Court Opinion

ID: 999249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:22:40.97182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:29.778781
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE E. FOX, d/b/a Fox Media,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILSON TELECASTERS, INCORPORATED;
                                                                    No. 98-2082
CHANNEL 30 ASSOCIATES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; ROBINSON O. EVERETT;
KATHRINE R. EVERETT, Estate of
Kathrine R. Everett,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.

(CA-97-630-5-BO)

Argued: June 10, 1999

Decided: July 12, 1999

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and ERVIN
and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jeffrey Mark Young, MOORE & VAN ALLEN,
P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kenneth Matthew
Vaughn, EVERETT, GASKINS, HANCOCK & STEVENS, L.L.P.,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Hayden J. Sil-
ver, III, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Caro-
lina, for Appellant. Hugh Stevens, EVERETT, GASKINS,
HANCOCK & STEVENS, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Bruce E. Fox is a broker who specializes in the sale of television
stations. He was retained by the owners and operators (the "Sellers")
of WRAY-TV 30 to act as a broker for the sale of the station. The sta-
tion was ultimately sold to a buyer located by another broker, also
engaged by the Sellers. Fox contends that he is owed a commission
on the sale of the station, and he sued the Sellers 1 to recover it. The
district court granted summary judgment for the Sellers, and Fox
appeals. We affirm.

I.

On July 6, 1995, Robinson O. Everett (on behalf of the Sellers) and
Fox signed an Exclusive Listing Agreement for the sale of WRAY.
The agreement provided that Fox was to serve as the Sellers' "exclu-
sive agent for the purpose of arranging an acceptable sale or business
transaction of television station WRAY-TV 30." The agreement was
to run for a "minimum period of sixty (60) days from the date of exe-
cution," subject to "any extensions that may be agreed to." However,
it provided that "[t]his exclusive agreement can be cancelled [sic]
_________________________________________________________________
1 Specifically, Fox named the following as defendants: Wilson Tele-
casters, Inc., Channel 30 Associates Limited Partnership, Robinson O.
Everett, and the Estate of Kathrine R. Everett.

                    2
after sixty (60) days for any reason by Seller." Fox would be entitled
to a commission if (1) a sale closed during the term of the agreement
due to the efforts of Fox; (2) a sale closed within twelve months of
the expiration of the agreement to a person with whom the Sellers had
contact during its term; or (3) a sale closed within twelve months of
the expiration of the agreement to a person with whom Fox had con-
tact during its term.

After the July 1995 agreement was signed, Fox contacted a number
of potential buyers but was unsuccessful in his efforts to sell the sta-
tion. In August 1995 Fox enlisted the help of John Tupper as "co-
broker," giving him confidential information about the station to pass
along to potential buyers. The parties dispute whether Fox informed
the Sellers of his arrangement with Tupper or sought their permission
to engage him. In any event, by the end of the year Fox still had not
found a buyer for WRAY. On December 28, 1995, Everett wrote to
Fox. His letter said:

          As 1995 draws to an end, I believe that it is time to take
          WRAY and WFAY2 off the market and pursue some of your
          ideas about building up these stations before offering them
          again for sale. . . .

          We will count on you to communicate with the various pro-
          spective buyers you have listed with us to notify them that
          these stations are no longer for sale. Also, in order to assure
          that your rights are protected for the period of time provided
          by your listing contract, I would appreciate your submitting
          by FAX a complete list of the registered buyers as to whom
          you wish protection if there were a sale to them.

Shortly thereafter, Fox responded by sending Everett a list of all the
potential buyers he had contacted in the effort to sell WRAY.

Fox and Everett continued to communicate with each other in early
1996. However, in the Spring of that year, the Sellers engaged another
media brokerage firm, Blackburn & Co., to look for potential buyers
_________________________________________________________________

2 The sale of WFAY was not at issue in this litigation.

                    3
for WRAY. Blackburn soon identified Global Shopping Network as
a prospect. At about the same time, Tupper, Fox's co-broker, also
contacted Global. Upon hearing of this, the president of Wilson Tele-
casters, Inc. (a co-owner of WRAY) informed Global that he had
never heard of Tupper and that Global should deal only with Black-
burn, which had the exclusive listing for WRAY. Global bought the
television station in March 1997, and the Sellers paid Blackburn a
commission of about $192,500.

Thereafter, Fox filed this suit to recover a commission on the sale
of the station. He asserted claims for breach of contract and quantum
meruit. The district court granted summary judgment for the defen-
dants (the Sellers) on both claims. It concluded that Everett's Decem-
ber 28, 1995, letter to Fox terminated the listing agreement and that
the subsequent communications between Everett and Fox did not
create a new contract. The court also concluded that the quantum
meruit claim failed because Fox could not show that his actions were
the direct cause of the sale of the television station to Global. Fox
now appeals.

II.

After considering the parties' briefs, the arguments of counsel, and
the joint appendix, we conclude that the district court correctly
decided the issues before it. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. See Fox v. Wilson Telecasters, Inc., No. 5:97-
CV-630-BO(1) (E.D.N.C. July 10, 1998).

AFFIRMED

                    4