Reed v. Kelly et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court grants defendants' 4/13/2018 motion for summary judgment on first amended complaint and defendants' 6/11/2018 motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and dismisses with prejudice by judgment filed today Adversary Proceeding No. 17-03119-SGJ (docketed as this civil action on withdrawal of the reference). (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 8/28/2019) (zkc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
IN RE MICHAEL CRAIG KELLY,
Debtor.
DIANE G. REED, Trustee,
Plaintiff,
VS.
SPRINGFIELD CONSULTING
SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-0290-D
(Consolidated with
Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-0292-D)
(Bank. Ct. No. 14-34582-SGJ-7;
Adv. No. 17-03119-SGJ)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
The court has conducted de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s April 30, 2019 report and
recommendation. Having considered the report and recommendation, the trustee’s May 21, 2019
objection, and defendants’ June 4, 2019 response to the objection, the court concludes that the report
and recommendation of the bankruptcy court are correct, and they are therefore adopted.
In adopting the bankruptcy court’s report and recommendation, the court addresses one
matter for clarity.
Plaintiff-trustee Diane G. Reed (“Reed”) objects to the report and
recommendation, contending, in part, that the signed listing agreements between Springfield
Consulting Services (“SCS”) and third parties who paid the commissions satisfy the Texas
Occupation Code’s (“TOC’s”) writing requirement.1 Reed maintains that the writing requirement
1
“A person may not maintain an action . . . to recover a commission for the sale or purchase
of real estate unless the promise or agreement on which the action is based . . . is in writing and
signed by the party against whom the action is brought[.]” Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 1101.806(c)
(West 2012).
does not bar her equitable claims.
The court concludes that the agreements between SCS and third parties do not satisfy the
TOC’s writing requirement because they are not the agreements on which Reed’s action is based.
See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 1101.806(c) (West 2012). Reed seeks turnover of funds to which debtor
Michael Craig Kelly (“Kelly”) allegedly is entitled. But the agreements between SCS and the third
parties do not mention Kelly and therefore do not entitle him to any of the commissions paid to the
company.2
The agreement Reed actually seeks to enforce, and indeed has relied upon in her original and
amended complaints, is the alleged implied contract between SCS and Kelly to pay him a portion
of the commissions received from the written agreements. An implied contract clearly fails to meet
the TOC’s writing requirement, and Reed’s reliance on SCS’s agreements with third parties does
little to assist her in overcoming that hurdle. The existence of related signed agreements between
SCS and third parties that neither mention Kelly nor allude to sharing commissions with him does
not cure the absence of a writing on which her action is based.
2
See Boyert v. Tauber, 834 S.W.2d 60, 62 (Tex. 1992) (“One of the essential elements of the
written agreement providing for a commission on the sale of land is that the writing name the broker.
The essential elements of a commission agreement cannot be supplied by parol evidence.”) (citations
omitted)). Here, Kelly was not named in the agreements between SCS and its clients, and parol
evidence that he was the broker to which the payments should have been made is not admissible to
satisfy this element. Therefore, these agreements do not provide Reed a basis for recovering the real
estate commissions paid to SCS pursuant to their terms.
-2-
Accordingly, the court grants defendants’ April 13, 2018 motion for summary judgment on
first amended complaint and defendants’ June 11, 2018 motion for partial judgment on the pleadings
and dismisses with prejudice by judgment filed today Adversary Proceeding No. 17-03119-SGJ
(docketed as this civil action on withdrawal of the reference).
SO ORDERED.
August 28, 2019.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?