Lander v. Batten ( 2013 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
George Lander, d/b/a The Land Company, George
Lander and Associates, Appellants,
v.
Wise Batten, Individually, and Wise Batten, Inc.,
Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2011-188768
Appeal From Hampton County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-036
Heard October 4, 2012 – Filed January 23, 2013
AFFIRMED
Chasity G. Stratton and Talmadge C. Reynolds, both of
Stratton & Reynolds, LLC, of Lexington, for Appellants.
John E. Parker and William F. Barnes, III, both of Peters,
Murdaugh, Parker, Eltzroth & Detrick, P.A., of Hampton,
for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: In this action to recover one-half of the real estate commission
received from the sale of a piece of commercial property, Appellants argue the trial
court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the Respondents.1 We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: United
Farm Agency v. Malanuk, 284 S.C. 382, 384, 325 S.E.2d 544, 545 (1985) ("The
broker is the procuring cause if his intervention is the foundation upon which the
negotiations are begun."); Huffines Co. v. Lockhart, 365 S.C. 178, 190, 617 S.E.2d
125, 131 (Ct. App. 2005) (defining the term "procurement" as "consisting of the
broker's efforts that are the efficient cause, but not necessarily the sole cause, of a
series of unbroken, continuous events, which culminate in the accomplishment of
the objective of the employment" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted));
Edmonds v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Servs., Inc., 377 S.E.2d 443,
445 (Va. 1989) (cited with approval by Huffines, 365 S.C. at 190, 617 S.E.2d at
131) (finding a real estate broker is the procuring cause of a sale when he or she
has originated or caused a series of events that without break in their continuity
result in the accomplishment of the prime object of his or her employment); Hobbs
v. Hudgens, 223 S.C. 88, 96, 74 S.E.2d 425, 427-28 (1953) (noting "the broker
must not only show that his efforts were the procuring cause of the sale but must
further show that his intervention was during the continuance of an agency to sell
or find a purchaser"); Pacesetter Props., Inc. v. Hardaway, 635 S.W.2d 382, 389-
90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981) (holding an agent was not the procuring cause of a lease
so as to be entitled to a commission when the negotiations begun by the agent and
continued by the purchaser were discontinued for six months without an agreement
and when the purchaser reopened negotiations after a substantial lapse of time and
finalized the deal on terms entirely different from the terms initially discussed);
Stone v. Moloney-Bennett Belting Co., 159 Ill. App. 366, 370 (Ill. App. Ct. 1911)
(holding that even though the broker first showed the property to the ultimate
lessee, the broker's complete inactivity for four months demonstrated abandonment
and the ultimate transaction resulted from entirely new and independent
negotiations); Parkey v. Lawrence, 284 S.W. 283, 287 (Tex. Civ. App. 1926) ("If
the broker voluntarily abandons his efforts, once begun, to find a purchaser for
property, or fails to find one within a reasonable time, all without the fault of the
owner, then his contract of employment is at an end, and thereafter the owner is at
liberty to sell the property to any one, including the purchaser first found by the
broker . . . ."); Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 563 A.2d 31, 38-
39 (N.J. 1989) ("[A] broker does not earn his commission by the mere introduction
1
The record is not clear as to whether a listing agreement for the commercial
property was executed, as no such listing agreement is included in the record.
of a buyer to the owner, but he must be the efficient procuring cause of the contract
between seller and purchaser." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted));
Cantell v. Hill Holliday Connors Cosmopulos, Inc., 772 N.E.2d 1078, 1083 (Mass.
App. Ct. 2002) ("Mere introduction of a prospect to a property does not earn a
broker's commission.").
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.