No. 12818
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN
LOUIS FLAHERTY, d / b / a FLAHERTY AGENCY, and BRYON L. FLAHERTY, Individually,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
RILEY H. HENSLEY and LARO B. HENSLEY, husband and w i f e ,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants :
John McCarvel a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana H a r t e l i u s and Lewin, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
E. W. G i a n o t t i a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
-
Submitted: November 1 8 , 1974
Decided : ~ E 8c 3 Filed : ?EC 2 3 l d a' Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Cascade County, h o l d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t s R i l e y H . Hensley
and Laro B. Hensley d i d n o t owe a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s commission
o f $4,200 t o p l a i n t i f f L o u i s F l a h e r t y .
The f a c t s a r e : Sometime p r i o r t o March 1 2 , 1973, t h e Hensleys l e a s e d c e r t a i n r a n c h p r o p e r t y i n Teton County, Montana
t o one S t e w a r t Schwartz. T h i s l e a s e was i n w r i t i n g and c o n t a i n e d
a p r o v i s i o n g r a n t i n g Schwartz a n o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y during t h e term a t a prearranged p r i c e . On March 1 2 , 1973, t h e
Hensleys e n t e r e d i n t o a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t
with Flaherty. The c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d f o r a n "open" l i s t i n g . At
t h i s t i m e F l a h e r t y and h i s a g e n t s were aware o f t h e l e a s e between
t h e Hensleys and Schwartz, a l t h o u g h it i s s h a r p l y d i s p u t e d whether
t h e y knew of S c h w a r t z l s o p t i o n . Subsequently F l a h e r t y n e g o t i a t e d
w i t h a p r o s p e c t i v e b u y e r , and on March 30, 1973, t h e p a r t i e s
e n t e r e d i n t o a "Stevens-Ness" form r e c e i p t and agreement t o s e l l and p u r c h a s e . This instrument s p e c i f i c a l l y c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o
Schwartzls option. However, b e f o r e t h e s a l e was consummated,
Schwartz e l e c t e d t o e x e r c i s e h i s o p t i o n and purchased t h e p r o p e r t y .
Whether F l a h e r t y had n o t i c e , a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e ,
of S c h w a r t z l s o p t i o n i s t h e c r u c i a l e l e m e n t i n t h i s c a s e . Flaherty
c o n t e n d s t h e Hensleys n e v e r informed him o f it u n t i l t h e agreement t o s e l l and p u r c h a s e was e x e c u t e d , and t h e r e f o r e t h e y breached
t h e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t and a c t e d i n bad f a i t h . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , however, r e j e c t e d t h i s c o n t e n t i o n by f i n d i n g
F l a h e r t y h i m s e l f n e g l i g e n t f o r n o t a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e o p t i o n e a r l i e r , a s s e t f o r t h i n f i n d i n g of f a c t 111:
"That a t t h e t i m e of e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r s employment c o n t r a c t , p l a i n t i f f ' s a g e n t s were aware of t h e w r i t t e n l e a s e between d e f e n d a n t and Schwartz. T h a t p l a i n t i f f and h i s a g e n t s were negligent i n not determining t h e option provisions contained i n s a i d w r i t t e n l e a s e before o f f e r i n g the said property f o r s a l e . " W t h i n k t h i s f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i - e
dence and o u g h t t o s t a n d . Donald B l u m f i e l d , p r e s i d e n t of t h e
G r e a t F a l l s Board of R e a l t o r s , was c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s by t h e
Hensleys and t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s :
"Q. Would you c o n s i d e r a s e l l e r t h a t came t o your o f f i c e and l i s t e d p r o p e r t y f o r s a l e w i t h you and had n o t t o l d you t h e r e was o u t s t a n d i n g o p t i o n s , t h a t t h a t p e r s o n would be a c t i n g i n bad f a i t h . A. (no r e s p o n s e )
"Q. Wouldn't you f e e l he would have a n o b l i - g a t i o n t o make a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e t o any o p t i o n s o u t s t a n d i n g ? A. I think so. Of c o u r s e I t h i n k t h i s would--if a l i s t i n g was p r o p e r l y t a k e n you would know t h i s a t t h e t i m e .
"Q. How would you know i t ? A. You would a s k .
"Q. I f he d i d n ' t t e l l you? A. P a r t i c u l a r l y on farm p r o p e r t y you would a s k . Number o n e , I would want t o s e e t h e l e a s e . I f t h e r e was a l e a s e on t h e p r o p e r t y I would want t o s e e t h a t s o I would know when p o s s e s s i o n c o u l d be a f f e c t e d by t h e p u r c h a s e r , what p r i c e t h e summer f a l l o w might have t o be p a i d t o t h e l e s s o r .
"Q. That w o u l d n ' t a f f e c t t h e s a l e , would i t ? A. Oh, y e s , i t would d e f i n i t e l y .
"Q. I t wouldn't preclude t h e s a l e , but not a l l l e a s e s c o n t a i n a n o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e , do t h e y ? A. No, t h e y d o n ' t . But I would s t i l l want t o see the lease. " (Emphasis added) . I n o t h e r words, a r e a s o n a b l e , p r u d e n t man i n F l a h e r t y ' s s h o e s
would have o b t a i n e d a copy of t h e l e a s e immediately and d i s -
covered a l l t h e f a c t s .
T h i s i s t h e p r e v a i l i n g m a j o r i t y r u l e i n such c a s e s . See
B e s t v K e l l y , 2 2 Wash.2d 257, 155 P.2d 7 9 4 , 801, 156 ALR 1387,
p e r h a p s t h e l e a d i n g c a s e on t h e s u b j e c t and f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d w i t h approval. i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . - The C o u r t i n B e s t p l a c e d
a n a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y upon t h e b r o k e r : " * * * t h e burden of i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e t e r m s [of t h e l e a s e ] r e s t e d upon [ t h e b r o k e r ] , and even a c u r s o r y e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e l e a s e would have d i s c l o s e d t h e paragraph r e f e r r e d t o . " ( B r a c k e t e d words added) . W e a r e u n a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e i n s t a n t c a s e from B e s t .
How c a n F l a h e r t y - - a l i c e n s e d r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r f o r 21 y e a r s - -
now be h e a r d t o d i s c l a i m knowledge of S c h w a r t z ' s o p t i o n when
he a d m i t s he knew of t h e l e a s e from t h e s t a r t ?
- Applying t h e r u l e i n B e s t r e s o l v e s t h e c o n t r o v e r s y , f o r
t h e d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e i s whether F l a h e r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a com-
m i s s i o n where he had p r i o r n o t i c e of t h e d e f e c t which s u b s e q u e n t -
l y p r e v e n t e d consummation of t h e s a l e . The A n n o t a t i o n a t 156
ALR 1398, 1399 p r o v i d e s t h e answer:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. 12818
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN
LOUIS FLAHERTY, d / b / a FLAHERTY AGENCY, and BRYON L. FLAHERTY, Individually,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
RILEY H. HENSLEY and LARO B. HENSLEY, husband and w i f e ,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants :
John McCarvel a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana H a r t e l i u s and Lewin, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
E. W. G i a n o t t i a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
-
Submitted: November 1 8 , 1974
Decided : ~ E 8c 3 Filed : ?EC 2 3 l d a' Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , Cascade County, h o l d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t s R i l e y H . Hensley
and Laro B. Hensley d i d n o t owe a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s commission
o f $4,200 t o p l a i n t i f f L o u i s F l a h e r t y .
The f a c t s a r e : Sometime p r i o r t o March 1 2 , 1973, t h e Hensleys l e a s e d c e r t a i n r a n c h p r o p e r t y i n Teton County, Montana
t o one S t e w a r t Schwartz. T h i s l e a s e was i n w r i t i n g and c o n t a i n e d
a p r o v i s i o n g r a n t i n g Schwartz a n o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y during t h e term a t a prearranged p r i c e . On March 1 2 , 1973, t h e
Hensleys e n t e r e d i n t o a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t
with Flaherty. The c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d f o r a n "open" l i s t i n g . At
t h i s t i m e F l a h e r t y and h i s a g e n t s were aware o f t h e l e a s e between
t h e Hensleys and Schwartz, a l t h o u g h it i s s h a r p l y d i s p u t e d whether
t h e y knew of S c h w a r t z l s o p t i o n . Subsequently F l a h e r t y n e g o t i a t e d
w i t h a p r o s p e c t i v e b u y e r , and on March 30, 1973, t h e p a r t i e s
e n t e r e d i n t o a "Stevens-Ness" form r e c e i p t and agreement t o s e l l and p u r c h a s e . This instrument s p e c i f i c a l l y c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o
Schwartzls option. However, b e f o r e t h e s a l e was consummated,
Schwartz e l e c t e d t o e x e r c i s e h i s o p t i o n and purchased t h e p r o p e r t y .
Whether F l a h e r t y had n o t i c e , a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e ,
of S c h w a r t z l s o p t i o n i s t h e c r u c i a l e l e m e n t i n t h i s c a s e . Flaherty
c o n t e n d s t h e Hensleys n e v e r informed him o f it u n t i l t h e agreement t o s e l l and p u r c h a s e was e x e c u t e d , and t h e r e f o r e t h e y breached
t h e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t and a c t e d i n bad f a i t h . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , however, r e j e c t e d t h i s c o n t e n t i o n by f i n d i n g
F l a h e r t y h i m s e l f n e g l i g e n t f o r n o t a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e o p t i o n e a r l i e r , a s s e t f o r t h i n f i n d i n g of f a c t 111:
"That a t t h e t i m e of e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r s employment c o n t r a c t , p l a i n t i f f ' s a g e n t s were aware of t h e w r i t t e n l e a s e between d e f e n d a n t and Schwartz. T h a t p l a i n t i f f and h i s a g e n t s were negligent i n not determining t h e option provisions contained i n s a i d w r i t t e n l e a s e before o f f e r i n g the said property f o r s a l e . " W t h i n k t h i s f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i - e
dence and o u g h t t o s t a n d . Donald B l u m f i e l d , p r e s i d e n t of t h e
G r e a t F a l l s Board of R e a l t o r s , was c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s by t h e
Hensleys and t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s :
"Q. Would you c o n s i d e r a s e l l e r t h a t came t o your o f f i c e and l i s t e d p r o p e r t y f o r s a l e w i t h you and had n o t t o l d you t h e r e was o u t s t a n d i n g o p t i o n s , t h a t t h a t p e r s o n would be a c t i n g i n bad f a i t h . A. (no r e s p o n s e )
"Q. Wouldn't you f e e l he would have a n o b l i - g a t i o n t o make a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e t o any o p t i o n s o u t s t a n d i n g ? A. I think so. Of c o u r s e I t h i n k t h i s would--if a l i s t i n g was p r o p e r l y t a k e n you would know t h i s a t t h e t i m e .
"Q. How would you know i t ? A. You would a s k .
"Q. I f he d i d n ' t t e l l you? A. P a r t i c u l a r l y on farm p r o p e r t y you would a s k . Number o n e , I would want t o s e e t h e l e a s e . I f t h e r e was a l e a s e on t h e p r o p e r t y I would want t o s e e t h a t s o I would know when p o s s e s s i o n c o u l d be a f f e c t e d by t h e p u r c h a s e r , what p r i c e t h e summer f a l l o w might have t o be p a i d t o t h e l e s s o r .
"Q. That w o u l d n ' t a f f e c t t h e s a l e , would i t ? A. Oh, y e s , i t would d e f i n i t e l y .
"Q. I t wouldn't preclude t h e s a l e , but not a l l l e a s e s c o n t a i n a n o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e , do t h e y ? A. No, t h e y d o n ' t . But I would s t i l l want t o see the lease. " (Emphasis added) . I n o t h e r words, a r e a s o n a b l e , p r u d e n t man i n F l a h e r t y ' s s h o e s
would have o b t a i n e d a copy of t h e l e a s e immediately and d i s -
covered a l l t h e f a c t s .
T h i s i s t h e p r e v a i l i n g m a j o r i t y r u l e i n such c a s e s . See
B e s t v K e l l y , 2 2 Wash.2d 257, 155 P.2d 7 9 4 , 801, 156 ALR 1387,
p e r h a p s t h e l e a d i n g c a s e on t h e s u b j e c t and f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d w i t h approval. i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . - The C o u r t i n B e s t p l a c e d
a n a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y upon t h e b r o k e r : " * * * t h e burden of i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e t e r m s [of t h e l e a s e ] r e s t e d upon [ t h e b r o k e r ] , and even a c u r s o r y e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e l e a s e would have d i s c l o s e d t h e paragraph r e f e r r e d t o . " ( B r a c k e t e d words added) . W e a r e u n a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e i n s t a n t c a s e from B e s t .
How c a n F l a h e r t y - - a l i c e n s e d r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r f o r 21 y e a r s - -
now be h e a r d t o d i s c l a i m knowledge of S c h w a r t z ' s o p t i o n when
he a d m i t s he knew of t h e l e a s e from t h e s t a r t ?
- Applying t h e r u l e i n B e s t r e s o l v e s t h e c o n t r o v e r s y , f o r
t h e d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e i s whether F l a h e r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a com-
m i s s i o n where he had p r i o r n o t i c e of t h e d e f e c t which s u b s e q u e n t -
l y p r e v e n t e d consummation of t h e s a l e . The A n n o t a t i o n a t 156
ALR 1398, 1399 p r o v i d e s t h e answer:
" I f a b r o k e r , a t t h e t i m e he makes a c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e owner f o r t h e s a l e of t h e l a t t e r ' s p r o p e r t y , knows of d e f e c t s i n h i s e m p l o y e r ' s t i t l e o r knows f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o p u t a r e a s o n - a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n on i n q u i r y , which, i f f o l l o w e d w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e , would b r i n g t o him s u c h knowledge, he i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r commissions where t h e s a l e f a i l s b e c a u s e of s u c h defects. The Hensleys a r e e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s by v i r t u e of
s e c t i o n 93-8601.1, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s : " C o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be r e c i p r o c a l . Whenever by v i r t u e of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of any c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n i n t h e n a t u r e of a c o n t r a c t , made and e n t e r e d i n t o a t any t i m e a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h i s a c t , one p a r t y t o such c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n has an express r i g h t t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s from any o t h e r p a r t y t o the contract or obligation i n the event the party h a v i n g t h a t r i g h t s h a l l b r i n g a n a c t i o n upon t h e c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n , t h e n i n any a c t i o n on such c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l be deemed t o have t h e same r i g h t t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n any s u c h a c t i o n , whether by v i r t u e of t h e e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t , o r by v i r t u e of t h i s a c t , s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o re- c o v e r h i s r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s from t h e l o s i n g party or parties." The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on t h e i s s u e of t h e H e n s l e y t s l i a b i l i t y t o F l a h e r t y i s a f f i r m e d ; t h e c a u s e i s remanded with d i r e c t i o n s t o f i x a t t o r n e y f e e s i n accordance with t h e s t a t u t e .
................................ Chief J u s t i c e - 4 - We concur: