Wiley W. Porter v. James T. Didiwick and Clara D. Didiwick

D.C. Circuit

Wiley W. Porter v. James T. Didiwick and Clara D. Didiwick

252 F.2d 859, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 295

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 27, 1958

Docket14020

StatusPublished

This text of 252 F.2d 859 (Wiley W. Porter v. James T. Didiwick and Clara D. Didiwick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wiley W. Porter v. James T. Didiwick and Clara D. Didiwick, 252 F.2d 859, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 295 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

Didiwick sued Porter for damages for alleged fraud and deceit in connection with a real estate transaction. The jury by special verdict found against Porter in the amounts of $2,075 for compensatory damages and $2,375 for punitive damages. From the judgment for $4,-450 entered upon the special verdict, Porter appeals.

The real estate in question was sold by Didiwick to one Whitney for $12,250 cash and was immediately resold by Whitney to one Johnson for $14,500, only $2,400 of the price being cash, the balance consisting of notes secured by a first trust of $8,000 and a second trust of $4,000. Porter was the broker in both transactions and received a commission of $400 from Whitney. The jury found in the special verdict that Porter was Didiwick’s agent and, as such, owed him a fiduciary duty to disclose Johnson’s higher offer.

Didiwick testified that he understood at all times that Porter was not his agent, but rather Johnson’s. He specifically stated that he never engaged Porter to be his agent and never agreed to pay him a commission. Porter told him that Johnson wanted to buy his house and he told Porter he would sell it for $14,500, all cash, because he needed the money to pay for a new house. Johnson was willing to pay $14,500 for Didi-wick’s house, but only $2,500 in cash, the balance in trust-secured notes. Porter found in Whitney a middleman who was willing to buy the house for $12,250 in cash and re-sell to Johnson on the latter’s terms.

Even if Porter failed to inform Didi-wick of Johnson’s offer, the record does not support a finding that such failure *860 was a breach of any fiduciary duty. It was, therefore, error not to grant Porter’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We do not reach appellant’s other contentions. The judgment of the District Court is

Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for appellant.

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

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

Didiwick sued Porter for damages for alleged fraud and deceit in connection with a real estate transaction. The jury by special verdict found against Porter in the amounts of $2,075 for compensatory damages and $2,375 for punitive damages. From the judgment for $4,-450 entered upon the special verdict, Porter appeals.

The real estate in question was sold by Didiwick to one Whitney for $12,250 cash and was immediately resold by Whitney to one Johnson for $14,500, only $2,400 of the price being cash, the balance consisting of notes secured by a first trust of $8,000 and a second trust of $4,000. Porter was the broker in both transactions and received a commission of $400 from Whitney. The jury found in the special verdict that Porter was Didiwick’s agent and, as such, owed him a fiduciary duty to disclose Johnson’s higher offer.

Didiwick testified that he understood at all times that Porter was not his agent, but rather Johnson’s. He specifically stated that he never engaged Porter to be his agent and never agreed to pay him a commission. Porter told him that Johnson wanted to buy his house and he told Porter he would sell it for $14,500, all cash, because he needed the money to pay for a new house. Johnson was willing to pay $14,500 for Didi-wick’s house, but only $2,500 in cash, the balance in trust-secured notes. Porter found in Whitney a middleman who was willing to buy the house for $12,250 in cash and re-sell to Johnson on the latter’s terms.

Even if Porter failed to inform Didi-wick of Johnson’s offer, the record does not support a finding that such failure *860 was a breach of any fiduciary duty. It was, therefore, error not to grant Porter’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We do not reach appellant’s other contentions. The judgment of the District Court is

Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 F.2d 859, 102 U.S. App. D.C. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiley-w-porter-v-james-t-didiwick-and-clara-d-didiwick-cadc-1958.