FLAHERTY v HENSLEY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12818 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN LOUIS FLAHERTY, d / b / a FLAHERTY AGENCY, and BRYON L. FLAHERTY, Individually, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , RILEY H. HENSLEY and LARO B. HENSLEY, husband and w i f e , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : John McCarvel a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana H a r t e l i u s and Lewin, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana F o r Respondent: E. W. G i a n o t t i a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana - Submitted: November 1 8 , 1974 ~ E 8c 3 Decided : Filed : ?EC 2 3 l d a' Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Cascade County, h o l d i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t s R i l e y H . Hensley and Laro B. Hensley d i d n o t owe a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s commission o f $4,200 t o p l a i n t i f f L o u i s F l a h e r t y . The f a c t s a r e : Sometime p r i o r t o March 1 2 , 1973, t h e Hensleys l e a s e d c e r t a i n r a n c h p r o p e r t y i n Teton County, Montana t o one S t e w a r t Schwartz. T h i s l e a s e was i n w r i t i n g and c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n g r a n t i n g Schwartz a n o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y during t h e term a t a prearranged p r i c e . On March 1 2 , 1973, t h e Hensleys e n t e r e d i n t o a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t with Flaherty. The c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d f o r a n "open" l i s t i n g . At t h i s t i m e F l a h e r t y and h i s a g e n t s were aware o f t h e l e a s e between t h e Hensleys and Schwartz, a l t h o u g h it i s s h a r p l y d i s p u t e d whether t h e y knew of S c h w a r t z l s o p t i o n . Subsequently F l a h e r t y n e g o t i a t e d w i t h a p r o s p e c t i v e b u y e r , and on March 30, 1973, t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a "Stevens-Ness" form r e c e i p t and agreement t o s e l l and p u r c h a s e . This instrument s p e c i f i c a l l y c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o Schwartzls option. However, b e f o r e t h e s a l e was consummated, Schwartz e l e c t e d t o e x e r c i s e h i s o p t i o n and purchased t h e p r o p e r t y . Whether F l a h e r t y had n o t i c e , a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e , of S c h w a r t z l s o p t i o n i s t h e c r u c i a l e l e m e n t i n t h i s c a s e . Flaherty c o n t e n d s t h e Hensleys n e v e r informed him o f it u n t i l t h e agreement t o s e l l and p u r c h a s e was e x e c u t e d , and t h e r e f o r e t h e y breached t h e b r o k e r ' s employment c o n t r a c t and a c t e d i n bad f a i t h . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , however, r e j e c t e d t h i s c o n t e n t i o n by f i n d i n g F l a h e r t y h i m s e l f n e g l i g e n t f o r n o t a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e o p t i o n e a r l i e r , a s s e t f o r t h i n f i n d i n g of f a c t 111: "That a t t h e t i m e of e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r s employment c o n t r a c t , p l a i n t i f f ' s a g e n t s were aware of t h e w r i t t e n l e a s e between d e f e n d a n t and Schwartz. T h a t p l a i n t i f f and h i s a g e n t s were negligent i n not determining t h e option provisions contained i n s a i d w r i t t e n l e a s e before o f f e r i n g the said property f o r s a l e . " W t h i n k t h i s f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i e dence and o u g h t t o s t a n d . Donald B l u m f i e l d , p r e s i d e n t of t h e G r e a t F a l l s Board of R e a l t o r s , was c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s by t h e Hensleys and t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s : "Q. Would you c o n s i d e r a s e l l e r t h a t came t o your o f f i c e and l i s t e d p r o p e r t y f o r s a l e w i t h you and had n o t t o l d you t h e r e was o u t s t a n d i n g o p t i o n s , t h a t t h a t p e r s o n would be a c t i n g i n bad f a i t h . A. (no r e s p o n s e ) Wouldn't you f e e l he would have a n o b l i g a t i o n t o make a f u l l d i s c l o s u r e t o any o p t i o n s o u t s t a n d i n g ? A. I think so. Of c o u r s e I t h i n k t h i s would--if a l i s t i n g was p r o p e r l y t a k e n you would know t h i s a t t h e t i m e . "Q. "Q. How would you know i t ? A. You would a s k . "Q. I f he d i d n ' t t e l l you? A. P a r t i c u l a r l y on farm p r o p e r t y you would a s k . Number o n e , I would want t o s e e t h e l e a s e . I f t h e r e was a l e a s e on t h e p r o p e r t y I would want t o s e e t h a t s o I would know when p o s s e s s i o n c o u l d be a f f e c t e d by t h e p u r c h a s e r , what p r i c e t h e summer f a l l o w might have t o be p a i d t o t h e l e s s o r . "Q. A. That w o u l d n ' t a f f e c t t h e s a l e , would i t ? Oh, y e s , i t would d e f i n i t e l y . "Q. I t wouldn't preclude t h e s a l e , but not a l l l e a s e s c o n t a i n a n o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e , do t h e y ? A. No, t h e y d o n ' t . But I would s t i l l want t o see the lease. " (Emphasis added) . I n o t h e r words, a r e a s o n a b l e , p r u d e n t man i n F l a h e r t y ' s s h o e s would have o b t a i n e d a copy of t h e l e a s e immediately and d i s covered a l l t h e f a c t s . T h i s i s t h e p r e v a i l i n g m a j o r i t y r u l e i n such c a s e s . See B e s t v K e l l y , 2 2 Wash.2d 257, 155 P.2d 7 9 4 , 801, 156 ALR 1387, p e r h a p s t h e l e a d i n g c a s e on t h e s u b j e c t and f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d w i t h approval. i n o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . - The C o u r t i n B e s t p l a c e d a n a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y upon t h e b r o k e r : " * * * t h e burden of i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e t e r m s [of t h e l e a s e ] r e s t e d upon [ t h e b r o k e r ] , and even a c u r s o r y e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e l e a s e would have d i s c l o s e d t h e paragraph r e f e r r e d t o . " added) . ( B r a c k e t e d words W e a r e u n a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e i n s t a n t c a s e from B e s t . How c a n F l a h e r t y - - a l i c e n s e d r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r f o r 21 y e a r s - - now be h e a r d t o d i s c l a i m knowledge of S c h w a r t z ' s o p t i o n when he a d m i t s he knew of t h e l e a s e from t h e s t a r t ? - Applying t h e r u l e i n B e s t r e s o l v e s t h e c o n t r o v e r s y , f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e i s whether F l a h e r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a comm i s s i o n where he had p r i o r n o t i c e of t h e d e f e c t which s u b s e q u e n t l y p r e v e n t e d consummation of t h e s a l e . The A n n o t a t i o n a t 156 ALR 1398, 1399 p r o v i d e s t h e answer: " I f a b r o k e r , a t t h e t i m e he makes a c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e owner f o r t h e s a l e of t h e l a t t e r ' s p r o p e r t y , knows of d e f e c t s i n h i s e m p l o y e r ' s t i t l e o r knows f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o p u t a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t p e r s o n on i n q u i r y , which, i f f o l l o w e d w i t h r e a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e , would b r i n g t o him s u c h knowledge, he i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r commissions where t h e s a l e f a i l s b e c a u s e of s u c h defects. The Hensleys a r e e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s by v i r t u e of s e c t i o n 93-8601.1, R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s : " C o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s t o be r e c i p r o c a l . Whenever by v i r t u e of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of any c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n i n t h e n a t u r e of a c o n t r a c t , made and e n t e r e d i n t o a t any t i m e a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h i s a c t , one p a r t y t o such c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n has an express r i g h t t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s from any o t h e r p a r t y t o the contract or obligation i n the event the party h a v i n g t h a t r i g h t s h a l l b r i n g a n a c t i o n upon t h e c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n , t h e n i n any a c t i o n on such c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l be deemed t o have t h e same r i g h t t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n any s u c h a c t i o n , whether by v i r t u e of t h e e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t , o r by v i r t u e of t h i s a c t , s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o rec o v e r h i s r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s from t h e l o s i n g party or parties." The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on t h e i s s u e of t h e H e n s l e y t s l i a b i l i t y t o F l a h e r t y i s a f f i r m e d ; t h e c a u s e i s remanded with d i r e c t i o n s t o f i x a t t o r n e y f e e s i n accordance with t h e s t a t u t e . ................................ Chief J u s t i c e - 4 - We concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.