Court Opinion

ID: 9723789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:32:12.399111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:52.005909
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION STOUDER, J. I disagree with the majority of the Court. Based on well-established principles, the plaintiff broker was entitled to his commission and the trial court erred in holding to the contrary. To me, the reasoning employed and the result reached in the majority opinion are contrary to, or are unsupported by the Illinois authorities cited. Since the majority opinion ignores much of what is said in many of the opinions cited, it is difficult to ascertain whether the majority believes it is applying Illinois rules or whether it is adopting new rules contrary to those enunciated in prior Illinois authorities. The first three cases cited in the majority opinion (Lang v. Hand, 57 Ill App 134, Tackett v. Powley, 130 Ill App 97 and Greenwald v. Marcus, 3 Ill App2d 495, 123 NE2d 139) support the general proposition that a broker is entitled to his commission if he secures a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy the property on terms acceptable to the seller. Such cases go much farther than enunciating the general rule and indicate rules which are applicable in determining whether the broker has fulfilled the conditions. In Lang v. Hand, supra, the Court affirmed a judgment in favor of the broker for his commission. The facts are not extensively set forth, but it does appear that the defendant seller had entered into a contract with a buyer which contract for some reason was not performed. The court stated, “Whether the contract was ever carried out for reasons existing between the parties to it, and for which the broker was not responsible, cuts no figure so far as either the merits or the law of this case is concerned.” The defendant seller had entered into a contract with a buyer in Tackett v. Powley, supra, and the court held the broker entitled to his commission where title problems had developed and the contract was rescinded by the mutual agreement of seller and buyer. The court approved the following quotation from Wilson v. Mason, 158 Ill 304, 42 NE 134, “When the agreement of the real estate broker is to make a sale, his commission is earned when a contract is entered into, which is mutually obligatory upon the vendor and vendee, even though the vendee afterwards refuses to execute his part of the contract of sale or purchase.” It also approved the following quotation from Jenkins v. Hollingsworth, 83 Ill App 139, “If vendor accepts the purchaser and enters into a valid contract with him the broker’s commission is earned even though the purchaser declines to complete the sale.” Greenwald v. Marcus, supra, holds that a real estate broker was entitled to his commission where a written offer in accord with the seller’s terms was submitted but did not ripen into a contract and was not performed because the seller (previously representing himself as the sole owner) was unable to purchase the interest of his partners. The court observed that, the purchaser’s proposal being satisfactory to the seller, the broker had complied with his duty and was not required to prove the financial ability of the purchaser. In Katz v. Brooks, 65 Ill App2d 155, 212 NE2d 508, the court held the broker not entitled to his commission, but it does so on account of facts so diametrically opposed to those in the instant case that it supports a result opposite to that reached by the majority. In Brooks, a written offer was submitted by a purchaser which offer was specifically declined by the seller because it was not in accord with the terms upon which the broker was authorized to sell the property. Specifically, the offer included two contingency clauses, one relating to financing and the other to leases which could have rendered the entire contract void. In addition, the price described in the offer was less than that specified by the seller. If a seller specifically rejects a purchaser’s offer, it can hardly be said that the same reasoning and consequences ought to be applicable to the case where the purchaser’s offer is approved by and acceptable to the seller. The broker was denied his commission in Adams v. Hall, 168 Ill App 569. This is the only case cited in the majority opinion where any broker was held not entitled to a commission because of the financial inability of his proposed purchaser. The facts in the Adams case are so sketchy and incomplete that any comparison or argument by analogy is impossible. It does appear that no contract was entered into between seller and buyer and the buyer’s offer was never accepted or approved. The case although decided in 1912, does not appear to be of sufficient significance to have been cited or followed in any subsequent case involving real estate broker’s commissions. In Spitzer v. Bradshaw-Praeger & Co., 10 Ill App2d 445, 135 NE2d 114, the court in commenting on the Adams case stated, “It is true that Adams v. Hall, 168 Ill App 569, cited by defendant in support of its position, does glance in the other direction. However that myopia was definitely corrected by the subsequent decisions we have before cited.” The most that can be said about this case is that it is irrelevant to any of the issues to the case at bar. Farber v. Fleck, 51 Ill App2d 145, 200 NE2d 903, also cited by the majority, decided that the broker had earned his commission even though a purchaser under an installment contract had defaulted thereon. The court concluded that the listing contract between broker and owner had been performed by the broker even though the terms of sale were more restrictive than usual and customary. The court concluded that the execution of the installment contract was in accord with the terms of the listing contract and consequently the nonperformance of the installment contract by the purchaser could not prevent the broker from earning his commission. To the extent there is any analogy between this case and the case at bar, it would indicate a result contrary to that reached by the majority. Burnett v. Potts, 236 Ill 499, 86 NE 258, the only other Illinois authority cited in the majority opinion, holds that under the circumstances therein involved, the broker was not entitled to a commission. The Burnett case is inapplicable by its own terms to the case at bar. The broker was denied his commission because of the “net cash” provision of the listing contract, the court construing such provision to require that the seller receive the specified price in cash before the broker could earn his commission. The court neither discusses, applies nor mentions the general rule that a broker is entitled to his commission when he procures a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase the property on terms acceptable to seller. If the general rule is not applied neither the result nor what was said by the court can be of any assistance in the case at bar. Fox v. Ryan, 240 Ill 391, 88 NE 974 (not cited in majority opinion) holds that a broker is entitled to his commission even though the contract between seller and buyer is abandoned or rescinded. The court declares, “But, where the seller accepts the purchaser and enters into a valid contract of sale with him, the broker’s commission is earned whether the purchaser subsequently fails to perform his contract and make the payments agreed upon or not.” The court further states, “The vendor of property is not required to accept a purchaser without opportunity for investigation as to his ability to comply with the terms of the contract, but where he does accept such purchaser, uninfluenced by fraud or misrepresentation, it is a determination by him of the purchaser’s ability to perform his contract, and, if the purchaser afterwards fails to perform it, the seller cannot defeat - the broker’s commission on the ground that the purchaser was not able to buy the property.” In Rushkiewicz v. St. George, 226 Ill App 310 (not cited by majority) the significant facts cannot be distinguished in my view from those in the instant case. The court concluded the broker was entitled to his commission even though the sales contract might have been unenforceable because of want of mutuality. The court emphasizes that the broker is entitled to his commission when he has performed his agency contract to the satisfaction of the seller. In Rushkiewiez the court concluded that the acceptance of the purchaser’s offer, even though no enforceable contract resulted, established the broker’s performance to be satisfactory and acceptable. Furthermore, since the broker’s right to his commission did not depend on the purchaser’s performance of the sales contract, neither the failure of the purchaser to perform the contract nor his financial ability were relevant considerations. In summary, I believe all of the foregoing authorities are in accord with the general view that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the execution of a sales contract by the seller establishes the broker’s performance of his obligation, thereby entitling him to his commission. No fraud or misrepresentation was charged or proved. In the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, the seller having approved the purchaser, the latter’s financial ability was not an issue in the case. The most the record discloses is that the purchaser declined to perform the contract, and the seller declined to enforce the contract. The trial court apparently concluded, and in my view erroneously, that it was the duty of the broker to prove the financial ability of the proposed purchaser notwithstanding the seller’s approval of the purchaser. The majority opinion suggests that the seller ought to be excused from liability because he was deprived of an opportunity to investigate the purchaser’s financial ability, but such views are without support either in the record or in the cases cited. All the record shows is that the seller voluntarily entered into the sales agreement. Again, in the absence of misrepresentation or fraud, the execution of the agreement itself negates any such assertion. Also, the record is barren of either any assertion or evidence that the defendant seller’s execution of the sales contract was conditional or that the terms of the purchase agreement were in any way unsatisfactory to him. Lastly, in view of the Illinois authorities, I see no reason for applying Rhode Island law as represented by Valois v. Pelletier, 84 RI 176, 122 A 148, cited in the majority opinion. Indeed Valois v. Pelletier, supra, concedes that the rule in Rhode Island is contrary to the weight of authority. Furthermore, the issues in the trial court were not based on the violation of any implied warranty and the interjection of such an issue at this stage in the proceedings is unwarranted. In conclusion, I believe that all of the Illinois authorities are consistent with the view that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff his commission. If the Illinois rule ought to be changed, it should be done so forthrightly but only in the case where the issue is presented to, and decided by the trial court.