Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department held that CBRE's brokerage agreement with SL 4000 was void and unenforceable under the District of Columbia dual-representation statute because CBRE acted as a subagent and lacked the required written consents. The court vacated the judgment awarding CBRE approximately $19.9 million in additional commissions, declared that plaintiffs had no further obligation to pay the remaining commissions, and declined to order disgorgement of the commission already paid.
Holdings
- The prior appellate determination that CBRE had a brokerage relationship with plaintiffs was the law of the case and controlled on remand.
- CBRE was subject to the statutory written-consent requirement because plaintiffs' property manager was authorized to retain CBRE as a subagent, making CBRE an agent of plaintiffs for purposes relevant to the transaction.
- The brokerage agreement was void and unenforceable because CBRE failed to obtain the written consents required by D.C. Code § 42-1703(i)(1) for its dual representation.
- CBRE was not entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaims seeking the remaining commission because the brokerage agreement was void and unenforceable.
- Disgorgement of the 50 percent commission already paid was not warranted on the facts presented.
Questions Presented
- Whether the prior appellate determination that CBRE had a brokerage relationship with plaintiffs was binding under the law-of-the-case doctrine.
- Whether CBRE's status as a subagent appointed by plaintiffs' authorized property manager subjected it to the written-consent requirements of D.C. Code § 42-1703(i)(1).
- Whether the brokerage agreement was void and unenforceable because CBRE failed to obtain written consent to its dual representation.
- Whether CBRE was entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaims seeking the remaining brokerage commission.
- Whether plaintiffs were entitled to disgorgement of the commission already paid to CBRE.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- SL 4000 Conn. LLC v. CBRE, Inc., 219 AD3d 417 (1st Dept 2023)(followed)
- Martin v. Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 (1975)(followed)
- NAMA Holdings, LLC v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 92 AD3d 614, 614 (1st Dept 2012)(followed)
- Uhar & Co., Inc. v. Jacob, 840 F Supp 2d 287, 290 (D.D.C. 2012)(followed)
- Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc. v. Laufer, 482 A2d 359, 364 n. 13 (D.C. 1984)(followed)
- Schneider v. Lazard Freres & Co., 159 AD2d 291, 296 (1st Dept 1990)(followed)
- FDS Rest., Inc. v. All Plumbing, Inc., 241 A3d 222, 236 (D.C. Ct. App. 2020)(followed)
- Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. v. 1441 L Assocs., LLC, 597 F Supp 3d 64, 70-72 (D.D.C. 2022), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 72 F4th 353 (D.C. Cir. 2023)(followed)
- Remsen Partners, Ltd. v. Stephen A. Goldberg Co., 755 A2d 412, 420-421 (D.C. Ct. App. 2000)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…