Northborough Corporate Limited Partnership, L.L.P. v. Cushman & Wakefield of Texas, Inc.--Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 21, 2005

 Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 21, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-04-00364-CV

_______________

NORTHBOROUGH CORPORATE

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, L.L.P., Appellant

V.

 CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF TEXAS, INC., Appellee

__________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02-34003

__________________________________________________________

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N

Because the Texas Real Estate License Act (the AAct@) provides, as a ground for revoking a real estate license, a license holder=s failure to specify a definite termination date in a contract, Northborough contends that the inclusion of such a date in a commission agreement is a statutory prerequisite to recovering a brokerage commission under the Act. Our decision in this case addresses only this specific contention and does not reach the separate issue (not asserted by Northborough) of whether a commission agreement is unenforceable as against public policy if it does not specify such a date.


In addition, preceding its revision in 1997, article 6573a, the predecessor to section 1101.652, stated as the corresponding ground for revocation, Afailing to specify in a listing contract a definite termination date which is not subject to prior notice.@ Act of Sept. 1, 1991, 72nd Leg., R.S., ch. 553, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 1913, repealed by Act of June 1, 2003, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1421, ' 13, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5020 (emphasis added). In 1997, this language was expanded to Afailing to specify in a listing contract or in another contract in which the licensee agrees to perform services for which a license is required under this Act a definite termination date which is not subject to prior notice.@ Act of Sept. 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 839, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2705, repealed by Act of June 1, 2003, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1421, ' 13, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5020 (emphasis added). Therefore, in 1994, when the Star lease was entered, it was not subject to the termination date requirement because it was not a listing contract.

/s/ Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 21, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Frost. (Fowler, J., majority.)

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.