Drake v. Hosley

Paul Drake (Defendant) owned property in North Pole, Alaska. He entered into an exclusive listing agreement with the Charles Hosley Company, Realtors (Plaintiff), granting Plaintiff the authority to sell Defendant’s land. Under the terms of the agreement, Plaintiff was entitled to a ten percent commission if: (1) Plaintiff found a buyer willing and able to purchase the land pursuant to terms set by Defendant, or (2) Defendant entered a binding sale during the term set by Defendant. Plaintiff found a group of buyers and entered a purchase and sale agreement on March 23, 1984. The buyers and Defendant signed the agreement, which required closing within ten days of clear title. Defendant and Plaintiff also signed an addendum to the agreement, under which Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff a commission of ten percent of the purchase price. On April 2 or 3, Plaintiff received a preliminary commitment and report from a title insurance company. The report noted that a judgment awarded to Defendant’s ex-wife was the only encumbrance on the title. Defendant’s attorney, Tom Wickwire, explained that the judgment would be paid with proceeds from the sale. A few days later, Wickwire contacted Plaintiff and stated that Defendant desired to close the sale by April 11. Wickwire had negotiated a reduced settlement with Defendant’s ex-wife that required payment by that date. Wickwire claimed at trial that Plaintiff agreed to close on April 11, but Plaintiff states that he only agreed to close as soon as possible. On April 11, Wickwire contacted Plaintiff again. Plaintiff stated that the buyers could not close that day and that they would not have the down payment before May 1. Wickwire suggested that Defendant stop the sale and, in a letter dated April 11, withdrew Defendant’s offer to sell. On April 12, Defendant sold the land to other buyers. That same day, Plaintiff submitted checks from his buyers for a down payment. Wickwire refused to accept the checks, explaining that Defendant had already sold the land. Plaintiff sued, arguing that he had satisfied the terms of the exclusive listing agreement and that he was entitled to payment of a ten percent commission. The trial court granted summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.