Court Opinion

ID: 9619187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:23:22.410489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:38.292210
License: Public Domain

Pope, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
Under the circumstances I cannot agree that Shield Realty and Norton Properties have no claim against the Carrolls as a matter of *48law. Rather, the facts do not support a claim.
As for Shield Realty, even in the case of an exclusive listing agreement with a fixed term, the agent would not be deprived of his commissions if the agent has fully performed his obligations, and “only the refusal or interference of the owner has prevented the consummation of the sale according to the terms authorized in the contract of listment.” Roberts v. Prater & Forrester, 29 Ga. App. 245 (1) (114 SE 645) (1922). Compare Busbin v. Suburban Realty, 236 Ga. 783 (225 SE2d 316) (1976) (this rule not applicable where sales contract not enforceable). And, if the Carrolls and Balchucks intended to thwart the sale during the term of the agency agreement, then a conspiracy claim could exist.
Although there is evidence that the Carrolls made a five-minute telephone call at 9:30 p.m. on July 18, 1996, from their home to the Balchucks’ home — before the seller’s brokerage agreement expired, there is no evidence that the Carrolls interfered with consummation of the negotiations that took place in April. Compare Christopher Investment Properties v. Cox, 219 Ga. App. 440, 443 (1) (465 SE2d 680) (1995). After April, there were no ongoing negotiations between any of the parties. Further, with regard to the phone call, there is no evidence other than speculation that the conversation involved avoiding Shield Realty’s agreement. “An inference cannot be based upon evidence which is too uncertain or speculative or which raises merely a conjecture or possibility.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Edwards v. Campbell Taggart Baking Cos., 219 Ga. App. 806, 807 (1) (466 SE2d 911) (1996). Thus, Shield Realty has no claim against the Carrolls.
As for Norton Properties, “[a] real-estate agent employed to purchase land is as much entitled to be compensated, in accordance with his contract, as one employed to sell land in behalf of the owner.” Roberts v. Martin, 15 Ga. App. 205, hn. 1 (82 SE 813) (1914). Norton Properties’ claims are not derivative of Shield Realty’s claims. As recently stated by this Court,
Where a broker or agent can show that he was thwarted in his efforts to consummate a sale by the interference of the property owner, he . . . can “make out a prima facie case when he shows that negotiations for the sale were set on foot through his efforts, that he performed every service required by his employment which it was possible to perform, and that the failure on his part to personally consummate the (transaction) was due to the interference of the defendant.
Christopher Investment Properties v. Cox, 219 Ga. App. at 443 (1). See also Hodges-Ward Assoc. v. Ecclestone, 156 Ga. App. 59, 61-62 (1) *49(273 SE2d 872) (1980) (even though owner/agent owed no commission to buyer’s broker, buyer’s broker could recover as procuring cause of sale). If the Carrolls never had an exclusive agent but had been approached directly by Norton Properties on behalf of the Balchucks, Norton Properties would be entitled to a commission if it was the procuring cause of the sale. Indeed, the proposed sales contract submitted by the Balchucks included an agreement by the seller to compensate Norton Properties.
Decided July 12, 2000.
English, Tunkle & Smith, Richard D. Tunkle, for appellants.
Malcolm S. Campbell, Sean A. Black, for appellees.
But if the parties in good faith break off their negotiations and the sale is made after the broker has discontinued his efforts, then the broker is not the procuring cause of a subsequent transaction between the same owner and buyer. Parrish v. Ragsdale Realty Co., 135 Ga. App. 491, 494 (3) (218 SE2d 164) (1975). And as stated above, there is no evidence that the Carrolls and the Balchucks conspired to break off the April negotiations for the purpose of thwarting anyone’s commission. Nor were there any ongoing negotiations between Norton Properties and the Carrolls after that. Thus, Norton Properties’ claims of procuring cause and conspiracy must fail. See Fields Realty & Ins. Co. v. Teper, 165 Ga. App. 28, 30 (2) (299 SE2d 74) (1983). Because it never performed services for the Carrolls, Norton Properties does not have a quantum meruit claim against them. Norton Properties’ claims against the Balchucks are not before us.