Opinion ID: 877547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: proof of contents of the destroyed copy of the defendant's listing agreement

Text: An implied assumption of the majority decision is that even if the defendant produced a copy of her listing agreement with nonexclusive written in the plaintiff's handwriting, that defendant would still be bound exclusively by the plaintiff's copy of the listing agreement. Such decision has behind it neither logic nor justice. The first question on defendant's listing agreement is: could the listing agreement be introduced in evidence if it still existed. I have no doubt that it could, for her copy was every bit as much an original as was the plaintiff's copy. Further, if her copy contained the word nonexclusive written on it, in plaintiff's handwriting, it would defeat plaintiff's right to recover the real estate commission. Simple fairness requires that defendant be permitted to introduce her copy of the agreement, just as simple fairness requires that plaintiff be permitted to introduce his copy of the listing agreement. The question then becomes one of whether plaintiff, who claims to have thrown away her copy of the listing agreement because it was virtually destroyed by vandals, should be permitted to establish the contents of this document anyway. The law permits her to do so. The applicable rule of evidence to prove the contents of an original or copy where it has been lost or destroyed, Rule 1004(1), M.R.Evid., provides: The original is not required, and other evidence of the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if: ... (1) All originals are lost or have been destroyed, unless the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; ... (Emphasis added.) The defendant's copy of the listing agreement was an original within the meaning of the rules of evidence. Rule 1001(3), M.R. Evid., defines original as follows: (3) An original of a writing or a recording is the writing or recording itself, of any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it ... The evidence establishes that the listing agreements were form listings, with a carbon in between the top and the second copy. With the exception of the word nonexclusive being written on defendant's copy by the plaintiff (according to the plaintiff's testimony) after she received her copy, the listing agreement was filled out all in one motion. The defendant's copy was also an original. Under Rule 1004(1), supra, the defendant could prove the contents of her copy of the listing agreement by her testimony and by Van Lueschene, who testified that he saw plaintiff write nonexclusive on the defendant's copy. The only question for the trial court to determine under this rule was whether defendant threw away her copy in bad faith after she claimed it was made worthless by the vandals. If the court ruled she did it in bad faith, it would rule that she could not introduce through her testimony and that of Van Lueschene, evidence of the contents of this listing agreement. But if it ruled that she was in good faith when she threw away the listing agreement, evidence of the contents of her listing would be permitted. In any event, this would be a question of fact for the trial court to first determine. If the trial court ruled defendant was not in bad faith in throwing away her copy of the listing agreement, she could testify, and so could witness Van Lueschene, to its contents  that plaintiff wrote the word nonexclusive on her copy. The trial court was not, of course, required to believe either the defendant or Van Lueschene. But if he did, it would be a devastating admission against plaintiff's interest, for it would flatly contradict his claim that he had an exclusive listing. Nonetheless, once evidence of the contents of both these writings were in evidence, a flat contradiction arose. In this situation, the trial court undoubtedly would have the right to hear evidence from both sides as to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the listing agreements. The trial court would well decide either way depending on whose version of the facts it believed. In any event, the parol evidence rule would not prevent introduction of evidence to explain the contradiction existing between the two listing agreements. Both of them could not be right. For the reasons stated, I would vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial.