Eagle Partners, L.L.C. v. Rook

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a real estate broker’s commission claim arising from the sale of estate property could be pursued under the probate claims procedure in either the county or district court. The court concluded that the listing agreement unambiguously identified the purchasers as “No Commission Buyers,” and that the estate had not waived that provision through the purchase agreement. The court reversed the judgment awarding the broker a commission and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment for the estate.

Holdings

1. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Keller's claim because the probate statutes give the county court and district court concurrent jurisdiction to enforce probate claims.
2. Read together, the unambiguous agreements provided that Keller was not entitled to a commission on the sale to Bachman, Allen, or Torczon, the identified “No Commission Buyers.”
3. The Estate did not waive the listing's no-commission provision.
4. Even assuming Keller was a third-party beneficiary of the purchase agreement, it was not entitled to a commission because the agreements unambiguously excluded payment for the sale to the identified buyers.
5. Keller lacked standing to assert that the Estate's negotiation tactics should be equitably estopped because Keller did not suffer an injury from those tactics.
6. The district court erred by granting summary judgment to Keller and denying summary judgment to the Estate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Keller's claim for a real estate commission against the Estate.
2. Whether attorney and broker fees arising from estate administration may be pursued through the probate claims procedure.
3. Whether the listing agreement and purchase agreement entitled Keller to a commission on the sale to the identified “No Commission Buyers.”
4. Whether the Estate waived the no-commission provision.
5. Whether Keller could recover as a third-party beneficiary of the purchase agreement.
6. Whether Keller had standing to assert an equitable-estoppel theory based on the Estate's alleged negotiation tactics.
7. Whether Keller was entitled to prejudgment interest, attorney fees, or costs.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded