Wisconsin Single Party Listing Agreement

Principles and policies. The Supreme Court rejected both of Ash Park`s counter-arguments. First, the court held that the non-payment of the award by Alexander-Bishop had no bearing on whether or not the sale contract was executed: “The applicability of a contract depends on the availability of an appeal for an offence and not on the respect of a judgment rendered in response to a violation.” Second, the Tribunal found that the obligation for a seller to pay a commission, even without a closed sale, is not contrary to public policy. The court said: “The result in the immediate case appears to be hard Ash Park. But… [t]he tilt to oppose Ash Park for paying Re/Max his commission is not only at odds with the language of the contract; it`s also unfair to Re/Max, who has made efforts to find a buyer. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the sale contract was enforceable, and Re/Max was entitled to his commission after the listing contract, when no sale had ever been concluded. The Supreme Court is denying it. After lengthy litigation, the case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In court, the issue was whether the sale contract was an “opposable contract” under the listing contract, which commits Re/Max to a commission.

The analysis of the clear meaning of the words, the court said, is an “enforceable contract” for which a party can go to court and obtain a remedy for the place of reflection. As Ash Park had already rendered a judgment on the contract of sale, this contract was enforceable – yes. From there, the court found that “the sale agreement between Ash Park and Alexander-Bishop constitutes an “opposable contract” within the meaning of the list contract between Ash Park and Re/Max. (Added highlight.) Stafford Rosenbaum LLP can help sellers negotiate and revise listing contracts to ensure that commissions are not earned until successfully concluded. If you would like to learn more about list contracts, please contact Stafford Rosenbaum LLP`s lawyer or one of the Stafford Rosenbaum Es Real Estate team members. However, the injustice of having to pay Ash Park for a contract he did not benefit from had not gone unnoticed. In his opinion to the court, Abrahamson J. described the result in Ash Park as “hard” and noted that the language of the list agreement could be changed, perhaps by conditioning the payment of the commission on the closure and passage of the title. A note to the authors of the Wisconsin One Party List contract: It`s time to redefine what triggered the payment of a commission under the contract following a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander-Bishop, Ltd., 2015 WI 65, where the court allowed a broker to collect his commission when he had never delivered a viable buyer.

But not so fast. Enter the broker of the agreement and argue that Ash Park and Alexander-Bishop had an “opposable contract” on the basis of the provision of a given benefit, which would entitle them to a 6% commission under their list agreement with Ash Park, or $378,000 (or 6% of $6.3 million). Never mind that the order was not worth (in Ash Park) the diary on which it was written. The Ash Park property. The facts at Ash Park LLC v. Alexander – Bishop, Ltd. were uncontested. Ash Park LLC has entered into a standard form list contract (WB-3 Vacant Listing Contract) with a broker, Re/Max Select LLC. The contract provided that Ash Park would pay a commission to Re/Max if Ash Park “accepted an offer creating an enforceable contract for the sale of the land.” In other words, the listing contract required a commission even without a closed sale.

Ash Park then entered into a sale agreement for the sale of the land with Alexander-Bishop, Ltd., but the closure never took place. Ash Park sued Alexander and Bishop and obtained a specific performance judgement. But despite the verdict, Alexander and Bishop never paid for or bought the estate.