WPC # W# UN %+ 041 0ebw@ 4`tN^ G S mU 0Dl 1 0c7 0w 0 0 0; 0 0 0 1m AQ> 0D 0@H 0D D/ 0J BE D3b 0T 0^ 0hG 0r 0|! 0 0# 1u 0d(U >B)DC AM6U*Ev~v B"HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( U$  (c(2$ U!   XXX `   0  - - WXEY[Z[\]E^_Ӏi_#-3|xmCook v. Consolidated Stores  ' 2William C. Koch, Jr.20William C. Koch, Jr. .   /$ U(#$  0  hCEIMQUY]aAutoList1XXXXXXXXi)1)a)(;3$2  0  .3  0  (O5<$0  2  a  .3  0` (#(#(bݤ$0  0` (#(#2   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xS$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2(  0  )3  0 (# (#(t$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2(  a  )3  0h(#(#(PF$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2(   )3  0h(#h(#( $0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2  0  )3  0(#(#(|$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2  a  )3  0p(#(##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  ((' dxd2 0Indent123  P PdVVVV'dxd2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  '*+,-./0 ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d::::7Border 1dd!#;C << G<  9p`(Arial ; !  #d#99   ""  ==   YYY FILED=XJuly1,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#99   $   X 9X       _Thecompanieswere_Belz_Ԁ_Investco_,_Urco_,Inc.,UnionRealty,andSouthPlazaCompany.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva  d ! . 99     X   \RA'\_7dd7    9 !R<>;A1-j|sO`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE 9JAMESF.COOK,JR.,   )d/b/aCOOKPROPERTIES,  )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,  )      )VS.      ) DavidsonChancery      ) No.941989IIICONSOLIDATEDSTORESCORP., )_BELZ_Ԁ_INVESTCO_,L.P.,  )_URCO_,INC.,    ) AppealNo.UNIONREALTYCO.,_LTD_.,and ) 01A019605CH00245SOUTHPLAZACO.,   )      ) Defendants/Appellees.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEROBERTS.BRANDT,CHANCELLORForPlaintiff/Appellant:    ForDefendant/Appellee       ConsolidatedStoresCorp.:HughC._Howser_,Jr.KathrynJ.Ladd     _Karyn_ԀC.Bryant_Trabue_,_Sturdivant_Ԁ&_DeWitt_   _Boult_,Cummings,Conners&BerryNashville,Tennessee    Nashville,Tennessee       ForDefendants/Appellees_Belz_,       _URCO_,UnionRealty,andSouthPlaza:       JohnM._Gillum_       JohnW._Heacock_       _Manier_,_Herrod_,_Hollabaugh_Ԁ&Smith       Nashville,Tennessee9 @ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED 9       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE @ 9OPINION9  ThisappealinvolvesadisputeoverarealestatecommissiononfourretailpropertiesinMemphis.Afteraformerclientleasedtheseproperties,arealestatebrokerfiledsuitintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyseekingacommissionfromitsformerclientandthelessorsofthefourproperties.Thetrialcourtgrantedtheformerclientsmotionforsummaryjudgmentand,followingabenchtrial,dismissedthebrokersclaimsagainstthefourlessors.Onthisappeal,thebrokerassertsthatthetrialcourterredbygrantinghisformerclientssummaryjudgmentmotionandthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsdismissalofhisclaimsagainstthefourlessors.Wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourtproperlygrantedthesummaryjudgmentmotionandthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsjudgmentinfavorofthefourlessors.@ I.  In1988,ConsolidatedStoresCorporationretainedJamesF.CookJr.,aNashvillecommercialrealestatebroker,tolocateretailspaceinNashvillefortwoofits BigLotsstores.Whilethesenegotiationswereprogressing,ConsolidatedStoresauthorizedMr.CooktosurveythemarketinMemphisbecauseConsolidatedStoreswasconsideringopeningfourorfivestoresthere.ByJuly1990,Mr.CookhadidentifiedfifteenpossiblesitesinMemphis,eightofwhichbelongedto_Belz_ԀEnterprises,thelessorofthepropertyonwhichoneoftheNashvilleBigLotsstoreswaslocated.InAugust1990,ConsolidatedStoresinformedMr.CookthatitwouldnotbereadytoconsidertheMemphismarketuntiltheSpringof1991. Mr.CookcontinuedtolookforsuitableretailspaceinMemphisforConsolidatedStoresandinOctober1990presentedConsolidatedStoreswithproposedleasespreparedby_Belz_ԀEnterprisesforfourlocations.ConsolidatedStoresagaininformedMr.CookthatitwasdelayingitsexpansionintoMemphis.InApril1991,representativesof_Belz_ԀEnterprisesandConsolidatedStoresmettodiscusspossibleretaillocationsinMemphisbutreachednoagreement.InNovember1991,ConsolidatedStoresinformedMr.CookforthethirdtimethatithadpostponedexpandingintoMemphisandalldiscussionbetweenConsolidatedStoresandMr.Cookended. InNovember1993ConsolidatedStoresand_Belz_ԀEnterprisesnegotiatedarenewaloftheleaseforoneoftheNashvilleBigLotsstores.Duringthesenegotiations,BelzEnterprisesencouragedConsolidatedStorestoreconsideritsplanstoexpandtoMemphis,andthepartiesrenewedtheirnegotiationswithoutinvolvingMr.Cook.Inearly1994,Mr.CookinquiredintoConsolidatedStoressexpansionplansinTennesseeandspecificallyinMemphis.OnApril4,1994,ConsolidatedStoresinformedMr.CookthatithadleasedfourpropertiesinMemphisfromBelzEnterprisesonFebruary17,1994.Mr.Cookdemandedacommissiononthesetransactions,andwhenhedidnotreceiveone,hefiledsuitagainstConsolidatedStoresandthefourBelzrelatedcompaniesthathadleasedtheMemphisspacetoConsolidatedStores. ?   כ ThetrialcourtgrantedasummaryjudgmentforConsolidatedStoresonthegroundthattherewasnocontractualorotherbasisforMr.CooksclaimthatConsolidatedStoresowedhimacommission.Followingabenchtrial,thetrialcourtenteredajudgmentforthefour_Belz_ԄrelatedcompaniesbasedonitsconclusionthatMr.Cookhadnotbeentheprocuringcauseoftheseleases.Mr.CookarguesonappealthatheperformedenoughworkbringingConsolidatedStoresand_Belz_ԀEnterprisestogetherthattheseparties,jointlyandseverally,owehimacommission.@ II. @  TheClaimsAgainstConsolidatedStores  ThetrialcourtsummarilydismissedMr.CookscomplaintagainstConsolidatedStoresbecauseofthelackofevidenceofanexpressorimpliedcontractbetweenConsolidatedStoresandMr.Cookoranyotherbasisforrecovery.WhileMr.Cookconcedesthattherewasnooralorwrittencontract,hearguesthatsummaryjudgmentwasimproperbecausethefactscouldsupportafindingthatthepartieshadanimpliedcontract. Asummaryjudgmentisproperifthemovingpartydemonstratesthattherearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatheorsheisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.56.04;_Bain_Ԁv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn.1997).Whenrulingonamotionforsummaryjudgment,thetrialcourtmusttakethestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,discardallcountervailingevidence,anddrawallreasonablefactualinferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor.SeeMikev.PoGroup,Inc.,937S.W.2d790,792(Tenn.1996);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993).Acourtshouldgrantasummaryjudgmentonlywhentheundisputedfactsreasonablysupportoneconclusion!thatthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeMcCallv.Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);_Carvell_Ԁv.Bottoms,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995). TheonlyfactssupportinganykindofrelationshipbetweenMr.CookandConsolidatedStoresare:(1)thatConsolidatedStoresagreedtoallowMr.CooktosurveytheMemphismarketpriortothefirstcontactbetweenConsolidatedStoresand_Belz_ԀEnterprises,(2)thatConsolidatedStoresnegotiated_briefly_Ԁwith_Belz_Enterprisesin1991basedontheearlierproposals_Belz_ԀEnterpriseshadsubmittedtoMr.Cook,(3)thatin1990Mr.CooklocatedtwoofthepropertiesthatConsolidatedStoreseventuallyleasedin1994,and(4)thatConsolidatedStoresintentionallydidnotinvolveMr.Cookinits1994negotiationswith_Belz_Enterprisesthatledtothefourleases. Animpliedinfactcontractisonethatisinferredfromthepartiesconductinsteadoffromanoralorwrittenagreement.See_V.L._ԀNicholsonCo.v._Transcon_ԀInv.andFin.Ltd.,595S.W.2d474,482(Tenn.1980).Itariseswhencircumstances,includingtheordinarycourseofdealingsandcustom,showthatthepartiesmutuallyassentedtocontract,see_Mefford_Ԁv.Cityof_Dupontonia_,49Tenn.App.349,356,354S.W.2d823,826(1961),andthatthepartiesintendedtocontract.See_Weatherly_Ԁv.AmericanAgr.Chem.Co.,16Tenn.App.613,623,65S.W.2d592,598(1933). Whenacontractisimpliedinfact,thecourtswillimposeacorrespondingdutytopayreasonablecompensation.However,apromisetopaywillonlybeimpliedwhentheworkwasperformedundercircumstancesfromwhichthepersonseekingpaymentcouldreasonablyexpectcompensationfromthebenefittedparty.See_V.L._ԀNicholsonCo.v._Transcon_ԀInv.andFin.Ltd.,595S.W.2dat482.Inrealestatedisputes,thecourtsarereluctanttoimposecontractualliabilityforabrokersserviceswhentheyarethrustuponunwillingrecipients.See_Billington_Ԁv.Crowder,553S.W.2d590,595(Tenn.Ct.App.1977).Andalthoughwe_have_Ԁexpressedsomewillingnesstoimplyapromiseonthepartofthepurchasertopayacommissionwhentherealestateagentisunabletocollectfromtheseller,seeWilliamsv._Millsaps_,No.03A019406CH00229,1995WL131343,at*6(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.28,1995),perm.app.denied(Tenn.Aug.28,1995),thisisonlysoinsituationswherethereisalegallyenforceablecommissionagreementbetweenthesellerandagentandtheϜpurchaser,withoutavalidreason,interferesbypreventingthesale. Theundisputedfactsintherecorddonotprovidecircumstancesfromwhicheitherthetrialcourtorthiscourtcanimplythepartiesmutualassenttocontract.Mr.CooktestifiedthatConsolidatedStoresneverdiscussedwithhimoragreedtopayhimacommissionandthatheneverexpectedConsolidatedStorestopayhimacommission.Atalltimesduringthesenegotiations,Mr.Cooktestifiedthat,asinpasttransactions,_Belz_ԛEnterpriseswouldpayhiscommissionifthepartiesreachedanagreement.Similarly,ConsolidatedStoressprimaryrepresentativetestifiedthathebelievedthatMr.Cookworkedfor_Belz_Enterprisesandthatitisindustrycustomthatthelessorpaystheagentscommission.Thus,Mr.CookneverhadareasonableexpectationofpaymentfromConsolidatedStores,andthetrialcourtcorrectlydeclinedtofindanimpliedcontractbasedontheundisputedfacts.@ III. @  TheClaimsAgainstthe_Belz_ԄrelatedCompanies  Mr.Cookalsotakesissuewiththetrialcourtsdismissalofhisclaimsagainstthefour_Belz_ԄrelatedcompaniesthatleasedtheMemphisretailspacetoConsolidatedStoresin1994.Hecontendsthathewastheprocuringcauseoftheseleasesbecauseheintroducedtheparties,providedinformationthatbecamethefoundationfortheleaseagreements,andcementedConsolidatedStoressinterestintheMemphismarket.WehavedeterminedthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsconclusionthatMr.CookwasnottheprocuringcauseoftheleasesbetweenConsolidatedStoresand_Belz_ԀEnterprises. Realestatebrokersearntheircommissionbyproducingapurchaserorlesseeacceptabletothesellerorlessorwhoisready,willing,andabletobuyorleaseonthesellersorlessorsterms.SeeParksv.Morris,914S.W.2d545,548(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Therighttocollectacommissiondependsonwhetherthebrokeractuallymadethesaleorleaseorwastheefficient,procuringcauseofthesaleorlease.SeePacesetterProperties,Inc.v.Hardaway,635S.W.2d382,Ϝ390(Tenn.Ct.App.1981);Robinsonv.KemmonsWilsonRealtyCo.,41Tenn.App.297,318,293S.W.2d574,583(1956). Abrokerisnotentitledtoacommissionmerelybecauseheorsheintroducedthepartiesorshowedpropertyunsuccessfullytotheultimatepurchaser.SeeMillerv.Jones,54Tenn.App.31,3637,387S.W.2d627,630(1964).Ifthebrokerabandonsthelistingorfailstofurnishaready,willing,andablepurchaserduringthetermoftheagency,thebrokerisnotentitledtoacommission,andtheownermayselltherealtytoaprospectwhooriginatedwiththebroker.SeePacesetterProperties,Inc.v.Hardaway,635S.W.2dat38889;Millerv.Jones,54Tenn.App.at36,387S.W.2dat630. Abrokermaybeentitledtocollectacommissioniftheownerdelaystheconsummationofthesaleinbadfaithuntilaftertheagencyterminatesinordertoavoidpayingacommissiontotheagent.SeeRobinsonv._Kemmons_ԀWilsonRealtyCo.,41Tenn.App.at317,293S.W.2dat583.However,wehaveheldthatanownerisnotactinginbadfaithbyrespondingtothelateroverturesofapurchaserwithoutthebrokersparticipationwhenthebrokerhasfailedtoprocureacontractandthenegotiationshavebrokenoff.SeePacesetterProperties,Inc.v._Hardaway_,635S.W.2dat390.Similarly,whennegotiationsbegunbyabrokerhavebrokenoffwithoutanagreement,andthepurchaserreopensnegotiationsafterasubstantiallapseoftimeandclosesthedealontermsdifferentfromtheinitialproposal,thebrokerisnottheprocuringcauseofthesale.SeePacesetterProperties,Inc.v._Hardaway_,635S.W.2dat389. Weholdthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsjudgment.EventhoughMr.CookhelpedsolidifyConsolidatedStoressinterestintheMemphismarket,hedidnotbringanofferfromapotentiallessorthatmetConsolidatedStoressterms.Hewasneverabletobringthepartiestoanagreementacceptabletoboth.ThediscussionsconcerningConsolidatedStoressentranceintotheMemphismarketbrokeoffafterConsolidatedStoresinformedMr.Cookforthefourth,andfinal,timethatthecompanywasnotexpandingintoMemphis.Fortwoyears,therewasnocontactbetweenthepartiesandMr.Cookdidnotactivelyseektorenewthenegotiations.Afterthissubstantiallapseoftime,ConsolidatedStoresand_Belz_ԀEnterprises_reinstituted_ԀnegotiationsforMemphispropertiesafterdoingbusinessonanotherpropertyinNashville.TheeventualagreementbetweenConsolidatedStoresand_Belz_ԀEnterprisesinvolvedtwoofthepropertiesMr.CookoriginallyproposedtoConsolidatedStores,buttheywereindifferentlocationsintheshoppingcenters,haddifferentsquarefootage,anddifferentleasetermsandconditions.TheremainingpropertiesthatConsolidatedStoresleasedwerenotproposedbyMr.Cook.Accordingly,weholdthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainsttheconclusionthatMr.CookwasnottheprocuringcauseoftheleasetransactionsbetweenConsolidatedStoresand_Belz_Ԅrelatedcompanies. @ IV.  WeaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisionstograntthesummaryjudgmentdismissingMr.CookscomplaintagainstConsolidatedStoresandtoawardajudgmentinfavorofthefour_Belz_Ԅrelatedcompanies.Weremandthecasetothetrialcourtforwhateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired,andwetaxthecostsofthisappealtoJamesF.Cook,Jr.andhissuretyforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       ______________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:____________________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION____________________________________BENH._CANTRELL_,JUDGE