This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Failure to Pay Commissions

J.B. Canton, individually and dba Twin Oaks Land Co. v. J.R. Smeed individually and dba Chelsea Investment Co.

Published: Jul. 12, 2008 | Result Date: Apr. 30, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: S-1500-CV-260701 Verdict –  $184,372

Court

Kern Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

J. Eric Bradshaw


Defendant

Ronald D. Dessy


Facts

On March 29, 2006, plaintiff J.B. Canton, a real estate broker dba Twin Oaks Land Co., entered into a contract with J.R. Smeed to sell real property located within Kern County and to perform surveying as well as other services. Smeed promised to pay Canton under various conditions, including the "bulk sale" of Smeed's property, in which Canton was not involved. Without Canton's knowledge, Smeed sold his land in July for $3 million and never paid Canton the agreed percentage.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Canton brought an action against Smeed dba Chelsea Investment Co., claiming the contract had been breached. Canton asserted that Smeed failed to pay the agreed percentage payment for the "bulk sale," as required under their agreement.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant argued there was no "bulk sale" and that the contract provided the broker with the right to sell individual lots in two subdivisions of the land, namely, Pine Ridge and Montclaire. However, because no public report approved by the California Dept. of Real Estate for either subdivision existed, the sale of these lots was illegal pursuant to the California Business & Profession Code.

The defendant also asserted that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable. Further, Smeed contended that the commission provision was required by the California Civil Code to be in writing and to be supplemented with additional writings signed by the property owner. He asserted that the contract failed to name the property subject to the commission provision; that the clause "Spring Creek Estates: To be determined" was insufficient. Defendant claimed he never signed any documents relating to these two sections and that plaintiff's right to commission was barred by the Statute of Frauds.

The two parcels constituted 75 percent of the entire property.

Settlement Discussions

A demand was made pursuant to C.C.P. Section 998 for $120,000.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed $184,372.40 for all unpaid commission with interest.

Result

A verdict in favor of plaintiff for $184,372.40, which is the unpaid amount plus prejudgment interest.

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

10-2

Length

six days


#92905

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390