Wisconsin Real Estate Listing Agreement

Tips for sellers. The Supreme Court found that the Ash Park listing contract was „freely negotiated.“ Referring to a real estate item, the court gave some wise advice to the sellers: „To avoid a commission occurring without a conclusion, the seller`s lawyer should consider changing the language in [the list contract] so that the commission is not won until the transfer of the property is actually concluded and the title passes.“ Stafford Rosenbaum LLP can help sellers negotiate and revise listing contracts to ensure that commissions are not earned until successfully concluded. If you would like to learn more about list contracts, please contact Stafford Rosenbaum LLP`s lawyer or one of the Stafford Rosenbaum Es Real Estate team members. The Supreme Court is denying it. After lengthy litigation, the case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In court, the issue was whether the sale contract was an „opposable contract“ under the listing contract, which commits Re/Max to a commission. The analysis of the clear meaning of the words, the court said, is an „enforceable contract“ for which a party can go to court and obtain a remedy for the place of reflection. As Ash Park had already rendered a judgment on the contract of sale, this contract was enforceable – yes. From there, the court found that „the sale agreement between Ash Park and Alexander-Bishop constitutes an „opposable contract“ within the meaning of the list contract between Ash Park and Re/Max.

(Added highlight.) The Ash Park property. The facts at Ash Park LLC v. Alexander – Bishop, Ltd. were uncontested. Ash Park LLC has entered into a standard form list contract (WB-3 Vacant Listing Contract) with a broker, Re/Max Select LLC. The contract provided that Ash Park would pay a commission to Re/Max if Ash Park „accepted an offer creating an enforceable contract for the sale of the land.“ In other words, the listing contract required a commission even without a closed sale. Ash Park then entered into a sale agreement for the sale of the land with Alexander-Bishop, Ltd., but the closure never took place. Ash Park sued Alexander and Bishop and obtained a specific performance judgement. But despite the verdict, Alexander and Bishop never paid for or bought the estate.