Court Opinion

ID: 9667313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:42:07.551792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:36.977241
License: Public Domain

DIES, Chief Justice.
Appellee Marjorie Williams listed realty for sale with Jean Baldwin, an agent with broker Kinser- Shackelford, in October of 1970. Jean Baldwin put the house on multiple listings, and Blanche Taylor, agent with Edgar Jackson Realtor, secured a sales contract in the amount of $110,000 from William M. Day, purchaser. By previous agreement, the realtors intended to divide the real estate commission. The sales contract was contingent on purchaser securing an appraisal of the property equal to the purchase price.
An appraiser was shown the house. Later, on information from Day that the appraisal was for $103,000, Jackson returned the escrow deposit to Day ($5,000) with these words written by him across the same: “Void — Appraisal did not come up to $110,000, check returned 1-11-71.”
Actually this was an untruth, though at the time unknown by Jackson. Marjorie Williams, having discovered the truth that the appraisal had been for $110,000, sued Day for specific performance and prevailed.
Edgar Jackson Realtor and Kinser-Shackelford Realtors, as plaintiffs, then brought suit against Marjorie Williams, as defendant, for the commission alleged due them under the sales contract, interest, and attorneys’ fees.
Trial was to the court without a jury who found for the defendant Marjorie Williams, appellee herein, from which Edgar Jackson and Kinser-Shackelford, appellants, perfect this appeal.
Among the court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were:
“Prior to the return of the earnest money, Defendant Marjorie Williams told Mrs. Jean Baldwin not to return the earnest money without first obtaining a written appraisal valuing the property at less than $110,000.00. ... By returning the earnest money without ob*647taining an appraisal and without so notifying Defendant in advance, in breach of the contract and in violation of Defendant’s instructions, Plaintiffs breached their duty to keep Defendant fully informed of matters materially affecting the transaction and their duty not to do any act which might endanger the transaction which they (as real estate agents acting for Defendant in the sale of her property) owed to Defendant and they are thereby barred from recovering a commission from Defendant.”
The finding that Marjorie Williams told Mrs. Baldwin not to return the earnest money without first obtaining a written appraisal is certainly supported by the evidence. Mrs. Baldwin was responsible under the Real Estate License Act, Art. 6573a, § 3.1, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., to her client for all acts and conduct by any real estate salesman — Blanche Taylor or Edgar Jackson — associated with her. Instructions to her were instructions to Blanche Taylor and Edgar Jackson.
Therefore, it is our duty to affirm the trial court’s judgment if this failure legally supports the judgment. Purnell v. Gulihur, 339 S.W.2d 86 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso, 1960, error ref. n.r.e.) :
“But it is a well-established rule of law that, where evidentiary facts are determined by the court, any doubts as to the facts raised by the evidence, and any view of the law which the court could have applied under the pleadings and the evidence, should be resolved in support of the judgment. In such case, if there is any theory on which the appeals court can affirm the judgment, it has a duty to do so. (339 S.W.2d 91) (emphasis supplied)
See Brown v. Grice, 357 S.W.2d 620 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin 1962, no writ); Hughes v. Grogan-Lamm Lumber Company, 331 S.W.2d 799, 803 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas, 1960, error ref. n.r.e.).
In Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 385 (1958), we find:
“Unless otherwise agreed, an agent is subject to a duty to obey all reasonable directions in regard to the manner of performing a service that he has contracted to perform.”
In § 469, Disloyalty or Insubordination as Defense:
“An agent is entitled to no compensation for conduct which is disobedient or which is a breach of his duty of loyalty; if such conduct constitutes a wilful and deliberate breach of his contract of service, he is not entitled to compensation even for properly performed services for which no compensation is apportioned.”
The Comment to this section states:
“An agent is entitled to no compensation for a service which constitutes a violation of his duties of obedience. See § 385. This is true even though the disobedience results in no substantial harm to the principal’s interests and even though the agent believes that he is justified in so acting.”
See also 3 C.J.S. Agency, §§ 288, 337; Moore v. Kelley, 162 S.W. 1034 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo, 1914, error ref.).
The instruction given by owner to her real estate agent in our case was reasonable, material, and, if carried out, could very well have obviated the long and expensive litigation she had with the purchaser, Day.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.