{
  "id": 5314334,
  "name": "KOGER PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. DOUGLAS K. LOWE, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Koger Properties, Inc. v. Lowe",
  "decision_date": "1992-06-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 9110SC569",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "389",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 N.C. App. 387"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "24 ALR3d 1160",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 S.E.2d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "882"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 N.C. App. 603",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522951
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "605"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/56/0603-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 S.E.2d 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 N.C. App. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527030
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/55/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "394 S.E.2d 478",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.C. App. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524431
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/99/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 S.E.2d 504",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "507",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525615
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "57",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/59/0052-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 358,
    "char_count": 5281,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15775939060539823
    },
    "sha256": "a15c8af88e5feef8c26d8c0e780c6d2b13c17933066af44df63df7c1801e48e9",
    "simhash": "1:971e44c51a9b4356",
    "word_count": 839
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:11.401464+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Eagles concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "KOGER PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. DOUGLAS K. LOWE, Defendant-Appellee"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends the trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment that plaintiff owed defendant an $80,157.60 commission based upon a signed letter of registration. We do not agree. Summary judgment shall be granted \u201cif the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d N.C.R. Civ. P. 56(c). No genuine issue of material fact is apparent from the record.\n\u201cGenerally, a broker becomes entitled to a commission only if he is the procuring cause of the [lease].\u201d Beckham v. Klein, 59 N.C. App. 52, 57, 295 S.E.2d 504, 507 (1982) (citations omitted). \u201cOf course, the contract of the parties can vary this general rule.\u201d Id. (citation omitted).\nThe parties\u2019 agreement, a \u201cletter of registration,\u201d stated:\nThis letter shall serve to register the following prospect, Management Systems Associates, hereinafter referred to as \u201cProspect,\u201d for approximately 30,000 net usable square feet on a three-year (or longer) term with possible renewal options at the end of the term(s).\nShould a lease be consummated between Prospect and Koger Properties, Inc., Koger agrees to pay to me, my heirs or assigns, a commission of four percent (4\u00b0/o) of the total gross aggregate rental due under the terms of the lease for the initial term (payment of commission due one-half upon execution and one-half upon occupancy).\nPlaintiff admitted in its answer to defendant\u2019s counterclaim that Mark F. Hayden signed this \u201cletter of registration\u201d in his capacity as General Manager of Koger Properties, Inc. Plaintiff, as principal, is liable for the acts of its agent acting within the scope of the agent\u2019s employment. Allen v. Simmons, 99 N.C. App. 636, 394 S.E.2d 478 (1990).\nAlthough defendant was licensed as a broker in North Carolina, this letter of registration did not take the form of a conventional brokerage agreement. Defendant was not required to be the procuring cause of the lease, nor was he required to have negotiated with the lessee. See Cooper v. Henderson, 55 N.C. App. 234, 284 S.E.2d 756 (1981). Rather, under the letter\u2019s terms defendant became entitled to a commission upon the occurrence of an event, the signing of a lease between the Prospect and plaintiff. The agreement was similar to a \u201cfinder\u2019s fee\u201d contract, \u201can arrangement by which an intermediary finds, introduces, and brings together parties to a real estate transaction, leaving the ultimate transaction and consummation of the transaction to the broker.\u201d Gower v. Strout Realty, Inc., 56 N.C. App. 603, 605, 289 S.E.2d 880, 882 (1982). Such a \u201cfinder\u2019s fee\u201d contract would not be a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 93A-1 (1989) since defendant was licensed as a broker in North Carolina.\nIn his deposition defendant (a former employee of plaintiff) stated plaintiff preferred to conduct its own negotiations with prospective clients. Although plaintiff argues that defendant was required to do more than simply provide the name of a prospect, the agreement\u2019s language clearly requires only the consummation of a lease between the Prospect and plaintiff, nothing more. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Wells and Eagles concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hunter, Wharton & Lynch, by John V. Hunter, III, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Smith, Debnam, Hibbert & Pahl, by Jack P. Gulley, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KOGER PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. DOUGLAS K. LOWE, Defendant-Appellee\nNo. 9110SC569\n(Filed 2 June 1992)\nBrokers and Factors \u00a7 26 (NCI4th)\u2014 real estate broker \u2014 finder\u2019s fee for procuring tenant\nThe trial court properly entered summary judgment that plaintiff owed defendant, a licensed real estate broker, an $80,157.60 commission based on a \u201cletter of registration\u201d signed by plaintiff\u2019s general manager in which plaintiff agreed to pay defendant a commission of 4% of the gross rental in the event that a lease was signed between a named prospect and plaintiff where the evidence showed that the prospect subsequently entered into a lease with plaintiff. This \u201cfinder\u2019s fee\u201d contract did not violate N.C.G.S. \u00a7 93A-1 since defendant was licensed as a broker in North Carolina.\nAm Jur 2d, Brokers \u00a7 178.\nValidity, construction and enforcement of business opportunities or \u201cfinder\u2019s fee\u201d contract. 24 ALR3d 1160.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from judgment entered 14 March 1991 by Judge George R. Greene in WAKE County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 April 1992.\nPlaintiff, a company in the business of building and leasing commercial property, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment regarding payment of an $80,157.60 commission to defendant for a lease entered into by defendant and Management Systems Associates (MSA). Defendant answered and counterclaimed for the commission he contended was owed on the basis of a \u201cletter of registration.\u201d\nMark F. Hayden, General Manager for plaintiff, signed this letter of registration on 3 February 1988. The prospect named in the letter, MSA, later entered a lease for 33,399 square feet with plaintiff. Defendant moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. From this judgment plaintiff appeals.\nHunter, Wharton & Lynch, by John V. Hunter, III, for plaintiff appellant.\nSmith, Debnam, Hibbert & Pahl, by Jack P. Gulley, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 417,
  "last_page_order": 419
}