Opinion ID: 1167008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Broker's Commission

Text: With regard to Garrett and Tobler's claim that they are entitled to a broker's commission, the superior court concluded: The plaintiffs are the selling real estate broker and salesman and are entitled to receive a commission and to enforce the listing agreement having found a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase pursuant to the terms of the listing. Pasley v. Barber, 368 P.2d 549, 551 (Alaska 1962). There appears to be no genuine dispute as to whether Hankins and Law were ready, willing and able to proceed with the sale. We believe, however, that there was a genuine issue of fact concerning whether, in agreeing to sell the property, Green acted as Sowash's agent, thereby binding Sowash to pay the commission called for by the agreement signed by Green. Thus, we conclude that the superior court further erred in granting summary judgment against Sowash on Count Two of the complaint. Green, of course, signed the listing agreement. Therefore, under the general rule, Green became liable for the agreed commission once a willing buyer was located, whether or not the sale was ever actually completed: The general rule is that if an employed broker procures a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy the property on the terms specified by the seller, the broker is entitled to compensation for his services, even though the sale should fall through because the seller or person employing the broker is unable to convey good title to the property. Pasley v. Barber, 368 P.2d at 551. Green and Sowash, however, claim that the general rule is inapplicable in the case at bar. In Pasley v. Barber we stated: Exceptions to this [general] rule are situations where the broker knew or should have known of defects in the title. Id. at 551. Thus, in Pasley we held that a real estate was not entitled to a commission where the broker's agent knew or should have known that the party listing the property could not convey clear title because the property was involved in a pending divorce action. We believe that the record in the case at bar, particularly the affidavit of Walter J. Ward, who obtained the original listing, discloses a genuine issue of fact concerning whether Garrett and Tobler knew or should have known that Green was unable to convey clear title. Thus, we agree with appellants' argument that the court erred in granting summary judgment against Green as well as Sowash. REVERSED and REMANDED for trial. COMPTON, J., not participating.