Gentile v. Century 21, Ray Brannum Agency, Inc.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Gentile v. Century 21, Ray Brannum Agency, Inc.

560 So. 2d 760, 1990 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 58, 1990 WL 10253

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 7, 1990

DocketCiv. 7070

StatusPublished

This text of 560 So. 2d 760 (Gentile v. Century 21, Ray Brannum Agency, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gentile v. Century 21, Ray Brannum Agency, Inc., 560 So. 2d 760, 1990 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 58, 1990 WL 10253 (Ala. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

RUSSELL, Judge.

This is a contract case.

Following an ore tenus hearing, the trial court awarded Century -21 (appellee), as agent of the seller, the amount of $2,800, which represented a 10% commission for the sale of property owned by the seller, Jean Gentile (appellant). This appeal followed. We affirm.

The dispositive issue is whether a listing agreement is valid when the seller is not provided with a copy of the contract by the agent.

Initially, we note that where evidence is presented ore tenus, the court’s decision is presumed correct and will be upheld unless it is palpably wrong or manifestly unjust. Gulf Shores, Ltd. v. Powrzanos, 442 So.2d 71 (Ala.1983).

The appellant cites § 34-27-36(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975 (1985 Repl.Vol.), for the proposition that a real estate broker’s license may be revoked for failing to voluntarily furnish a copy of the listing agreement to each party executing the document. The trial court found, and we agree, that this section has no bearing on a realtor’s right to his commission, but instead addresses the authority of the real estate commission to discipline its licensed brokers. Furthermore, the evidence is un-controverted that the appellant was provided with a copy of the original listing agreement entered into by the parties.

While there was a subsequent modification of that contract, that modification was made on the face of the appellee’s copy of the listing agreement and initialed by the parties. No additional copy of the modified agreement was furnished to the appellant. The modification, however, affected only the amount of real estate to be sold and the purchase price and did not affect the originally agreed upon percentage of that price that was to be the appellee’s commission.

Consequently, in light of our standard of review, we find no error. This case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

INGRAM, P.J., and ROBERTSON, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RUSSELL, Judge.

This is a contract case.

Following an ore tenus hearing, the trial court awarded Century -21 (appellee), as agent of the seller, the amount of $2,800, which represented a 10% commission for the sale of property owned by the seller, Jean Gentile (appellant). This appeal followed. We affirm.

The dispositive issue is whether a listing agreement is valid when the seller is not provided with a copy of the contract by the agent.

Initially, we note that where evidence is presented ore tenus, the court’s decision is presumed correct and will be upheld unless it is palpably wrong or manifestly unjust. Gulf Shores, Ltd. v. Powrzanos, 442 So.2d 71 (Ala.1983).

The appellant cites § 34-27-36(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975 (1985 Repl.Vol.), for the proposition that a real estate broker’s license may be revoked for failing to voluntarily furnish a copy of the listing agreement to each party executing the document. The trial court found, and we agree, that this section has no bearing on a realtor’s right to his commission, but instead addresses the authority of the real estate commission to discipline its licensed brokers. Furthermore, the evidence is un-controverted that the appellant was provided with a copy of the original listing agreement entered into by the parties.

While there was a subsequent modification of that contract, that modification was made on the face of the appellee’s copy of the listing agreement and initialed by the parties. No additional copy of the modified agreement was furnished to the appellant. The modification, however, affected only the amount of real estate to be sold and the purchase price and did not affect the originally agreed upon percentage of that price that was to be the appellee’s commission.

Consequently, in light of our standard of review, we find no error. This case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

INGRAM, P.J., and ROBERTSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 So. 2d 760, 1990 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 58, 1990 WL 10253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gentile-v-century-21-ray-brannum-agency-inc-alacivapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack