Tamimi

Tamimi v. Bettencourt

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1687·243 Cal. App. 2d 377·52 Cal. Rptr. 273
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 7, 1966Civ. 569California1,000 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

Defendants, husband and wife, jointly owned 50 acres of community property in Merced County. Plaintiff real estate broker had obtained listings of the property upon several occasions prior to obtaining an exclusive listing July 7, 1964. The “authorization to sell,” signed only by Mrs. Bettencourt, gave plaintiff an exclusive and irrevocable listing until October 7, 1964. It provided that if the property were sold by the owners themselves or through any other agent during the listing period, plaintiff broker would be entitled to a commission of 6 percent.

Approximately a month after Mrs. Bettencourt signed the listing, she and her husband sold the property to a third party, whereupon plaintiff brought this action against both husband and wife to recover a broker’s commission.

Plaintiff predicates the husband’s liability upon the theory of implied agency, asserting that the signature of either a husband or a wife to a real estate broker’s listing agreement for the sale of community real property is sufficient to bind both husband and wife. No authority is cited in support of the argument, and we find none. Rather, Civil Code section 1624 provides, in pertinent part: “The following…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.