Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01274/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01274-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Fl LED 

United Staces Court of Appeals 

Tench Ci::n.Jh 

WILLIAM B. COOK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

MCKELLAR DEVELOPMENT OF NEVADA, INC.; 

MCKELLAR HOLDING CO., INC.; MCKELLAR 

DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

FEB 9 1990 

> .ROBERT L. HOECKER 

~ Clerk 

) 

) No. 88-1274 

) (D.C. No. 86-C-0513W) 

) (D. Utah) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district court holding 

that defendants were not liable to plaintiff for a two percent 

commission on the sale of real property. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1274 Document: 01019963010 Date Filed: 02/09/1990 Page: 1 
' 

! 

Plaintiff, a licensed real estate broker in Utah, brought 

this diversity action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff 

alleged he had entered into a listing agreement with defendants, 

Nevada land development corporations. The agreement provided that 

defendants would pay plaintiff a two percent commission if "any of 

the potential buyers you expose to [the Century Park Office 

Complex in Las Vegas, Nevada] ultimately consummate a purchase." 

Southmark Corporation of Dallas, Texas, and its subsidiaries was 

one of the listed potential buyers. 

Southmark purchased Century Park, but defendants refused to 

pay plaintiff a commission on the grounds that plaintiff had not 

fulfilled the terms of the agreement. Plaintiff commenced this 

suit in which he alleged that he had "exposed" Southmark to 

Century Park and, therefore, was entitled to the commission. 

After a trial to the court, the court held for defendants on 

the grounds that the term "expose to" in the agreement was 

ambiguous and was to be construed against plaintiff, drafter of 

the agreement. The court held that the 

legal effect of these words in the agreement is that the 

plaintiff is required in connection with these 

purchasers to have done something that had some causal 

connection with the property being purchased by that 

potential buyer and in order for the plaintiff to be 

entitled to a commission. Inasmuch as plaintiff's 

efforts neither caused nor contributed to cause in any 

way the sale of the property in question, nor did his 

efforts confer any economic benefit on the defendants, 

plaintiff is not entitled to receive either the 

commission provided for in the agreement nor any other 

compensation on a quantum meruit basis. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the district court erred 

because the listing agreement is not ambiguous and even if it 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1274 Document: 01019963010 Date Filed: 02/09/1990 Page: 2 
were, the rules of contract construction dictate interpretation 

for plaintiff. 

Upon review of the record, the district court's opinion, 

plaintiff's arguments on appeal, and the controlling law, we find 

no reversible error. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1274 Document: 01019963010 Date Filed: 02/09/1990 Page: 3