Re/Max Prestige, Daren Long v. Susan L. Mattson

Summary

The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment awarding Re/Max Prestige and Daren Long a six percent real estate brokerage commission, interest, costs, and attorney fees after Susan L. Mattson breached an exclusive seller-representation agreement. The court rejected challenges concerning standing, judicial notice, statutory duties, and damages, and awarded the respondents costs and attorney fees on appeal.

Holdings

1. A party challenging the propriety or content of judicial notice under Idaho Rule of Evidence 201(e) must request an opportunity to be heard in the trial court; absent such a request, the issue is not preserved for appeal.
2. Long had standing and was a proper party to sue for the brokerage commission because he was a party to the seller-representation contract and suffered an injury in fact when Mattson breached it. Re/Max Prestige and Long were appropriate plaintiffs even if Re/Max Prestige was not a separate legal entity.
3. Long and Re/Max Prestige did not breach the statutory duties owed to Mattson in connection with the proposed transaction, and Mattson's failure to comply with the exclusive representation agreement did not relieve her of the obligation to pay the commission.
4. The proper damages award was 6 percent of the $360,000 listing price, because that was the commission rate bargained for in the contract and the broker procured a ready, willing, and able buyer on acceptable terms before Mattson's wrongful interference.
5. Mattson was not entitled to appellate costs or attorney fees because she was not the prevailing party, while Re/Max Prestige and Long were entitled to costs and attorney fees because the appeal was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mattson preserved her challenge to the district court's judicial notice concerning the relationship among Re/Max Prestige, Long, and All-Around Realty.
2. Whether Re/Max Prestige and Long had standing and were proper parties in interest to sue for the brokerage commission.
3. Whether Re/Max Prestige and Long breached statutory duties owed to Mattson in connection with the proposed sale to Oleson.
4. Whether the district court correctly calculated damages as 6 percent of the $360,000 listing price rather than 3 percent.
5. Whether either party was entitled to costs and attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed