The original charge against the petitioner was that he was against section 175.8. » This prohibits a real estate agent from negotiating a sale directly with an owner if the broker knows that the owner has an existing written contract with another broker that grants the latter exclusive power related to the property. In this case, R. Kemp Realty stated that the petitioner had contacted the sellers and negotiated with them, knowing that an agreement with another broker was going up. It is also very important for brokers and agents to determine who actually owns a particular property before representing a party or entering into a listing agreement. If there are multiple owners, real estate agents must ensure that all lawful owners execute an agreement on the sale and listing of a home or tenancy and the representation of owners, owners or tenants. This article highlights some court cases (current and less new) that illustrate the problems that can arise if due process is not followed, to ensure that the right parties sign such agreements. With regard to the first point, courts generally apply the « four-corner doctrine » to rule on contractual disputes. The courts will literally look at the « four corners » of the disputed agreement and try to determine the rights of the parties based solely on the terms of the document. If there are rights that are not included in an initial agreement, courts are reluctant to add terms to an agreement. In Bowman, the court judge actually « rewrote » the entire settlement agreement and imposed rights and duties on the husband and wife that they had never accepted.
In this particular case, the settlement agreement provided for specific procedures and required that a particular brokerage firm be used for the sale of the home. Therefore, the Appeal Division overturned the Supreme Court`s decision and decided that the parties were bound by the terms of the original agreement and that any changes to that agreement had to be agreed upon by both spouses. In John Hilpl v. Basil A. Paterson (89 A.D.2d 801) (1982), a real estate agent commenced section 78 proceedings, set aside the decision of the Secretary of State, who found, after a hearing (1), that the petitioner (i.e., John Hilpl) was incompetent and incompetent, and (2) suspended his licence for 60 days or alternately imposed a fine of $500. In addition, the petitioner`s licence was suspended indefinitely until R. Kemp Realty receives full satisfaction with all claims against Merlin and Sally Dodge (husband and wife), owners of the motel, which were eventually sold to the buyers presented to them by the petitioner. In U-Buy Realty, Inc. v. Aliota (151 miscellaneous) 2d 485; 573 N.Y.S.2d 824; 1991 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 417 (1991)), the applicant, U-Buy Realty, Inc., a real estate brokerage firm, brought a commission action against the defendant, Jack Liota, one of the owners of the property in question.
The property belonged to a father (i.e. Jack Liota) and his son (i.e. Louis J. Liota) as a common tenant. However, there was no evidence in this case that proves jack Liota told the real estate agent that his son also owned the property. The broker acted only with the father and in fact never received the father`s signed brokerage contract, but the court`s decision indicated that it was undisputed that, although there was no signed agreement, the father had agreed to pay the $10,000 commission to the complainant. The Court of Appeal also stated: « Although this is not necessary for our result, it is also stated that the minutes contain no evidence that the applicant was introduced from 7 April 1980 to 14 April 1980. April 1980, the period during which the claimed exclusive agency contract would have been in force, negotiated directly with the owners. The latter finding is important in so far as it finds that, if there was an agreement valid for the abovementioned period, the hearing must show that, within that period, there was indeed contact between the petitioner and the sellers, which was clearly not proposed by R. . .