Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Barnett v. Jenkins
Citations: 11 Ark. App. 194; 668 S.W.2d 550; 1984 Ark. App. LEXIS 1530Docket: CA 83-254
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; May 2, 1984; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
The appeal concerns the trial court's decision to award a real estate broker's commission to appellee Gary Jenkins. Appellant Bera Barnett represents the estate of Vern Barnett, who had listed a 160-acre tract of property for sale with his son Gene Barnett, an agent for Jenkins. The dispute arose from a contract signed on August 5, 1981, between Vern Barnett and buyer L. G. Morris regarding the sale of the 160-acre tract and an additional 178-acre tract owned by Dr. Hermie Plunk. Vern Barnett had previously conveyed the two tracts to his son Fred and Dr. Plunk for protection against judgments but intended to sell both. During negotiations, Jenkins was aware that Barnett needed to reacquire title to the 178-acre tract from Plunk and the 160-acre tract from Fred to finalize the sale to Morris. On August 6, 1981, Barnett attempted to retrieve the title from Plunk but was refused, and he did not obtain Fred's consent either. Jenkins sought a $17,000 commission from Barnett, who refused to pay, leading to Jenkins filing a lawsuit. The trial court ruled in favor of Jenkins, but following Barnett's death shortly after the trial, Bera Barnett appealed. The appeal focused on whether Jenkins had produced a buyer ready, willing, and able to purchase the properties based on the agreements. The appellate court acknowledged that Jenkins was aware of the title defects preventing the sale and cited legal precedent stating that a broker is not entitled to a commission if aware of such defects. Consequently, the court concluded that Jenkins was not entitled to the commission due to his knowledge of the title issues at the time of the negotiations. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the case.