Opinion ID: 2640812
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Under Washington law, Erwin, a Washington-licensed real estate broker, can maintain a claim for fees arising from the leasing of Cotter's California SHC facilities

Text: ¶ 48 Finally, Cotter argues, without success, that even if Washington law applies, the . . . Agreement is not enforceable. Pet. for Review at 19. Cotter points to Washington's requirement that a real estate broker must be `duly licensed' in order to bring suit for the collection of compensation as a broker in Washington. Reply Br. at 20-21 (quoting RCW 18.85.100). Cotter urges this court to interpret `duly licensed' as incorporating into Washington's licensing scheme the licensing requirements of California and suggests that Erwin is not `duly licensed' for the purpose of bringing this action . . . to collect a commission for leases in California of California . . . facilities under a contract made and primarily performed in California. Id. (quoting RCW 18.85.100). ¶ 49 RCW 18.85.100 provides that [n]o suit or action shall be brought for the collection of compensation as a real estate broker . . . without alleging and proving that the plaintiff was a duly licensed real estate broker . . . prior to contracting to provide such services. As Erwin correctly asserts, RCW 18.85.100 is a Washington statute and, as such, regulates only `acts' within Washington. Suppl. Br. of Resp'ts at 5. ¶ 50 Erwin was a Washington resident at all times material hereto. Erwin was and is a licensed Washington real estate broker who may legally provide real estate broker services in Washington. Erwin performed a good deal of the services pursuant to the Agreement in Washington. Pursuant to RCW 18.85.100, Erwin is entitled to maintain an action to collect his fees in Washington courts. We hold that under Washington law, Erwin, as a Washington-licensed broker, may maintain a claim for fees arising from leases of Cotter's California SHC facilities.