Opinion ID: 1347954
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Existence of a Joint Venture

Text: ¶ 19 The only document containing Marler's signature is the memorandum agreement. Although the memorandum contains a brief description of the property and outlines Sperling's intent to convey twenty net mineral acres, it is devoid of any reference to the purchase price. As a result, there is no document signed by Marler which indicates Marler had a meeting of the minds with Plaintiff regarding the purchase price. ¶ 20 In an effort to bind Marler to the sight draft and the $31,000.00 purchase price, Sperling attempts to assert the existence of a joint venture relationship between Marler and Delay, who signed the draft. Marler relies on the 15 O.S. § 136(5) and its requirement that an agent's authority to sign a contract on behalf of the principal be in writing, if the principal is to be charged with enforcement. ¶ 21 Plaintiff asserts he has a right to show the existence of an agency relationship without a written agency agreement, due the existence of a joint venture between Delay and Marler, because [e]ach member of a joint venture acts for himself as principal and as agent for the other members within the general scope of the enterprise. Martin v. Chapel, Wilkinson, Riggs & Abney, supra . The requirements of a joint venture are (1) a joint interest in property, (2) an express or implied agreement to share profits and losses of the venture and (3) action or conduct showing cooperation in the project. Id. ¶ 22 In deposition testimony both Defendants indicated there was an agreement to share profits, although Marler denies any agreement with Delay as to losses. Furthermore, the documents themselves (sight draft, warranty deed, and memorandum) at least lend themselves to a factual inquiry regarding the existence of a joint venture. ¶ 23 This Court has previously held: [A]n oral agreement to share in the profits and losses arising from the purchase and sale of real estate is not within the statute of frauds: and the existence of such partnership and the interest of the parties therein may be established by parol evidence. Catlett v. Jordan, 206 Okla. 473, 244 P.2d 564, 566 (1952) (citations omitted); See also McLaughlin v. Laffoon Oil Co., 1968 OK 69, 446 P.2d 603, 609 (Okla.1968); Thompson v. McKee, 43 Okla. 243, 142 P. 755 (1914); Workman v. Harrison, 282 F.2d 693, 697-98 (10th Cir.1960); Greenbaum v. Kirkpatrick, 129 F.Supp. 648, 650 n. 2 (W.D.Okla.1955). Unlike the instant case, Catlett and its progeny involved plaintiffs who were themselves alleged members of the joint venture, filing suit against one or more co-venturers. Sperling, being a third party to the joint venture, stands in a different posture than did the plaintiffs in the above cited cases. ¶ 24 However, this Court in LeFlore v. Reflections of Tulsa, Inc., 1985 OK 72, 708 P.2d 1068, examined the action brought by a third party to an alleged joint venture. In LeFlore, one of plaintiff's claims against an area nightclub was based upon an advertisement broadcast solely by a local radio station. The plaintiff was able to maintain and eventually prevail in her claim against the club, based upon the existence of a joint venture between the club and radio station. ¶ 25 Given the holdings of such cases as Catlett v. Jordan , in which joint ventures dealing with the sale of real property or an interest therein may be established by parol evidence, combined with our holding in LeFlore which allows a third party to the joint venture to assert a claim against a co-venturer by establishing the existence of the joint venture, we find the instant case presents an issue of fact which precludes the grant of summary judgment. ¶ 26 Sperling asserts a joint venture exists and Marler denies its existence. Since Sperling is not precluded from making a claim based upon a joint venture to which he was not a party, this factual issue is one that must be decided by a fact finder and not on summary judgment. Johnson v. Plastex, 1971 OK CIV APP 2, 500 P.2d 596, 597 (whether a partnership exists is properly a question for the jury to determine.) (citing Carey, Lombard, Young & Co. v. Huckaby, 186 Okla. 685, 100 P.2d 894 (1940)); See also LeFlore, 708 P.2d at 1072 (The law of partnership and of principal and agent applies in determining the rights and liabilities of co-adventurers and third parties.); Martin v. Chapel, Wilkinson, Riggs, and Abney, 637 P.2d 81, 86 (Okla.1981).