Title: MEECH v CURE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12638
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 2, 1974

No. 12638 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 74 DONALD K. MEECH, d/b/a MEECH REALTY, Plaintiff and Appellant, ORIN R. CURE, Executor of the Estate of CHRIS G. MAYER, Deceased, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, Honorable R. W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Jardine, Stephenson, B l e w e t t & Weaver, Great Falls, Montana Alex B l e w e t t argued and Jack L. Lewis argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent : Cure and Borer, Great Falls, Montana Edward W. Borer, appeared, Great Falls, Montana Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg and Matteucci, Great Falls, Montana Raymond F. Koby argued, Great Falls, Montana Filed : 4 4 1 1 Submitted: June 14, 1974 Decided : q u ~ 2 I974 * Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion o f the Court. P l a i n t i f f appeals from a summary judgment granted by the d i s t r i c t court o f Blaine County i n favor of defendant. I n February 1973 defendant Orin R. Cure, as executor o f the estate o f Chris G. Mayer, deceased, f i l e d a return o f sale and a motion f o r an order confirming sale o f r e a l estate made under a power o f sale contained i n the w i l l o f Chris G. Mayer. Two parcels o f land were involved, one located i n L i b e r t y County, the second located i n Blaine and Chouteau Counties. The return of sale recited t h a t the Liberty County land had been sold t o Ralph I. Schanbacher, Burton 0 . Croft and Ray Delaney f o r $467,700, subject t o c o n f i r - mation o f the court. The return noted t h a t these purchasers had been obtained by Donald K. Meech, a licensed r e a l estate broker. It also noted t h a t Execu- t o r Cure had agreed t h a t i f the purchaser procured by the broker made the highest and best o f f e r t h a t Cure would recomnend t o the court and request t h a t the court allow such broker a $23,000 comission f o r obtaining a purchaser. At the hearing on the return o f sale o f the Liberty County land a f t e r considerable bidding by numerous parties, the property was sold t o the highest bidder, Walter Passage Farms, Inc. f o r the sum o f $520,000. The court accepted the highest b i d and d i d not award any broker's commission. Thus, any commission f o r a sale, if any was owed, d i d not mature. P l a i n t i f f ' s prospective buyers d i d n o t buy. The executor's return of sale as t o the Blaine County land disclosed t h a t a sale of the land had been made by the executor, subject t o confirmation, t o Charles Hodson and John Mitchell f o r $958,000. The return noted t h a t no r e a l estate broker was involved i n the Blaine County property sale and d i d n o t request the payment o f any broker's commission. As was the case i n Liberty County the bidding on the Blaine County property was l i v e l y . This property was b i d i n by Mitchell and Hodson f o r $958,000 and Cure requested the court t o confirm the sale. However, a t the confirmation hearing a w r i t t e n b i d ten percent i n excess of the $958,000 was offered and the court opened the sale t o further bidding. Ultimately the Blaine County property was sold t o M r . Schanbacher and M r . Croft for $1,110,000. N o real estate broker was involved in this property; although the same persons were the prospective buyers on the Liberty property. Prior t o the death of Chris Mayer he had listed his Blaine County property for sale w i t h the Flynn Realty of Havre, Montana. Meech was con- tacted by Flynn and given an opportunity t o find a purchaser and one of such persons contacted was Schanbacher, who became interested in purchasing that property. Following the death of Chris Mayer executor Cure, after being made aware of plaintiff's efforts, agreed that i f a purchaser procured by plaintiff made the highest and best offer for the property then Cure would petition and request the court t o allow a real estate commission of 5%. The instant action was brought by Aronow, Anderson & Beatty of She1 by, Montana on behalf of plaintiff Meech some four months after the sale occurred and the comnission was refused. After summary judgment was granted defendant, plaintiff substituted the 1 a w firm of Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett and Weaver of Great Falls i n his behalf, and after various motions including a motion for relief from summary judgment, which was denied, this appeal was taken. Several issues are brought by plaintiff on appeal which w e will sumnarize in this manner: 1. W a s summary judgment improperly taken considering the state of the pleadings? 2. Does the statute of frauds bar a claim for a commission under the facts? The listing agreement re1 ied on by plaintiff runs from the decedent t o the Flynn Realty of Havre, Montana. Plaintiff knew that only the Blaine County land was listed on said agreement and i n his affidavit in support of a motion for re1 ief from summary judgment he stated that ''Mr. Cure took the position that a l l rights which your affiant may have acquired under said 1 i sting agreement Brminated upon the death of M r . Mayer * * *. " Therefore, plaintiff knew when he filed his complaint the terms of the agreement and was aware that Cure contended there were no enforceable rights thereunder. In addition, a t the hearing on the motion for summary judgment plaintiff's counsel stipulated i n open court that there was no written agreement to pay a real estate commission. While plaintiff sets forth several contentions as issues w e be- lieve the question of whether or not summary judgment was proper will ans- wer the contentions. In regard to the granting of summary judgments i t has long been established i n Montana that the moving party has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of fact to be resolved before such summary judgment will be granted. However, when the record discloses no issue as a material fact, then the burden i s on the party opposing the motion to present evidence of a material and substantial nature raising a genuine fact. Mustang Beverage Co. v. Scttlitz Brewing Co., 162 Mont. 243, 511 P.2d 1 , 30 St.Rep. 565; Pack River Co. v. Young, 162 Mont. 271, 511 P.2d 12, 30 St.Rep. 625. Here, plaintiff a t no time prior to summary judgment questioned that the case was not ready for summary judgment. Then, after adverse t r i a l court determination, sought re1 ief without new facts or amended pleadings . A s noted by defendant i n his brief, plaintiff claims error, solicits reversal through legal speculation on a ''multiple choice basis" as to the sufficiency of his I1theories of re1 ief". The only new matter suggested to the court for i t s consideration was the listing agreement between Chris Mayer and the Flynn Realty Co. which a1 1 parties recognized as having expired with the death of Chris Mayer. Section 2-305, R.C.M. 1947. Trenouth v. Mulroney, 124 Mont. 499, 227 P .2d590; 28 ALR2d 1243, 2 A C. 3 . S. Agency ~ 7 ; 3 Am Jur 2d Agency SS 60-67. W e will not further discuss the various legal theories propounded by plaintiff to take his case out of sumnary judgment, other than to add that w e find no error on the part of the t r i a l court. The court had before i t the only significant issue raised by the pleadings or available to the plaintiff a t the time of the summary judgment which was: Whether defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff a commission absent a written agreement to pay such a commission. The law i s clear on this point. B y statute, a broker may not collect a realtor's commission absent a valid written agreement. In addition, plaintiff did not even claim defendant agreed to pay a comission b u t he premised his allegation on the statement of defendant that he would "petition the court''. Clearly plaintiff had no case and sumnary judgment was properly granted. Judgment i s affirmed . A James T. Harrison. Justices