Michael Whalen v. Gregory Bistes, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CA-00660-COA
MICHAEL WHALEN
APPELLANT
v.
GREGORY BISTES, JR. AND GAY BISTES
PALMISANO
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEES
2/6/2009
HON. JAMES B. PERSONS
HARRISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT
D. SCOTT GIBSON
EDWARD O. MILLER
HOLLIE MATHIS MILLER
CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY
SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO
DEFENDANTS
AFFIRMED - 9/28/2010
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., IRVING AND MAXWELL, JJ.
MAXWELL, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Michael Whalen sought specific performance or, alternatively, damages for breach
of contract, relating to a land-sale agreement he attempted to broker between Gregory Bistes
Jr. and the Bradshaw Family Limited Partnership.
The chancellor granted summary
judgment in Bistes’s favor and found that Whalen’s undisclosed dual-agency representation
of both Bistes and the Partnership made delivery ineffective and rendered the contract
unenforceable. The chancellor also held that because Whalen lacked a real-estate license
while acting as a realtor and brokering the land acquisition, he entered court with unclean
hands and could not seek equity. Based on Whalen’s violation of Mississippi’s real-estatelicensure laws and his failure to act with the heightened scrutiny required in dual-agency
relationships, we find no manifest error in the chancellor’s judgment and affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Whalen approached Bistes on behalf of the Partnership seeking to purchase a parcel
of land in Long Beach, Mississippi, owned by Bistes and Gay Bistes Palmisano. On April
25, 2003, Bistes offered to sell the property and signed an “Agreement to Purchase and Sell”
on behalf of himself and Palmisano. The agreement had been prepared by Whalen and
proposed that Bistes sell the land to the Partnership for $84,800. The Partnership had to
accept the terms of the agreement and deposit a $5,000 promissory note with Bistes by May
1, 2003. The contractual language also provided for deposit of the note with the seller’s
agent. Though the agreement did not identify who Whalen represented in the transaction,
the contract required Bistes pay Michael Whalen Realty Investment a six-percent
commission “if sale is consummated.”
¶3.
Whalen presented the contract to Tom Bradshaw, who on April 30, 2003, on behalf
of the Partnership, deposited a $5,000 note with Whalen. Though the contract contained a
May 1, 2003, deadline for acceptance, Whalen neither informed Bistes of the Partnership’s
acceptance nor mentioned the delivery of the note until May 10, 2003.
¶4.
On May 10, Whalen visited Bistes in Slidell, Louisiana, and told Bistes the contract
was signed. But Bistes claimed the contract was void and unenforceable since he had not
received a signed acceptance or the promissory note by the May 1 deadline. Whalen
informed the Partnership of Bistes’s position that the Partnership had not timely accepted the
2
terms of the land-sale agreement. But the Partnership instructed Whalen to proceed with the
closing. The Partnership also directed Whalen to record the contract, which he did on May
12, 2003. Several weeks later, Bistes was notified by mail of a June 27, 2003, closing date.
Bistes did not respond or attend the closing.
¶5.
On July 1, 2003, Bradshaw mailed a letter to Bistes purporting to assign the
Partnership’s rights under the contract to Whalen. Whalen claims this assignment entitled
him to specific performance of the contract. On July 8, 2005, Whalen filed a lis pendens
claim in the Harrison County Chancery Court.
¶6.
The chancellor granted summary judgment in Bistes’s favor, which Whalen now
appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7.
“This Court reviews summary judgments de novo.” Point S. Land Tr. v. Gutierrez,
997 So. 2d 967, 975 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Stallworth v. Sanford, 921 So. 2d
340, 341 (¶5) (Miss. 2006)). Summary judgment is proper where “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 the moving party is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law.” M.R.C.P. 56(c). When a motion for summary judgment is
made and supported, “an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56], must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” M.R.C.P. 56(e). In
determining whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment, we view the
3
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Gutierrez, 997 So. 2d at 975
(¶18) (citing Moss v. Batesville Casket Co., 935 So. 2d 393, 399 (¶17) (Miss. 2006)).
DISCUSSION
I.
¶8.
Contract and Dual Agency
It is undisputed Whalen acted as an agent for the buyer – the Partnership. Whalen
also admitted during his deposition he had acted as the seller’s (Bistes’s) agent and as a dual
agent. Though he claims a dual agency exists, Whalen admits he never informed Bistes of
the dual-agency relationship, nor did he request that Bistes execute a dual-agency
acknowledgment. Further, the contract at issue does not state who Whalen represented in the
land transaction.
¶9.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 73-35-35 (Rev. 2008) authorizes the Mississippi
Real Estate Commission to adopt rules and regulations governing real-estate business
conducted in Mississippi. The Commission requires that an agent involved in a dual-agency
arrangement ensure both parties explicitly acknowledge the dual relationship on a form
provided by the Commission. Code of Miss. Rules 50 025 001-10, Mississippi Real Estate
Commission Rule IV.E.3(c)(3) (2004) (emphasis added). And dual representation by realtors
is permitted under Mississippi Code Annotated section 73-35-21(1)(e) (Rev. 2008) if the dual
representation takes place with the full knowledge of all parties. Lane v. Oustalet, 873 So.
2d 92, 96 (¶16) (Miss. 2004).
¶10.
The chancellor found that “delivery of the contract to Mr. Whalen by the seller was
not delivery to the buyer because of Mr. Whalen’s undisclosed dual agency.” To refute this
reasoning, Whalen cites a real-estate regulation and argues that the specific requirement that
4
brokers disclose their agency relationships “does not abrogate the laws of agency as
recognized under common law[.]” Code of Miss. Rules 50 025 001-7, Mississippi Real
Estate Commission Rule IV.E.1 (2004).
¶11.
Under traditional agency law, knowledge and information acquired by an agent
transacting the principal’s business is imputed to the principal, even if not communicated by
the agent to the principal. Pittman v. Home Indem. Co., 411 So. 2d 87, 89 (Miss. 1982)
(citations omitted). Whalen argues this imputed-knowledge theory should apply equally in
the realm of undisclosed dual agencies. Whalen reasons the knowledge he acquired from the
Partnership was imputed to his other principal, Bistes. Whalen also argues that because the
Partnership accepted the land-sale agreement and delivered the required promissory note to
Whalen before the May 1 deadline, the contract became enforceable between Bistes and the
Partnership that day. And Whalen contends a fact issue arose as to whether delivery and
acceptance were imputed to Bistes, regardless of Whalen’s failure to inform Bistes of the
acceptance until after the deadline.
¶12.
To support this argument, Whalen cites Lane and argues the issue of whether
knowledge has been imputed to a principal in a dual-agency case is a question that should
have been submitted to the jury. We note, however, that in Lane the supreme court stopped
short of creating a bright-line rule imputing knowledge held by a dual agent to either or both
principals. Lane, 873 So. 2d at 97 (¶22). And perhaps most importantly, unlike this case,
the Lane court found the real-estate agent had disclosed the dual-agency arrangement and
both principals had accepted the dual representation. Id. at 94 (¶16). Whalen presents no
authority that a valid dual agency may exist in the real-estate context without one of the
5
principal’s knowledge. Nor does he provide precedent that knowledge is imputed from agent
to principal in undisclosed dual-agency relationships.
¶13.
We have previously addressed the standard of care required of a real-estate agent and
held:
The standard of care of an agent has been described as “a duty to use the
degree of diligence and care which a reasonably prudent person would
ordinarily exercise in the transaction of his own business.” More specifically,
“a business agent represents that he understands the usages of the business in
which he is employed. One undertaking a matter involving special knowledge
ordinarily thereby represents that he has the special knowledge required, and
undertakes that, so far as it is necessary to keep in touch with events, he will
do so.”
Varnado v. Alfonso Realty, Inc., 16 So. 3d 746, 750 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting
Cavagnaro v. Coldwell Banker Alfonso Realty, Inc., 995 So. 2d 754, 758 (¶12) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2008)).
¶14.
In matters involving a dual agency, the agent must act “with a heightened sense of
duty and conduct to assure that he serves both masters’ interests fully.” Id. (quoting Lane,
873 So. 2d at 97 (¶20)). And an agent may never act to the detriment of his principal. Id.
at (¶18) (citing Lee Hawkins Realty, Inc. v. Moss, 724 So. 2d 1116, 1119 (¶12) (Miss. Ct.
App. 1998)).
¶15.
Traditional agency principles suggest Whalen’s failure to disclose the nature of his
dual representation renders the contract voidable at Bistes’s election:
Where an agent undertakes to act for both parties to a contract without their
knowledge of and consent to the dual agency, and the nature of the duties of
the agent requires the exercise of judgment and discretion, the dual
representation is contrary to public policy and the contract is voidable at the
election of either principal . . . .
6
3 Am. Jur. 2d Agency § 238 (2002). The right to void the contract applies “regardless of
whether the principal suffered an actual injury.” Id. And in the context of an agreement to
sell realty on another’s behalf, “[u]nless both principals know of the dual agency at the time
of the transaction, the agent cannot recover a commission from either.” 101 Am. Jur. Trials
1 § 8 (2006).
¶16.
Though the “Agreement to Purchase and Sell” does not reflect who Whalen
represented in the venture, it is undisputed that Whalen never admitted the true nature of his
dual relationship to Bistes. Further, we find the quasi-straw assignment from which Whalen
now seeks to benefit to the detriment of his former principal offends public policy. To
sponsor this purported assignment, we would be forced to turn a blind eye to the supreme
court’s mandate that a dual agent must “serve[] both masters’ interests fully” and never act
to the detriment of a principal. Lane, 873 So. 2d at 97 (¶20); see also Moss, 724 So. 2d at
1119 (¶12) (citing Century 21 Deep S. Props., Ltd. v. Corson, 612 So. 2d 359, 368 (Miss.
1992)).
¶17.
Considering the heightened fiduciary duties associated with dual representation and
drawing from established agency principles, Bistes had the right to void the contract based
on Whalen’s undisclosed dual agency. Thus, we find no manifest error in the chancellor’s
refusal to find a breach of contract or order specific performance.
II.
¶18.
Unclean Hands
Whalen failed to address the clean-hands doctrine in his brief. But it is apparent from
the record that Whalen was not a licensed real-estate broker at the time he set out to arrange
the land transaction between Bistes and the Partnership. Mississippi law provides that:
7
[I]t shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, association or corporation
to engage in or carry on, directly or indirectly, or to advertise or to hold
himself, itself or themselves out as engaging in or carrying on the business, or
act in the capacity of, a real estate broker, or a real estate salesperson, within
this state, without first obtaining a license as a real estate broker or real estate
salesperson as provided for in this chapter.
Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-1 (Rev. 2008).
¶19.
The chancellor found Whalen violated Mississippi’s mandatory licensure
requirements by acting as a real-estate broker without a valid license. And, thus, he reasoned
Whalen could not seek relief in a court of equity. “It is well established that those seeking
relief in equity must come to court with clean hands” and that “the failure to do so may result
in the refusal by the court to grant a remedy.” Houston v. Willis, 24 So. 3d 412, 421 (¶31)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Thigpen v. Kennedy, 238 So. 2d 744, 746 (Miss. 1970)). These
equity-based notions comport with Mississippi Code Annotated section 73-35-33(1) (Rev.
2008), which directs that:
No person, partnership, association or corporation shall bring or maintain an
action in any court of this state for the recovery of a commission, fee or
compensation for any act done or services rendered, the doing or rendering of
which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter for persons other than
licensed real estate brokers, unless such person was duly licensed hereunder
as a real estate broker at the time of the doing of such act or the rendering of
such service.
¶20.
Whalen does not and cannot dispute that he violated Mississippi law when he posed
as a licensed broker and sought a commission from the real-estate deal. And we find no fault
with the chancellor’s reliance on deeply rooted equitable maxims in refusing to enforce the
contract or award damages for the alleged breach.
III. Attorney’s Fees
8
¶21.
Bistes claims Whalen’s appeal is frivolous and seeks attorney’s fees. Mississippi Rule
of Appellate Procedure 38 allows this Court to “award just damages and single or double
costs to the appellee” if we find an appeal is frivolous. The inquiry turns on “whether a
reasonable person would have any hope for success.” Harris v. Harris, 988 So. 2d 376, 380
(¶16) (Miss. 2008). While Whalen’s arguments lack merit, we do not find them frivolous.
Thus, we do not find sanctions appropriate.
¶22. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HARRISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE
APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
9
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.