{ "id": 1571198, "name": "HAPSAS REALTY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. McCOUN, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Hapsas Realty, Inc. v. McCoun", "decision_date": "1978-05-10", "docket_number": "No. 11536", "first_page": "659", "last_page": "661", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "91 N.M. 659" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "579 P.2d 785" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "64 A.L.R. 1423", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 A.L.R.2d 741", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 N.E. 384", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ohio App. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio App.", "case_ids": [ 1314390 ], "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-app/31/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 N.W.2d 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 Wis. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8681207 ], "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/246/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 Utah 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Utah", "case_ids": [ 8868700 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/utah/108/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 S.W.2d 460", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10133958 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/421/0460-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 Or. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or.", "case_ids": [ 5093427 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or/204/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "134 N.W. 651", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1912, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 Neb. 757", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 2862602 ], "year": 1912, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/90/0757-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 Mont. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 5236269 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/146/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 N.W.2d 461", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 Mich. 12", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1927613 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/339/0012-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ariz.App. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz. App.", "case_ids": [ 1237899 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz-app/6/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ariz. 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 5179683 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/62/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 P. 526", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "implies that this rule is not applicable unless one of the brokers has a binding written contract with the principal" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 Cal.App. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App.", "case_ids": [ 2389237 ], "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "implies that this rule is not applicable unless one of the brokers has a binding written contract with the principal" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app/9/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Cal.Rptr. 855", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Cal.App.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2339976 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/185/0810-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Cal.Rptr. 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr.", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 Cal.App.2d 592", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2170651 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/243/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 P. 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1891, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 Cal. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 1969567 ], "year": 1891, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/90/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N.M. 776", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8504962 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/76/0776-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 457, "char_count": 7185, "ocr_confidence": 0.785, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08, "percentile": 0.2956672377424321 }, "sha256": "3f0edb126d5d4a7f604875bfa696f3075bd6bd03f72127fa29e1073d6441d7bf", "simhash": "1:ebc0f81376768c71", "word_count": 1153 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:42.064818+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "EASLEY, PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.", "SOSA, J., respectfully dissenting." ], "parties": [ "HAPSAS REALTY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. McCOUN, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nMcMANUS, Chief Justice.\nHapsas Realty, Inc., plaintiff-appellant, brought an action for declaratory judgment against Michael J. McCoun, defendant-appellee on an oral contract to divide a real estate commission earned by the leasing of certain premises. Appellee denied the contract and affirmatively alleged that the oral contract, if any, was unenforceable. The trial court, pursuant to N.M.R.Civ.P. 56 [\u00a7 21-1-1(56), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.1970)], granted summary judgment in favor of appellee on the grounds that an agreement between brokers to share or divide a commission must be in writing pursuant to \u00a7 70-1-43, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.1961).\nSection 70-1 \u2014 43 provides:\nAny agreement entered into subsequent to the first day of July, 1949, authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell lands, tenements, or hereditaments or any interest in or concerning them, for a commission or other compensation, shall be void unless the agreement, or some memorandum or note thereof shall be in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized. No such agreement or employment shall be considered exclusive unless specifically so stated therein.\nThus, Section 70-1-43 requires any agreement \u201cauthorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell lands . or any interest in or concerning them\u201d to be in writing. Whether this statute is applicable to a contract to share a commission appears to be a case of first impression in New Mexico.\nAppellant argues that an oral contract to share commissions does not fall within the statute since such an agreement is not an employment or agency agreement to purchase or sell an interest in land.\nAppellee contends that \u00a7 70-1-43 is applicable to all situations involving real estate commissions and that the statute is designed not only to protect property owners but also all persons who come within its provisions.\nIn Yrisarri v. Wallis, 76 N.M. 776, 418 P.2d 852 (1966) this Court held that \u00a7 70-1-43 was applicable to all persons who came within the statutory provisions and rejected a property owner\u2019s contention that the statute was intended to benefit only a property owner. In Yrisarri the property owner claimed an oral modification of a written agreement for a commission. However, whether an agreement to share commissions comes within the provisions of \u00a7 70-1-43 is a question which was not addressed by this Court in Yrisarri.\nSeveral courts in other jurisdictions have construed statutes similar to \u00a7 70-1-43 as they apply to agreements between brokers to share commissions. In the early case of Gorham v, Heiman, 90 Cal. 346, 27 P. 289 (1891), the Supreme Court of California determined that a statute requiring written agreements authorizing or employing brokers was designed only to protect owners of real estate against unfounded claims of brokers. The statute was determined not to extend to agreements between brokers to cooperate in making sales for a share of a commission.\nThe present California statute, Cal.Civ. Code \u00a7 1624(5) (West 1973) requires a writing with:\nAn agreement authorizing or employing an agent [or] broker ... to purchase or sell real estate, or to lease real estate . . . or to procure . a purchaser or seller of real estate or a lessee or lessor ... for compensation or a commission.\nThis provision has been held not to be applicable to agreements to share commissions between brokers. Gorham v. Heiman, supra; Jaffe v. Albertson Company, 243 Cal.App.2d 592, 53 Cal.Rptr. 25 (1966); Application of Goossen, 185 Cal.App.2d 810, 8 Cal.Rptr. 855 (1960). Cf. Aldis v. Schleicher, 9 Cal.App. 372, 99 P. 526 (1908) (implies that this rule is not applicable unless one of the brokers has a binding written contract with the principal).\nAriz.Rev.Stat. \u00a7 44-101(7) (1967) requires a writing:\nUpon an agreement authorizing or employing an agent or broker to purchase or sell real property, or mines, for compensation or a commission.\nThe Arizona Supreme Court in Bush v. Mattingly, 62 Ariz. 483, 158 P.2d 665 (1945) determined that the statute was not applicable to agreements between brokers. See also Nutter v. Bechtel, 6 Ariz.App. 501, 433 P.2d 993 (1967).\nThe former Michigan statute, Mich.Comp. Laws Ann. (1967), \u00a7 566.132(5) was construed in Beznos v. Borisoff, 339 Mich. 12, 62 N.W.2d 461 (1954). In Beznos the Supreme Court of Michigan held that the statute was not applicable to agreements between brokers. The then applicable statute provided for a writing with:\nEvery agreement, promise or contract to pay any commission for or upon the sale of any interest in real estate.\nOther states which have had an opportunity to construe statutes similar to \u00a7 70-1-43 have held that their respective Statutes of Frauds requiring a written agreement were not applicable to agreements between brokers to share commissions. Reilly v. Maw, 146 Mont. 145, 405 P.2d 440 (1965); Reasoner v. Yates, 90 Neb. 757, 134 N.W. 651 (1912); Sorenson v. Brice Realty Company, 204 Or. 223, 282 P.2d 1057 (1955); Moore v. Sussdorf, 421 S.W.2d 460 (Tex.Ct.Civ.App.1967); Andersen v. Johnson, 108 Utah 417, 160 P.2d 725 (1945); Neimann v. Severson, 246 Wis. 636, 18 N.W.2d 338 (1945). Contra Miller v. Auble, 31 Ohio App. 67, 166 N.E. 384 (1929). See also Annot., 44 A.L.R.2d 741 (1955); 64 A.L.R. 1423 (1930).\nThe rationale of these decisions is that the applicable statutes were designed to protect the property owner-broker relationship. To the extent these courts have stated that these statutes are designed to protect only property owners we disagree. Yrisarri v. Wallis, supra. However, we do find that we are in agreement that such statutes do not apply to agreements between brokers to share a commission. The clear purpose of \u00a7 70-1-43 is to protect the owner-broker agreement to pay commissions but not to protect the brokers from themselves.\nWe therefore hold that \u00a7 70-1-43 is not applicable to agreements between brokers to share a commission. The summary judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nEASLEY, PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.\nSOSA, J., respectfully dissenting.", "type": "majority", "author": "McMANUS, Chief Justice." }, { "text": "SOSA, Justice,\ndissenting.\nI disagree with the majority\u2019s opinion.\nI find the language unambiguous. My view is that if it had been the intention of the Legislature to only limit operation of the statute to contracts between an owner of real estate and a broker or agent, it could easily have employed language to express such intention. Since no such intention has been expressed by the Legislature, it is ill advised for us to legislate judicially the limitation offered by the majority. If a change is to be made to cover brokers, this change \u2014 manifesting public policy \u2014 belongs with the Legislature. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "SOSA, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Vener & Fitzpatrick, Louis J. Vener, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Branch & Coleman, Turner W. Branch, Arthur H. Coleman, Rhonda P. Backinoff, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "579 P.2d 785\nHAPSAS REALTY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. McCOUN, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 11536.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMay 10, 1978.\nVener & Fitzpatrick, Louis J. Vener, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nBranch & Coleman, Turner W. Branch, Arthur H. Coleman, Rhonda P. Backinoff, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0659-01", "first_page_order": 695, "last_page_order": 697 }