Opinion ID: 1897165
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: district court erred when it granted baccaro's motion to dismiss

Text: We first turn to the district court's grant of Baccaro's motion to dismiss. The district court granted Baccaro's motion to dismiss based on Neb.Rev.Stat. § 76-2422 (Reissue 2009), which requires a written agreement for brokerage services. Under § 76-2422(6), a written agency agreement for brokerage services must specify the agent's duties and responsibilities, including... the terms of compensation. The district court determined that § 76-2422 operated as a statute of frauds and that therefore, parol evidence was not allowed. [4] The district court determined the listing agreement was void because the listing agreement did not sufficiently specify the terms of compensation in the event of an exchange of land and parol evidence would be required to establish material terms of the agreement. The district court also found that McCully could not avoid the statute of frauds by alleging unjust enrichment. We begin by noting that § 76-2422 was first enacted in 1994 as part of an effort to codify in statute the relationships between real estate brokers or salespersons and persons who are sellers, landlords, buyers, or tenants of rights and interests in real property. [5] The consequence for violating any provision of Neb. Rev.Stat. §§ 76-2401 to 76-2430 (Reissue 2009) is that such violation is considered an unfair trade practice [6] and is subject to administrative action under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act. [7] Section 76-2422 is therefore part of a statutory scheme regulating the agency relationships of real estate brokers and salespersons to buyers and sellers of real property, and it should be read in conjunction with the Nebraska Real Estate License Act.