Neary v. Mikob Properties, Inc., 340 S.W.3d 578

Neary and SJH sued for a real estate brokerage commission tied to the 2003 Comunidad apartment sale; final purchase agreement did not include a commission provision.
SJH was not licensed at the time of the Comunidad transaction; Neary was licensed.
Term Sheet (Nov 17, 2003) signed by Neary (on behalf of Comunidad Corp.) and Kobernick (Mikob Properties), stating a 2% commission and describing payment terms, but labeled as non-binding.
Emails surrounding the Term Sheet, before and after, were offered as additional writings to satisfy RELA §1101.806(c).
Trial court granted summary judgment for appellees under RELA; the suit was severed and the judgment became final; the issue on appeal was whether RELA’s writing requirement was satisfied by the Term Sheet and emails viewed together.
Appellants contend the Term Sheet and emails meet RELA; appellees contend they do not and that SJH lacked license for the transaction; the court agreed with appellees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RELA requires strict, signature-based compliance.	Term Sheet and emails collectively satisfy RELA.	Term Sheet is non-binding and lacks essential RELA elements.	No; RELA strict compliance not met.

Lathem v. Kruse, 290 S.W.3d 922 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (strict compliance required; writing must satisfy four elements)
John Wood Group USA, Inc. v. ICO, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 12 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (non-binding clause can defeat enforceability)
Treo Enterprises v. Henry S. Miller Co., 585 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1979) (strict compliance with RELA required; license of agent not enough)
Cohen v. McCutchin, 565 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1978) (memorandum must contain all essential terms)
Tex. Builders v. Keller, 928 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. 1996) (writing must identify land with reasonable certainty)
Harkinson, 944 S.W.2d 631 (Tex. 1997) (brokers rely on signed writing to enforce RELA)