Swendeman

Swendeman v. Parent CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 2013C066310California2,645 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

The parties cite many more facts than are relevant to the disposition of the limited issue of the broker’s right to a commission. The material facts are few. “It has long been the law of this state that any right to compensation asserted by a real estate broker must be found within the four corners of his employment contract. [Citations.] By the same token, however, ‘[the] parties to a broker’s contract for the sale of real property are at liberty to make the compensation depend upon any lawful conditions they see fit to place therein. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] In short it is the contract which governs the agent’s compensation, and that contract is strictly enforced according to its lawful terms.” (Blank v. Borden (1974) 11 Cal.3d 963, 969.) We begin, therefore, with the terms of the land purchase agreement, which provides for the broker’s commission. On September 29, 2003, defendant seller sold 63 acres in Butte County to the buyer tribe, Enterprise Rancheria, for a purchase price of $459,197. The land purchase agreement was subject to a number of terms and conditions, including: “Subject to: 1. [United States Department of Housing and Urban Development] Approval, EIR…

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.