Title: Foster v. Winner

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Foster and Gridley v. Winner (98-489); 169 Vt. 621; 740 A.2d 1283

[Filed 2-Aug-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-489

                               JUNE TERM, 1999

Foster and Gridley, d/b/a Remax	}	APPEALED FROM:
Champlain Valley Properties and	}
MCM Group, Inc.	                }
     	                        }	Addison Superior Court
     v.	                        }	
	                        }
Irene H. Winner	                }	DOCKET NOS. 109-5-97 & 
				                    111-5-97 Ancv

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Irene Winner appeals adverse summary judgment decisions in a
  suit by plaintiff  brokers to recover real estate commissions.  Defendant
  contends the Addison Superior Court erred  in:  (1) granting plaintiff MCM
  Group, Inc.'s (Century 21) motion for summary judgment on  Century 21's
  claim for breach of contract and attorney's fees and, (2) granting both
  Century 21 and  Foster and Gridley Inc.'s (Remax) motion for summary
  judgment on defendant's fiduciary breach  and tortious interference
  counterclaims. We affirm.

       This matter arises out of a 1997 real estate transaction.  In
  September 1996, defendant  entered into an "Exclusive Right to Market
  Property" agreement (listing agreement) with Century  21.  The listing
  agreement concerned real property in Cornwall and provided that Century 21
  was  to receive the exclusive right to act as defendant's real estate agent
  for the listing, marketing and  sale of the property for a one year term. 
  The listing price for the property was $250,000, and  Century 21's
  commission under the agreement was six percent if, during the term of the
  agreement,  "the Property is sold or Owner enters into an agreement for the
  sale of the Property and all closing  contingencies to be performed by
  purchaser under such agreement are satisfied in accordance with  the terms
  thereof."  In February 1997, Brian and Theresa Marohnic (the buyers),
  through their  agent Remax, offered to purchase the Cornwall property for
  $255,000, $5,000 above the asking  price.  Defendant accepted the offer and
  on March 1, 1997, entered into a purchase and sale  contract with the
  buyers.  The contract included an addendum indicating that the transaction
  was to  be financed by the seller and was "subject to a seller's credit
  check of the buyer." 

       In March and April 1997, in response to defendant's request for credit
  information, Remax  provided defendant with buyers' 1994, 1995 and 1996
  federal income tax returns, a statement of  the buyers' available cash, and
  a statement of the buyers' income, expenses and assets.  Another  addendum
  was executed by defendant on April 29 to confirm that the purchase and sale
  agreement  included a commercial property, as well as a residential
  property.  The buyers executed the  addendum on May 9, the day of the
  closing.  Although the sale closed, defendant did not pay a  commission to
  Century 21.  

       Century 21 and Remax brought suit against defendant for breach of
  contract and quantum  meruit.  Defendant counterclaimed against both
  plaintiffs for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious  interference with a
  contract.  Thereafter, Century 21 and Remax filed motions for summary 
  judgment on their breach of contract claims and on defendant's
  counterclaims.  Defendant filed a  motion to dismiss Remax's complaint and
  a motion for summary judgment of Remax's claim for  attorney's fees. 
  Defendant appeals the summary judgment decisions decided against her.  She
  does  not appeal the denial of her motion to dismiss Remax's claim for
  quantum meruit, and we do not  address it.     

Century 21's motion for summary judgment

       We examine first defendant's appeal of the court's decision granting
  Century 21 summary  judgment on its claim for breach of contract and
  attorney's fees and on defendant's counterclaims.   Defendant argues that
  Century 21 is not entitled to the commission because the sale was not 
  consummated on the terms in the original purchase and sale agreement, but
  rather, required the  intervention of her son and her attorney to ensure
  the inclusion of two addenda to address  alternative financing arrangements
  and the sale of the commercial property.   Defendant contends  Century 21
  failed to effectively structure the purchase and sale agreement and to
  inform defendant  of critical financial information.  

       Summary judgment should be granted where, giving the non-moving party
  the benefit of all  reasonable doubts and inferences, there are no genuine
  issues of material fact, and the moving party  is entitled to judgment as a
  matter of law.  See e.g., Baldwin v. Upper Valley Servs. Inc., 162 Vt.  51,
  55,