Case Information
*1 02/27/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 22, [2016] Session CLAY HARRIS DALTON v. JERRY SANDIFER ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sevier County Telford E. Forgety, Jr., Chancellor No. 14-10-333 No. E2016-00696-COA-R3-CV
This case involves a dispute over the c om mi ss io n earned from a real estate transaction. The parties disagree as to whether the plaintiff, Clay Harris Dalton, is entitled to a part of the c om mi ss io n on the transaction. Jerry Sandifer is a principal real estate broker licensed in Tennessee. He is the sole proprietor of Tennessee Realty Pros, LLC (TRP), a Tennessee limited liability company. Dalton is an affiliate real estate broker licensed in Tennessee. On September 6, 2013, D al to n registered his real estate license with Sandifer and TRP (collectively the Brokerage). On November 1, 2013, TRP secured a commercial exclusive right to sell listing agreement from a seller. The agreement encompasses the real estate sold in the transaction at issue. Eventually, TRP procured a buyer, and on March 23, 2014, the buyer executed a commercial purchase and sales agreement. That agreement listed D al to n as the Buyer's Designated Agent and selling licensee. It listed Sandifer as the Seller's Designated Agent and listing licensee. On September 30, 2014, the real estate closing took place, resulting in a total broker's c om mi ss io n of $97,400. Because only on e brokerage was involved in the transaction, the entire commission was paid to TRP. Dalton claims that he is entitled to a share of the c om mi ss io n. He further a ss er ts that he had an agreement with Sandifer that Dalton would be paid a share of the co mm is si on on the buyer's side of the transaction. Because the Brokerage refused to disburse any of the commission to Dalton, he filed a complaint seeking his share of the commission. The trial court found that, based on the customary and contractual commission split at TRP, Dalton is entitled to $34,090 for acting as the buyer's agent. The court also found that Dalton was entitled to $2,000 for his e ff or ts in listing real property for the Brokerage. Accordingly, the trial court awarded Dalton a total judgment of $36,090. The Brokerage appeals. We affirm. Te nn. R. App. P . [3] A p p e al as o f R i g h t ; Jud gment of Ch anc ery C ou r t Affirmed; Case Remanded *40 M R 1 Copyright [2013] [0] Tennessee A ss o ci at i on or Realtors .
F fi S — Commerci al P u rc h a s e m id S a l e A g re e m e n t, P a ge [4] [0] [8]
Ve rsi on [0] [2] / [0] [1] [1] [2] [0] [1] [4]
- 2 -
3
4
5
- 6 -
7
- 8 -
- 9 -
- 10 -
[03] a mo un t, if a ny , in a cc or da nc e w it h terms and provisions specified by separate agreement. The parties agree and
did not earn a commission from the sale at issue. The record, however, indicates that
disclosures that a broker acting as a dual agent must make to the seller and the buyer.
a s if h e e nt e re d t h e sc en e a ft er t h e s a l e a t iss u e h ad been initiated. He assisted with
[2]
Li st in g B ro k er wi ll di rec t th e c lo s in g age ncy/ attor ney to pay t he Sellin g B r ok e r , from th e commission rec eived , an
property from buyer. This letter indicates that Sandifer r ep r es en t s the se ll er in the
very little to close the transaction.
B. Brokerage. Seller agrees to pay Listing Broker at Closing compensation specified by separate agreement. T he
Sandifer claims that Dalton had little involvement in the transaction and that he
(Bold font, bracketing, and italics in original.) The provision then provides five
TRP before listing agreement or purchase and s a l e s agreement were inke d. It i s not
evidence indicates that Dalton earned $2,000 for his work with the listing. We affirm the
In February 2014, TRP obtained a commercial letter of intent to pu rch ase the
is not selected to indicate that that status applies. Sandifer also argues that Dalton did
[200] *109 real property.
(Bold font, italics, and underlining in original.)
Seller Initials Buyer Initials
that Dalton w a s indeed involved in transaction. Dalton registered his license with
carry his burden of proving that he is entitled to $10,000 for helping to list property. The
executed document. He asserts that designated agency is not applicable because the box
client.
[199] [Dalton] earned $2,000 for work associated with listing of
A.
to any of commission. We are not persuaded by his argument. The record indicates
to same.
agreement for him to be paid $10,000 for his work with listings. Dalton has failed to
affiliate licensees and a client which would impair their ability to exercise fair judgment relative to another
[198] se ll er a nd the buyer. *136 Sandifer makes much of the fact that the designated agency box was not checked on the
(Paragraph numbering in original omitted.)
Additionally, evidence presented at trial demonstrated that
transaction client assigned to the other Designated Agent.
Broker is acting as a dual agent in this transaction and consent
Sandifer argues that D a l to n was not i n vo l v e d in transaction and i s not entitled
rather than the listing. Sandifer's response of "Ok" in no way indicates that there was an
A material relationship means one of a personal, familial or business nature between Broker and
[197] *149 " De s i gn a t ed A g e n t f or t he Sell er" rat her than a dual a ge nt r e qu i r in g t he c on se nt of b ot h
[196] h av e no material relationship with either client except as follows:
bee n as si gn ed a s a cl ie nt a nd s ha l l n o t represent in t h i s
V.
has been selected above] Seller and Buyer are aware that
from the gobble-gibson . . . closing." This message addresses payment for the closing,
[10] [5] (d) Material Relationship Disclosure. [ Re qu ir ed w it h dual A ge n cy ) Th e Brok er a nd / or a f fi l i at e d l ic en se es *163 confirmation of agency st at us form. That form indicated that Sandifer was serving as
(Bold font, italics, and underlining in original.)
transaction[.]
amount of $34,090.
Agent shall ex clus ivel y represent party to whom each has
Dual Agency Disclosure. [Applicable only if dual agency
purchase and sales agreement, that relationship does apply to this transaction.
message to which Dalton refers, however, indicates that he was waiting to "get the 10k
[194] law.
In addition to listing agreement, Sandifer and the seller executed a
entitled to $2,000[] in compensation on the listing side of the
customary and contractual commission split being in the
findings.
with Seller as Seller's Designated Agent. Each Designated
not checked to specify t ra n s ac t io n involved a designated agency relationship o n the
which could materially and adversely affect their negotiating position unless otherwise prohibited by
[193] Dalton asserts that a text message confirms that he is entitled to $10,000. The text
[192] Broker, if acting a s a dual agent, to keep confidential and not reveal to other party any information
the client assigned to the other Designated Agent.
Whether the trial court erred when it found [Dalton] was
closing of real property sale, and w as entitled to the
We hold that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's factual
and affiliate licensee Jerry S a nd i f er to work exclusively
as follows:
"Designated Agent for Seller." These documents demonstrate that, while the box wa s
5. Notwithstanding any provision to contrary contained herein, Seller and Buyer each hereby direct
[191] *205 designates Sandifer as designated agent for the seller.
Designated Agent shall . . . not represent in this transaction
[Dalton] maintained such status and position through the work exclusively with Buyer as Buy er's Designated Agent
relationship in the agreement. Paragraph 15(A)(5)(c) of the relevant agreement provides
Sandifer's confirmation of agency status form to seller, he indicated that he is the
Dalton was, in fact, sent a check for $2,000.
[190] *216 read and understand their brokerage' ngagement agreements.
disclosure to each party and with each party's informed consent." The listing agreement
entitled to a share of the buyer's side commission[.]
exclusively with
Seller as Seller's Designated Agent. Each
The Broker ass igne d affiliate licensee Clay Dal ton to Designated Buyer's Agent. The record reflects that
brokers were paid that same amount for their efforts in listing real property.
agency relationship applies, that relationship requires more than the designated agency
Agenicyl . . . in this transaction." (Bold font and underlining in original.) Finally, on
[189] 4. The consent of Buyer and Seller to dual agency has been given voluntarily and the parties have
could earn between $2,000 and $10,000 for helping with listing property. Furthermore,
Under terms of the agreement, dual agency "status may only be employed upon full
Whether the trial court erred when it found [Dalton] was
Agent and
affiliate licensee Jerry Sandifer to work
T he documents admitted i nt o evidence identify [Dalton] as
that work is $2,000 based on Sandifer's representation and the fact that other affiliate
Brokerage received the entire amount of the commission for the transaction. If a dual
Designated Agent for seller and provides that the "F irm s ha l l Practice Designated
their work on listing. Sandifer also testified that he told the affiliate brokers that they 3. The Buyer and Seller do not have to consent to dual agency, and
[1] [8] [8] *249 wh ic h licensee would serve as the agent for more than one party in the transaction.
work exclusively with the Buyer as Buyer's Designated
compensated for his work in listing real property. The amount to which he is entitled for
designated agency has been selected above]
TRP as both the listing and selling agent and payee of $97,400. Thus, it is clear that the
and with each party's informed consent." The listing agreement appoints Sandifer as the
for work with listing real property. He testified that he and others were paid $2,000 for
[167] *254 instructions from another c l i e n t which is not otherwise required to be disclosed by law.
. . . in this transaction." The agreement d id not establish a dual agency relationship in dual agent, to all parties in the transaction except for information made confidential by request or
[180] The Brokerage raises the following issues, as quoted verbatim from its brief:
The Broker has
assigned affiliate Licensee Clay Dalton to
agent/affiliate broker.
Designated Agency Assignment. [Applicable only if
the evidence demonstrates that there was an agreement that Dalton would be *266 that a dual agency relationship "may only be employed upon full disclosure to each party
Furthermore, the form for additional disbursements from broker's commission designates
compensation for listing the property was that affiliate brokers could earn up to $10,000
[185] *272 2. T h e Broker will disclose all adverse, material facts relevant to transaction, and actually known to
•
tract. The listing agreement indicates that "Firm shall practice Designated A ge n[ cy ]
found that Dalton is entitled to $34,090 of the commission. Finally, the court found that
commissions w as 30% to brokerage, and 70% to the
commission, which designates Tennessee Realty Pros, LLC to receive $97,400.
The listing agreement defines types of agency relationships. Paragraph 12 provides
Eric McPeake, another affiliate broker with TRP, testified that the agreement for
be, different or even adverse.
[184] *291 The transaction that is subject of this case involves a 2.5 acre parcel of the larger
(a) for designated ag ency . This subsection, as dr afte d, reads:
and thirty percent going to the brokerage house. Based on this arrangement, the court agreed upon and customary brokerage division of
designated agency has been selected above]
Department of Housing & Urban Development Settlement Statement's division of
support to conclusion that a designated agency relationship exists for this transaction.
[183] 1. In serving as a dual agent Broker is representing two clients whose interests are, or at times could
from se lle r. T h i s a g re e m en t g a ve T R P th e rig ht to s el l a t hi r ty - th r ee ac re tr ac t of l a n d .
On th e ex ecu ted a gr ee me nt , S a nd i f er c o m p l et e d t h e i nf o rm at i on u n de r subsection
Designated Agency
Assignment. [Applicable only if
S t a te m e n t move d i n t o evidence. F ur t he r , t he Cour t f in d s t ha t
the buyer's broker and there was a split of that with seventy percent going to the agent
transaction and received the entire commission for the sale. That is clear from the U.S.
The listing agre ement a n d co nfi rma tio n of a g e n c y s t at u s f o r m l e n d ad dit io nal
contractually entitled to [that amount]." We disagree.
have been advised that:
[182] *319 aware t h a t Br oker i s acting e s a d u a l a g en t i n t hi s t ra ns a ct i on and c o n s e n t t o t he same . Sell er a nd Buy er
[18] [1] *320 On November 1, 2013, in transaction at issue, TRP secured a listing agreement
judgment of $2,000 for listing real property to $10,000 for a total award of $44,090.
property . . . was closed in accordance with Settlement
The evidence in the case supported the notion that half of the commission went to
At least that is what its argument amounts to. TRP represented both parties to the
commission, and the uncontested fact that such fee is fair and reasonable, [he] is
[180] (c) Dual Ag ency Disclosure. [Applicable only if dual agency has been selected above) Seller and Buyer are
c [79] *334 $36,090. The Brokerage appeals. Additionally, Dalton requests that we increase the
designated agency, a facilitator, or a dual agency.
Subsection (a) of this paragraph reads as follows:
evidence shows, and was uncontested, that sale of listed
It seems to us that the Brokerage is trying to act as a dual agent in this transaction.
acting for buyer and Sandifer a ct in g for the seller.
"[biased on the parties' agreement, the text message stating the $10,000 listing-side
such time as an agency agreement is established.]
commission. Sandifer did not dispute that this is customary commission split at TRP.
his work in listing real property for the Brokerage, awarding Dalton a total judgment of
are represented by same broker. Thus, the transaction must involve either a
as an affiliate broker/agent at [the Brokerage] . . . . The
found that Dalton was involved in the transaction and entitled to commission for the sale.
We hold that a designated agency relationship applies to this transaction with Dalton
listing real property for the Brokerage, rather than $2,000. In his brief, he asserts that
agency agreement with either party in transaction is considered a Facilitator or Transaction Broker until
*361 [178] [177] disclosures, forms or agreements. (By law, any licensee or company wh o has not entered into a written
broker earns seventy percent of commission and TRP receives thirty percent of the
amounted to $34,090. In addition, the court found that Dalton was entitled to $2,000 for
plain language is clear that one of these relationships shall exist when the buyer and seller
boxes are selected to indicate the relationship that exists.
It was uncontested t h a t [Dalton] was licensed and had worked
Accordingly, despite the fact that the designated agency box was not checked, the court or dual agency relationship must apply to the transaction.
not allow him to act as a dual agent and keep entire commission from the transaction.
Dalton argues that he was promised and is entitled to $10,000 for his work in
"Transaction Broker" may be used synonymously with, or in lieu of, "Facilitator" as used in any
[176] *377 that when an affiliate broker makes a sale, the customary practice is that the affiliate
agent/affiliate broker." Dalton's seventy percent of the buyer's half of the commission Brokerage cannot avoid one of these relationships applying to the transaction. The
(Bracketing in original; emphasis added.) On the executed document, however, none of
find that the "facilitator" designation is not applicable. Thus, either a designated agency
ambiguous or not clear, it is construed must strongly against the party who wrote it." buyer. Sandifer's failure to check the box for a designated agency relationship does parties to a transaction but cannot be considered a representative or advocate for either party.
[175]
agent for either party in this consumer's prospective transaction. A Facilitator may advise either or both of
[174]
broker at TRP, testified regarding customary commission split at TRP. Both testified
brokerage division of commissions was 30% to the brokerage, and 70% to the
to make a selection under this provision. The contractual language, however, is clear that
The Brokerage has made no argument that it acted as a facilitator in this transaction. We
e s t a t e affiliate broker.
Dalton as the designated agent for the buyer and noted that "when a contract is
agreement is clear that Sandifer is agent for the seller and that Dalton is the agent for
B.
(b) Facilitator. (Applicable only if Facilitator has been selected above) The licensee is not working as an
[173] *405 status throughout the closing. The court also found that "the agreed upon and customary
splits commission earned with TRP. Dalton and Eric McPeake, another affiliate
(Emphasis added.) On executed contract, however, none of t he boxes were checked
amounts due for work which [Dalton] performed as a real
there was obviously some relationship. The court focused on the contract that listed
[ ]
Facilitator OR [ ] dual agency shall exist. listing company. Each of these designations must mean something. We find that the
client and shall not represent in this transaction client assigned to the other Designated Agent.
[172] *419 At TRP, customary practice is that an affiliate broker who closes a transaction court found that Dalton acted as the buyer's designated agent and that he maintained that
parties, concerning [Dalton's] claims for commissions and
contractual relationship between Sandifer and Dalton. There was nothing in writing, but
Broker, a
relationship of either [ ] designated agency, OR,
considered a representative or advocate for either party.
independent licensee for the selling company and Sandifer as the independent licensee for [171]
Agent. Each Designated Agent shall exclusively represent party to whom each has been assigned as a
buyer in this transaction.
[170] Jerry Sandifer
to work exclusively with Seller as Seller's Designated
Following a bench trial, the court awarded a judgment in favor of Dalton. The
Facilitator OR [ ] dual agency shall exist.
Judgment awarded is based upon contract between the
According to the court in making its ruling, there had to be some kind of If Buyer and Seller are both being represented by the same
either or both of the parties to a transaction but cannot be
Informational Purposes Only[,]" executed agreement designates Dalton as the
trial court and hold that Dalton is entitled to $34,090 in commission for representing the
work exclusively with Buyer as Buyer's Designated Agent and affiliate licensee
[169]
registered his license as an affiliate broker with Brokerage in September 2013.
Broker, a relationship of either [] designated agency, OR, [ ]
awarded to [Dalton] in the amount of $36,090. This
consumer's prospective transaction. A Facilitator may advise
Designated agent. Furthermore, while agreement indicates the designations are "For
earned. Accordingly, Dalton is entitled to $34,090, i.e., 70% of $48,700. We affirm the
The Broker has assigned affiliate li cens ee Clay Dalton
[168] *452 to
(a) Designated Agency Assignment. (Applicable only [designated agency has been selected above)
[167]
s i n c e he founded it. Clay Dalton is an affiliate broker licensed in Tennessee. Dalton
meruit, and unjust enrichment and sought his share of the commission.
If Buyer and Seller are both being represented by same
The licensee is not working as an agent for either party in this
[T]he Court is of the opinion that Judgment should be
with another brokerage for the buyer.
the
following language:
entered Dalton's name as Buyer's Designated Agent and his own name as the Seller's
commission split at TRP entitles the affiliate broker to seventy percent of the commission
OR, o Facilitator OR o dual agency shall exist.
[166]
and purchase of real estate. Sandifer has served as principal broker for the company
complaint against the Brokerage. He alleged breach of contract, conversion, quantum
TRP by allowing it to keep one hundred percent of the commission rather than splitting it
of
the purchase and sales agreement applies to transaction. That provision contains
While designated agency box was not checked on the agreement, Sandifer
representing the buyer. The testimony at trial makes it clear that the customary
(5) If Buyer and Seller are both being represented by same Broker, a relationship of either o designated agency,
[165]
of the commission to Dalton. Based on Sandifer's failure to pay him, Dalton filed a
relies, contains the following language:
Jerry Sandifer is the founder and sole owner of TRP, which is involved in the sale
securing listing for the Brokerage. The trial court's judgment states the following:
. . that must have been done for some reason." Because it was done this way, it helped
facilitator relationship must exist. The agreement defines a Facilitator as follows:
Because the
same broker represents both the buyer and seller, paragraph 12(A)(5)
is $48,700. Dalton is entitled to the customary portion of the selling side commission for
said BrokerX is OR a is not representing Buyer.
[164]
the entire amount of the commission to disburse. Sandifer, however, refused to pay any
As quoted previously, paragraph (12)(A)(5), the provision on which the Brokerage
Designated Buyer's Agent and that he had also earned money for the work he did in
designated agency relationship does not apply to the transaction, either a dual agency or a
Sandifer himself who put Mr. Dalton's name in as designated agent for the buyer[, and] .
(4) The Broker, if any, working with Buyer is identified on the signature page as the "Selling Company", and
[163]
analysis, we hold that a dual agency relationship does not apply to this transaction.
the total commission was $97,400, so the commission to which the selling side is entitled
CHARLES D . SUSANO, JR., JUDGE
broker. Because agents from TRP represented both the buyer and the seller, it received
If the Brokerage keeps the entire commission from the transaction and the
been executed. The court stated that "when the sales contract was executed, it was Mr.
said Broker x is OR o is not representing Seller.
The trial court found that Dalton was entitled to a commission for acting as the
I.
[162]
indicating that he represented both sides and acted as a dual agent. Based on this
and the selling broker, with each entitled to fifty percent of the commission. In this case,
licensee is assigned to each party.
(3) The Broker, if any, working with Seller is identified on the signature page as the "Listing Company"; and
[161]
relevant page of purchase and sales agreement is attached as Exhibit 1.
commission would be paid to the listing broker and half would be paid to the selling
agent. He wo ul d receive both seller's side commission and buyer's side commission,
the seller and the buyer before Dalton started with TRP, the court noted that nothing had
total commission earned from a real estate transaction is split between the listing broker
broker for
both the listing company and the selling company, but a different independent
that Broker's role is limited to performing ministerial acts for unrepresented party.
[160]
to this transaction. For purpose of aiding the reader of this opinion, a copy of the
transaction.
commission discount to facilitate the closing of the transaction. Customarily, half of the
OPINION
transaction and distributes none of it to an affiliate broker, he would be acting as a dual
was in place and then sought a commission. Even if Sandifer had some relationship with
IV.
is entitled to a share of the commission for the transaction. The parties agree that the
buyer and
independent licensee for the selling company is Clay Dalton. Thus, TRP is the
(2) I f one of parties is not represented by a Broker, that party is solely responsible for their own in tere sts, and
[159]
Our review of contract demonstrates that a designated agency relationship does apply
represents six percent of the sale price of $1,790,000 less an agreed upon $10,000
Unless one of the other defined relationships exist, a designated agency must apply to this
contract prior to Dalton joining TRP. It was not as if Dalton joined TRP after the deal
initials on form. If Sandifer, however, receives the entire commission from the
Because a designated agency applies with Dalton acting on behalf of the buyer, he
broker
representing the buyer, the selling company, is TRP. The designated agent for the
Broker License Act of 1973, as amended, and Tennessee Real Estate Commission rules and regulations.
[158] *575 duty to Buyer or Seller greater that what is set forth in their brokerage engagements, the Tennessee Real Estate
not checked, it does not ap pl y to contract. We are not persuaded by this argument.
both parties to the transaction. Because that is the case here, one of them must apply.
The total commission paid to TRP for the transaction was $97,400. This
[157]
240, 246 (Tenn. 2010).
exists, did not make required disclosures, and did not obtain the buyer's or the seller's
The court also found that Sandifer had neither a listing contract nor a sales
and
independent licensee for the listing company is Jerry Sandifer. In addition, the
enforcement of trial court's judgment and for collection of costs assessed be lo w.
where context would indicate, the Broker's affiliated licensees. No Broker in this transaction shall owe any
[156]
assert that, because box designating t he agency relationship as a designated agency is
defined in paragraph (12)(A)(5) of the agreement shall exist if the Brokerage represents
reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness." In re Angela E., 303 S.W.3d
Scott D. Hall, Sevierville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Clay Harris Dalton.
Sandifer did not indicate on executed agreement that a dual agency relationship
fact, serve as the agent for the buyer.
representing the
seller, the listing company, is TRP. The designated agent for the seller
appellants, Jerry Sandifer and Tennessee Realty Pros, LLC. This case is remanded for
( I) In this Agreement, term "Broker" shall mean a licensed Tennessee real estate broker or brokerage (inn and,
NW [155] *603 support Dalton's argument that he is entitled to a commission from transaction. They
A. Agency.
L [154] *604 allow him to avoid that selection. The language is clear that one of the relationships
re Adoption of A.M.H., 215 S.W.3d 793, 809 (Tenn. 2007). "Questions of law . . . are
a dual agency relationship exists nor initials of the seller or the buyer. In this case,
2014.
for Dalton's name to be there if he had nothing to do with the transaction.
transaction by conversing with Sandifer before the closing. We find that Dalton did, in
the agency
relationship among the parties. The agreement indicates that the broker
The judgment of trial court is affirmed. The costs on appeal are assessed to the
[153] [11] Agency and Brokerage.
In its brief, the B r o k e r a g e argues t h a t t h e p u r c h as e a n d sales a g re e m e n t do es n o t
Seller's Designated Agent. His failure to check the designated agency box does not
The executed agreement, however, contains neither a box chec ked t o i n di c a te that
Re al ty P ro s, LLC.
Accordingly, he hired counsel. The transaction would eventually close on September 30,
fac t a r e c or r e ct u n l e s s t h e e v i de n c e preponderates ot he rw is e. T e nn . R. A pp . P. 13 (d ); In
with the transaction. Furthermore, Dalton attempted to remain abreast of the status of the
that contract." A buyer is not required to have an agent, so there would not be any reason
agreement for the
property with a purchase price of $1,790,000. This agreement defines
Sandifer who designated Dalton as the Buyer's Designated Agent and himself as the
commission to which he was entitled based on the customary split with TRP.
Dalton. Dalton was the responsible agent for handling any issues and assisting the buyer
Nicholas Black, Maryville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Jerry Sandifer and Tennessee
factual findings de novo upo n record. We will presume the trial court's findings of
exclusively with the buyer as the buyer's designated agent. [The buyer] signed off on
The following month, the buyer executed a commercial purchase and sales
VI.
property at issue.
Sandifer, the drafter of the agreement, input the information in this section. It was
the buyer had any questions or issues during the transaction, he would know to contact
transaction. Due to this representation, Dalton became concerned that he would lose the
Where, as here, the trial court sits without a jury, we r e vi e w the trial court's
relationships and requires seller and the buyer to initial the agreement.
agreement prepared by Sandifer, he "assigned affiliate licensee, Clay Dalton, to work
demonstrate that Dalton earned and is entitled to a commission from sale of the real
provision says that it is applicable "only if designated agency has been selected above[,]"
closing, Sandifer indicated to Dalton that he would not be paid a commission on the SWINEY, C.J., and JOHN W. MCCLARTY, J., joined.
property, but the buyer signed the agreement that designated Dalton as his agent. Thus, if agency relationship. That subsection requires broker to disclose any material
commission, and for a lot of reasons . . . ." The court noted that, in the purchase and sales
not signed by the buyer.
property. *673 Dalton was in fact involved in transaction. We find that the facts in this case
We find that this "designation" applies to the transaction at issue. Even though the
At some point between the execution of the purchase and sales agreement and the
Furthermore, subsection (d), "Material Relationship Disclosure," is required with a dual
CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., J., delivered opinion of the court, in which D. MICHAEL
listing and marketing the property. It is not entirely clear who secured the buyer of the
In making its ruling, the court "conclude[d] that Mr. Dalton is entitled to a share of the
transaction. The letter, however, does not indicate a representative for the buyer and is
trial court's finding and hold that Dalton is entitled to $2,000 for his work with listing
EXHIBIT 1