the Glacier Colony, expressing h i s disappointment that the Hutterites had had t o return t o the colony before seeing the balance of the Seaton ranch, and assur- ing him of h i s interest i n negotiating the terms of a sale. "10. Soon a f t e r June 22, 1967, Matt Brown called the Glacier Colony on the phone t o ask that he be allowed t o continue negotiations for the sale of the Seaton ranch, and he was advised that they were not interested -- ' t o forget it, I "11, Following t h e i r v i s i t t o the Seaton ranch with Matt Brown on June 21, 1967, the leaders of the Glacier Colony repeatedly and continuously returned t o the Seaton ranch, examining it more minutely, and these inspections continued a t least as l a t e as November, 1967, when they were able t o inspect the stand of the winter wheat crop. On a t least two of these occasions they met with Mrs. Seaton a t the ranch t o discuss the purchase of the ranch. "12. It appears that the Glacier Colony received some information concerning the Seaton ranch from E.C. Stromberg prior t o the activity of Matt Brown with respect t o the Glacier Colony, but E. C. Stromberg never aroused sufficient interest i n the Glacier Colony t o make them request a showing, and there i s no substantial evi- dence t o indicate that the Glacier Colony ever had any genuine interest i n buying the Seaton ranch as a result of anything done by E. C, Stromberg. "13. It appears that some members of the Glacier Colony visited the Seaton ranch during the summer of 1967, i n company with one Leonard Doran, a r e a l e s t a t e broker who had previously had a non-exclusive l i s t i n g which had expired i n 1966, with no provision that it could have any effect whatsoever beyond i t s expiration date unless earnest money had been deposited. There i s no credible evidence establishing specific dates for any v i s i t s of the Glacier Colony Hutterites t o the Seaton ranch prior t o their v i s i t with Matt Brown on June 21, 1967, and there i s no credible evidence that the leaders of the Glacier Colony became genuinely interested i n the purchase of the Seaton ranch as the result of any a c t i v i t i e s by Leonard Doran, or otherwise, prior t o the time Matt Brown visited the Glacier Colony on M a y 27, 1967. "14. Dorothy M, Seaton had, by her own estimate, given twenty non-exclusive l i s t i n g s for the sale of the Seaton ranch between the death of her husband i n 1965 and the end of 1966, and was willing t o s e l l the ranch a t a l l times herein concerned. The l i s t i n g given t o Matt Brown on December 9, 1966, was the l a s t l i s t i n g given. "15. During the f a l l of 1967, Dorothy M. Seaton sold certain parcels of the ranch which had been included i n Matt Brown s l i s t i n g , separately from the r e s t of the ranch -- one of 5,000 acres bringing a t least $25,000 or $30,000, and one of 160 acres bringing a t least $6,000. "16. During the winter of 1967-1968, Dorothy M. Seaton was absent from the State of Montana for a con- siderable period of time, being i n California, and, during t h i s time, the leaders of the Glacier Colony of Hutterites negotiated for the purchase of the Seaton ranch with her brother-in-law, Robert W. Gronberg, a banker i n Choteau, Montana, who had a qualifying share of stock i n the Seaton Ranch Company and was Vice President, and who was also M r s . Seaton's adviser i n financial matters. "17. After several meetings i n the bank of Robert W. Gronberg, i n Choteau, a sale of the Seaton Ranch from the Seaton Ranch Company t o the Glacier Colony was consummated on March 27, 1968, for a price of $810,000, subj.ect t o the outstanding lease of Charles Jacobsen, not including the parts of the ranch which had been previously disposed of, and without the payment of any r e a l estate commission. "18. The conduct of Dorothy M. Seaton, subse- quent t o being informed of the interest of the Glacier Colony i n buying the Seaton ranch, i n l a t e M a y or early June, 1967, exhibited an intention and design t o exclude Matt Brown from further negotiations for the sale of the Seaton ranch t o the Glacier Colony for the purpose of avoiding the payment of a r e a l estate commission, which intention and design were pursued u n t i l the sale was consummated. "19. The a c t i v i t i e s of Matt Brown, and particularly h i s a c t i v i t i e s from M a y 26, 1967, through June 22, 1967, were the efficient procuring cause of the sale of the Seaton Ranch t o the Glacier Colony. "20. Under a l l of the circumstances, and i n view of the continuity of the interest of the eventual pur- chaser and the continuity of the negotiations, the period of time from June 15, 1967 t o March 27, 1968, i s a reasonable time t o be allowed during which Matt Brown would be entitled t o a real e s t a t e commission i n connection with a sale t o a buyer with whom he had put the s e l l e r i n contact. "21. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, has been compelled t o employ attorneys t o prosecute t h i s action, and h i s attorneys were required t o expend a t least 144,5 hours i n the prosecution of the case, not including two days pre-trial preparation, two days i n t r i a l , and t i m e subsequent, and said services are of a reasonable value of $3,783.56. "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW "1. The efforts of plaintiff Matt Brown were the efficient procuring cause of the sale of the Seaton ranch from the Seaton Ranch Company t o the Glacier Colony, a t a price of $810,000, which price was within the con- templation of the l i s t i n g contract between the Seaton Ranch Company and Matt Brown, and Matt Brown i s entitled t o a r e a l estate commission i n the sum of $40,500.00 "2. Plaintiff, Matt Brown, i s entitled t o a further sum i n the amount of $3,783.56, as and for h i s attorney's fees herein, together with h i s costs incurred." Plaintiff-appellant E. C. Stromberg raises these issues on appeal: 1. The court erred i n not finding that E. C. Stromberg had the only valid and#legal r e a l estate l i s t i n g t o s e l l the Seaton ranch during March 1968. 2. The d i s t r i c t court erred i n finding that Matt Brown rather than E. C. Stromberg was the efficient and procuring cause of the sale of the Seaton ranch t o the Glacier Hutterite Colony. 3. The caurt erred i n not finding that Mrs. Dorothy Seaton fraudulently and/or i n bad f a i t h intervened and prevented E. C. Stromberg from concluding the aforementioned sale. Defendant-appellants Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy Seaton r a i s e these issues on appeal: 1. Whether the evidence on record supports the findings of the d i s t r i c t court, more particularly the following: (a) That, prior t o the expiration of h i s l i s t i n g contract, plaintiff-respondent Matt Brown informed Dorothy Seaton of an interest of the Glacier Colony of the Hutterite Order i n purchasing the property of the Seaton Ranch Company. (b) That M r s . Seaton had design and intention t o exclude Brown from negotiations regarding the sale of the ranch for the purpose of avoiding the payment of r e a l t o r ' s commission t o Brown. 2. Whether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n finding that Brown was the efficient procuring cause of the sale of the Seaton ranch t o the Glacier Colony. 3. Whether during the t e r m of Brown's l i s t i n g contract he found a buyer ready, willing and able t o enter into a "deal" for the purchase of the Seaton ranch property and i f not, whether h i s failure to do so bars him from recovery of a r e a l e s t a t e commission. 4, Whether the d i s t r i c t court erred i n entering judgment against the individual defendant, Dorothy M. Seaton. As i s indicated i n the summary of the facts, there was an unusual amount of evidence presented t o the t r i a l judge which resulted i n numerous conflicts i n the evidence, H e was the one who had the only opportunity t o see and hear a l l witnesses. Each party makes a strong argument that these facts and circum- stances favor h i s position. Yet, a s has been stated by t h i s Court too many times t a require citation, it i s not t h i s Court's province t o review the record of the t r i a l court t o determine whether or not we agree with the conclusions reached, i f supported by the evidence. W e must indulge the presumption that the judg- ment of the d i s t r i c t court is correct and w i l l not be disturbed unless there i s a clear preponderance of evidence against it when viewed i n the l i g h t most favorable t o the prevailing party, i n t h i s case plaintiff-respondent Matt Brown. The burden r e s t s with the appellants t o make t h i s showing, W e do not find that they have carried the burden. The principal argument of Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy Seaton i s grounded on the assertion that the chain of events which occurred a f t e r the primary t e r m of Matt Brown's contract expired on June 15, 1967, must be viewed a s irrelevant and that the evidence must show Brown produced a ready, willing, and able buyer before that date. This position i s urged under the holding i n Flinders v. Gilbert, 141 Mont. 442, 378 P,2d 385, which they contend has the effect of rendering a l l nonexclusive l i s t i n g s subject t o the standard of requiring the broker t o be the procuring cause by producing a buyer ready, willing, and able before a commission w i l l be required t o be paid regardless of the l a s t paragraph of the l i s t i n g contract which governs the rights of the parties a f t e r the term of the primary contract expires. W e do not quarrel with Flinders or i t s application to the fact situation i n that case. W e do not agree with the broad application given t o Flinders by appellants here. Brbefly, that case involves a dispute between two brokers whose l i s t i n g contracts had not expired and the Court held that the paragraph similar t o the one i n dispute here did not apply i n that case because p l a i n t i f f ' s employment had not terminated a t the time the sale was made through broker Hunt. And, by way of dictum, the court observed that the paragraph which governed the rights of the parties a f t e r expiration of the l i s t i n g , even though it had no application, was consonant with a paragraph that was stricken, which paragraph contained exclusive contract provisions. This was found t o bear on the intent of the parties i n that case, It would be d i f f i c u l t t o apply that standard t o a l l nonexclu- sive l i s t i n g contracts, such as i n the present case, when i t appears no substantial language was stricken. It i s possible t o enter into a nonexclusive l i s t i n g contract with t h i s type of protection afforded for a time a f t e r the expiration of the agreement. See Annotation, 27 ALR2d 1408. Each case would have t o be examined on i t s own circumstances. But, more important here i s the declaration by the Court i n Flinders that there was no bad f a i t h or fraud by either plaintiff or defendant, and the commission was paid. I f the finding on fraud or bad f a i t h had been to the contrary, then certainly the judgment would not have been affirmed in Hunt's favor. Here, the t r i a l court i n i t s finding of fact No. 18 found bad f a i t h i n the interruption and exclusion of Matt Brown from productive negotiations by the s e l l e r , which continued u n t i l the sale was consummated. There i s substantial direct and c i r - cumstantial evidence t o support the t r i a l court's finding. This finding i s strengthened by strong evidence of bad f a i t h on the part of the buyers working i n concert with the s e l l e r , W e cannot overlook the f a c t that the buyer's cooperation made i t less d i f f i c u l t t o achieve the exclusion, and particularly when the financial gain from t h i s type of activity enured t o the benefit of both s e l l e r and buyer. There i s credible evidence t o support the t r i a l court's finding as between p l a i n t i f f Brown and plaintiff Stromberg. Both were equally entitled t o s e l l the property and both were proceeding i n a good f a i t h effort t o do so. Even though ~tromberg's l i s t i n g had not expired, t h i s i s not controlling as between the two p l a i n t i f f s under the circumstances of t h i s case. A s the evidence demonstrates, Stromberg worked hard with the buyers, a s did Brown, over a period of time. However, Stromberg's relationship with the Glacier Colony became impaired and he relaxed h i s e f f o r t and failed t o carry through and show the property t o the Colony. B y h i s own testimony he was not prepared t o "take them by the hand"; he f e l t a saturation point had been reached. About t h i s time Brown did show the property and kept a f t e r a l l parties trying t o negotiate a sale. The law is clear that i f ~ r o w n ' s primary l i s t i n g contract expired during active negotia- tions he could not be excluded, This i s particularly true i n t h i s case where the court found Brown did not relax h i s e f f o r t s but was prevented by the actions of the defendant from proceeding during actual negotiations that did r e s u l t i n a sale. See: Bartsas Realty, Inc. v. Leverton, 82 Nev.6, 409 P.2d 627; Flinders v. Gilbert, 141 Mont. 442, 378 P.2d 385; 43 A.L.R. 1096; 46 ALR2d 854; Shober v. Blackford, 46 Mont, 194, 127 P. 329. The reasonableness of the time involved i n t h i s case has also been questioned by defendants. Under usual circumstances time allowed to protect the broker a f t e r expiration of the principal l i s t i n g under a protective paragraph, i f no time period i s named, i s held t o be a reasonable time, Reasonable time i n transactions of t h i s type is determined by the nature and character of the service t o be rendered, magnitude of the under- taking, the intention of the parties, and a l l the facts and circumstances of the case. 12 C.J.S. Brokers 5 88, p. 203. Under a l l the circumstances of t h i s case it would appear that t h i s t e s t has been met. Concerning defendants' issue No. 4 relating t o the personal l i a b i l i t y of Dorothy Seaton for payment of the r e a l e s t a t e commission, i t is abundantly clear from the evidence that Dorothy Seaton i s the a l t e r ego of Seaton Ranch Company by reason of her ownership of the e n t i r e beneficial interest therein. Under such circumstances equity demands that the Court pierce the corporate veil. Accordingly defendant Dorothy Seaton i s per- sonally liable for payment of the commission as determined by the t r i a l court. The judgment of the t r i a l court i s affirmed. / / Chief Justice