Share
An Illinois court has ruled that a broker who can only establish that she introduced eventual buyer of property to the seller can not claim commission as procuring cause of sale.
Raymond and Gloria Weier ("Sellers") decided to sell a nursing home that they owned. They listed the property with Leslie Schaller ("Broker"). The Broker was unable to find a buyer within the time specified under the original agreement, and so the parties agreed to extend the agreement on a number of occasions.
At some point (testimony conflicted as to the time of introduction), the Broker introduced the Sellers to F. Michael Bridges ("Buyer"). Over two years after the expiration of the listing agreement (with extensions), the Buyer purchased the property from the Sellers. Just prior to the Buyer purchasing the property, the Broker had attempted to purchase the property herself. The Sellers did not inform the Broker of the closing, and refused to pay the Broker the commission described in the listing agreement. The Broker filed a lawsuit, seeking payment of the commission. Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled that the Broker was not entitled to a commission. The Broker appealed.
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, affirmed the trial court's rulings. The court considered whether the trial court had correctly ruled that the Broker was not entitled to recover a commission. In Illinois, a broker is entitled to a commission if he/she either sells the property in question or if the broker produces a ready, willing, and able buyer at the terms specified by the seller and within the specified time period. A broker still can be the procuring cause when the sale occurs without the broker's knowledge, so long as the broker can demonstrate that the sale was the result of the broker's efforts.
Here, the evidence presented at trial established that the Broker introduced the Buyer to the Sellers. However, there was a disagreement as to when the Broker introduced the parties and also what further role the Broker played in facilitating the transaction. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the Broker had failed to introduce evidence establishing that the Buyer was "ready, willing, and able" to purchase at the time she introduced the parties. The trial court had determined that the testimony established that the Broker had done nothing more than introduce the Buyer and Seller, and had not demonstrated that the Buyer had the financing to the purchase the property at the time of introduction. The court also stated that the Broker's own attempts to purchase the property undermined her arguments that the Buyer was a "ready, willing, and able" purchaser at the time of introduction. Thus, the Broker was not entitled to receive a commission from the eventual sale.
Schaller v. Weier, 319 Ill.App.3d 172, 744 N.E.2d 376 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
Editor's Note: To learn more about procuring cause, click here.