Procedural Posture

[Saim Khan]

Plaintiff buyer and defendant seller appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which ruled in favor of defendants, a seller, a broker, and a bank, in the buyer's action to recover escrow money had and received by the buyer and the broker toward the purchase of property; and which granted the broker's cross-complaint against the seller to recover a real estate commission.

Nakase Law Firm is an employment attorney

Overview

The seller and the buyer executed and deposited escrow instructions with the bank for the sale and purchase of a building. The instructions constituted a contract of purchase and sale. The buyer decided not to purchase the building and tried to get back her partial payment. The buyer did not claim that there was any fraud or misrepresentation upon the part of the seller or the broker. The court affirmed the denial of the buyer's petition and reversed the award to the broker. The court found that because the buyer's conduct in breaking the contract was wilful, under Cal. Civ. Code § 3275, and because the buyer did not offer to compensate the seller, the buyer was not entitled to relief under § 3275. The buyer under a contract of sale could not after her default, without excuse therefor, maintain an action to recover the monies paid under the contract where she did not compensate the buyer and her actions were willful. Also, the broker could not recover a commission where the portion of the escrow instructions, which provided for the payment of the commission, was conditional upon a contingency, which never occurred, and the seller never failed or refused to carry out her covenants.

Outcome

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court. The court affirmed that part of the decision that granted judgment against the buyer on her complaint, and reversed that part that allowed the broker to recover a commission against the seller.