Summary
concluding that "[d]octrines of equitable relief, such as quantum meruit, are unavailable in an action to recover a real estate commission"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Moneta Capital Corp.Opinion
January 7, 1969.
PRESENT: Roberts, C.J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.
1. FRAUDS, STATUTE OF. Sale of Real Estate. Broker's Commission. Oral Contracts. In civil action to recover on oral agreement to pay commission for the sale of real estate court points out prior holding to the effect that statute of frauds must be strictly construed and applied. P.L. 1962, c. 162 (now G.L. 1956, § 9-1-4, as amended.)
2. REAL PROPERTY. Sales. Broker's Commission. Oral Contracts. Part Performance. Quantum Meruit. Court has held that quantum meruit does not apply to broker's commission claim based on oral contract for sale of real estate. Moreover, the doctrine of part performance is not applicable to avoid the legislative intent. P.L. 1962, c. 162 (now G.L. 1956, § 9-1-4, as amended.)
CIVIL ACTION to recover broker's commission, before supreme court on appeal from summary judgment entered by Carrellas, J., of superior court in favor of defendant, heard and appeal denied and dismissed, judgment affirmed.
Matthew J. Faerber, Jeremiah R. Leary, for plaintiff-appellant.
Macioci and Grimm, E. Paul Grimm, for defendant-appellee.
This is a civil action brought to recover a real estate broker's commission on an alleged contract which was not reduced to writing. The contract was purportedly entered into during April 1967, some five years after the enactment of P.L. 1962, chap. 162, now G.L. 1956, § 9-1-4, as amended. It provides in pertinent part:
"No action shall be brought:
* * *
" Sixth. Whereby to charge any person upon any agreement or promise to pay any commission for or upon the sale of any interest in real estate.
"Unless the promise or agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized."
The plaintiff commenced this action on January 22, 1968, and on March 25, 1968, a superior court justice granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff has seasonably appealed.
[1, 2] Mindful of our holdings in Heyman v. Adeack Realty Co., 102 R.I. 105, 228 A.2d 578 and Dooley v. Lachut, 103 R.I. 21, 234 A.2d 366, plaintiff nevertheless asks us to reconsider the holdings of those cases in light of the alleged circumstances in the instant action. As we stated in Heyman, supra, the applicable statute "* * * must be strictly construed and strictly applied." 228 A.2d at 581. We further held in that case that the doctrine of quantum meruit was not applicable so as to avoid the legislative intent of the statute. Moreover, in Dooley, supra, we held that the doctrine of part performance was similarly inapplicable so as to avoid the legislative intent.
We see no reason to change our holdings in Heyman and Dooley. If the statute in question works some inequities in particular cases, it is within the purview of the legislature and not this court to correct what is now well-settled public policy.
The plaintiff's appeal is therefore denied and dismissed, and the summary judgment for the defendant is affirmed.