Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Disalle Real Estate Co. v. Howell
Citations: 690 N.E.2d 25; 117 Ohio App. 3d 113; 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 6202Docket: No. 3-96-20.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 25, 1996; Ohio; State Appellate Court
DiSalle Real Estate Company appeals a Crawford County Common Pleas Court decision that granted summary judgment to Gene S. and Bonnie Howell regarding a breach of contract claim. The Howells had entered a listing agreement with DiSalle on July 21, 1995, which granted DiSalle the exclusive right to sell their campground until October 30, 1995, with a ten percent commission due upon securing a buyer. A handwritten clause specified that Bill and Sharon Booher were reserved as buyers to close within 30 days. The Howells sold the campground to the Boohers shortly after the expiration of this clause. DiSalle sought a commission, arguing that the exclusive right to sell entitled them to payment regardless of the closing date, while the Howells contended it was an exclusive agency agreement, requiring DiSalle to have secured the buyer to earn a commission. The court favored the Howells, leading to DiSalle’s appeal, which centers on the interpretation of the contract type—exclusive right to sell versus exclusive agency—and the conditions under which a commission is owed. The court clarified that under an exclusive right to sell, the broker is entitled to a commission if the property sells during the contract term, while under an exclusive agency, the seller can sell independently without owing a commission. The document outlines the legal principles governing exclusive agency agreements in real estate transactions. It emphasizes that an owner who grants an exclusive right to sell must compensate the broker with a commission if the property is sold during the agreement period, regardless of whether the broker facilitated the sale. The case of Bell v. Dimmerling establishes that a written agreement becomes binding when the agent uses efforts to find a buyer. If the owner sells the property while the agreement is in effect, they are liable for the commission stated in the contract. In this instance, the agreement lacked explicit language imposing liability on the Howells for paying the broker's commission if they sold the property themselves, which creates ambiguity. Citing Cent. Realty Co. v. Clutter, it is noted that an owner's right to sell their property should be preserved unless explicitly restricted. Consequently, the court found that the Howells were not obligated to pay the commission for their own sale, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Howells. The document also mentions a minor issue regarding the dates on the listing agreement, which the court resolved in favor of the Howells for the purposes of summary judgment.