Opinion ID: 2814794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Re/Max–Ash Park Listing Contract

Text: ¶108 Re/Max's claim comes from the listing contract that Ash Park signed. In regard to Re/Max's right to a commission, the listing contract provides in relevant part: COMMISSION: Seller shall pay Broker's commission, which shall be earned if, during the term of this Listing: 1) Seller sells or accepts an offer which creates an enforceable contract for the sale of all or any part of the Property; . . . . 5) A purchaser is procured for the Property by Broker, by Seller, or by any other person, at the price and on substantially the same terms set forth in this Listing and in the standard provisions of the current WB-13 VACANT LAND OFFER TO PURCHASE, even if Seller does not accept this purchaser's offer. . . . . PROCURE: A purchaser is procured when a valid and binding contract of sale is entered into between the Seller and the purchaser or when a ready, willing and able purchaser submits a written offer at the price and on substantially the terms specified in this Listing. A purchaser is ready, willing and able when the purchaser submitting the written offer has the ability to complete the purchaser's obligations under the written offer. (emphasis added). ¶109 Re/Max asserts that pursuant to the listing contract, the Ash Park—Alexander & Bishop contract is an enforceable contract entitling it to a commission under conditions 1 and 5 above, and that it has procured a purchaser because Ash Park and Alexander & Bishop entered into a binding contract for the purchase of the listed real estate. The listing contract's 6 No. 2013AP1532.pdr definition of procuring, which includes providing a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to complete the sale is an alternative to, not an addition to, entering into an enforceable contract. Therefore, under the listing contract, the right to a commission ripens when an enforceable contract is entered into, even if the purchaser is financially unable to complete the purchase. In sum, the listing contract sets a condition for earning a commission as follows: whether Ash Park and Alexander & Bishop entered into an enforceable contract. ¶110 By our decision affirming an order of specific performance of the Ash Park-Alexander & Bishop sales contract, we previously concluded that their contract is an enforceable contract. Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd., 2010 WI 44, ¶96, 324 Wis. 2d 703, 783 N.W.2d 294. Accordingly, I have no trouble concluding that the same contract remains enforceable when we are interpreting the listing contract. However, I have concerns about having the enforceability of the purchase contract be the end of our discussion. ¶111 Those concerns arise here because of the circuit court's finding that Alexander & Bishop was financially unable 7 No. 2013AP1532.pdr to perform,3 and because of representations that Ash Park settled its lawsuit against Alexander & Bishop because of Alexander & Bishop's insolvency.4 However, of greater concern to me is the unsophisticated seller of real estate who may not understand the import of the provisions of the WB-13 listing contract as it affects his or her obligation to pay a real estate commission. ¶112 Here, Ash Park is a sophisticated business entity, represented by able counsel, with the ability and knowledge needed to investigate the financial wherewithal of Alexander & Bishop or to request modification of a listing contract to require closing on a sale before the right to a commission arises. That weighs in favor of affirming the court of appeals. 3 The reality of it is the realtor brought to these sellers a buyer who couldn't afford to buy the property. And in the end it was the buyer's inability to be able to buy the property, he couldn't get financing for it, he didn't have enough money in a bank account, he didn't have a deep enough pocket to go to, he couldn't do it. Transcript of Motion Hearing at 14, Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd., No. 07CV2832 (Brown Cnty. Cir. Ct., June 13, 2011). 4 Alexander & Bishop represented: Ash Park and its principal is aware that Alexander & Bishop has no liquid assets in which to specifically perform——that is why it accepted the settlement agreement which called for a $1.2 million dollar payment to be made by the way of a loan. [] It also received numerous letters from Banks demonstrating that they would not be willing to loan money to Alexander & Bishop to buy the property. Brief in Opposition of Motions for Contempt and Appointment of a Receiver and in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement at 6-7, Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd., No. 07CV2832 (Brown Cnty. Cir. Ct., Feb. 14, 2011). 8 No. 2013AP1532.pdr ¶113 However, because I have concerns for the residential homeowner who lists his or her property using a standard form listing contract, without the aid of an attorney, and is unaware that he or she may be incurring an obligation to pay a commission when no sale occurs, I write in concurrence to draw attention to the potential hardship our decision is capable of producing if it is erroneously applied in a different context to an unsophisticated seller of real estate.