![]()
Plaintiff real estate broker appealed the orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed plaintiff's causes of action to recover a broker's commission from defendants, property owner, family trust, and tenant, sustained the demurrers without leave to amend interposed by defendants, and denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
Overview
Plaintiff real estate broker filed an action to recover his broker's commission from defendants, property owner, family trust, and tenant, for his services in procuring defendant tenant for defendant property owner. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's action, sustained the demurrers without leave to amend interposed by defendants, and denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the court vacated the dismissal, holding that the writings were sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, because defendant property owner's agent's signature on the registration form satisfied the statute of frauds subscription requirement, and because the written memoranda, although not stating that plaintiff was employed to negotiate on defendant property owner's behalf, was sufficient to satisfy the writing requirement. The court noted that the registration form itself did not have to contain all of the terms of the agreement, because the surrounding memoranda, including advertising and brochures, aided in clarifying plaintiff's authorization to act as a broker for defendants. Therefore, the writings supported all of plaintiff's various contract and tort claims. Appellant and respondents had business lawyer draft their briefs and submitted to the court.
Outcome
The court vacated the orders of dismissal of plaintiff real estate broker's causes of action, because plaintiff's complaint adequately set forth allegations and his appended memoranda met the statute of frauds subscription and the writing requirements to show his authority to procure defendant tenant as a lessee for defendants property owner and family trust for a commission and his employment to act as a broker for defendants.
Procedural Posture
Appellants, developer and contractor, sought review in consolidated appeals from orders of the superior court of San Diego County (California) granting appellee subcontractors summary judgment in actions to recover for construction defects.
Overview
Appellants, developer and contractor, filed a lawsuit against appellee subcontractors for the recovery of compensation for work performed on a development project. Appellant contractor was an unlicensed contractor who was barred by statute from bringing such action. However, it sought equitable indemnity from appellees because it was acting as developer at the time and was subject to strict liability for construction defects. The trial court granted appellees summary judgment in the action. The court found that since appellants were unlicensed, their complaint for equitable and implied contractual indemnity, contribution, negligence, and certain contract-based theories against appellees were barred by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031. On appeal, the court concluded that the trial court's ruling in each case was erroneous because it disregarded the dual nature of the developers' and general contractors' functions. Developers were not subject to a bar for recovery on tort theories of indemnity and contribution by reason of their lack of contractors' licenses. Therefore, grant of summary judgment was reversed.
Outcome
The court reversed the trial court's order granting appellee subcontractors summary judgment in recovery for construction defects. Appellants, developer and contractor, were granted a favorable ruling from the court because the trial court's ruling in each case was erroneous, as it disregarded the dual nature of the developers' and general contractors' functions. Each party was to bear its own costs.