AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In January 2006, the owners of Lincoln Mesa Ranch, interested in selling their property, contacted PC Carter Company (Plaintiff), a Texas-licensed real estate broker, for valuation advice. Subsequently, a non-binding letter of intent was signed, agreeing to sell the ranch to Carter for $8,000,000, with a six percent commission to Plaintiff. During due diligence, Carter engaged Pinnacle Realty, a New Mexico-licensed broker, for assistance, leading to an oral agreement to share commissions if Pinnacle found a third-party buyer. Eventually, the ranch was sold to Verde Heritage, Inc. for $9,500,000, with Pinnacle Realty agents receiving commissions. Plaintiff, denied a commission, filed suit against Pinnacle Realty and its agents (Defendants) for various claims including breach of contract and unjust enrichment (paras 3-10).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued entitlement to a two-percent commission based on prior agreements and contributions to the sale process, despite not being licensed in New Mexico (paras 9-10).
• Defendants: Contended that Plaintiff's action for commission was barred due to lack of a New Mexico real estate broker's license and violation of the Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen Act (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether Plaintiff is barred from collecting a real estate commission for acting as a broker without a valid New Mexico broker’s license or a written foreign broker’s agreement (para 2).
• Whether Plaintiff may recover compensation under alternate legal theories despite the prohibition on unlicensed brokerage activities (para 25).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court's judgment awarding PC Carter Company a commission, concluding that Plaintiff was barred from collecting due to lack of proper licensure and agreement as required by New Mexico law (para 29).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., concurring):
  The court determined that Plaintiff acted as a broker within the meaning of the Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen Act by engaging in activities that facilitated the sale of the ranch without the requisite New Mexico license or cooperation agreement with a licensed New Mexico broker (paras 13-18).
  The court found Plaintiff's reliance on Vihstadt v. Real Estate Commission of New Mexico misplaced, as the circumstances differed significantly, particularly regarding the nature of the transaction and the role of the parties involved (paras 19-21).
  The court concluded that Plaintiff could not recover a commission as a foreign broker due to failure to enter into a transaction-specific written agreement with a New Mexico licensed qualifying broker, as mandated by New Mexico regulations (paras 22-24).
  The court also held that Plaintiff could not recover compensation under alternate legal theories such as promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, or unjust enrichment, as these would effectively reward unlicensed and unlawful brokerage services (paras 25-27).
  Given the conclusion that Plaintiff was barred from recovering a commission due to lack of licensure, the court did not address Defendants' additional claims or Plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding interest on damages (para 28).