Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc.
Minnesota Court of Appeals
693 N.W.2d 479 (2005)
- Written by Christine Hilgeman, JD
Facts
Steven Thurman, a real estate agent, assigned his interest in future receivables to Delacy Investments, Inc. d/b/a Commission Express (C.E.) (plaintiff) in exchange for advance funds. Following this assignment, Thurman entered into an independent contractor agreement with Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. (Re/Max) (defendant). Under that agreement, Re/Max was to pay Thurman sales commissions to the extent that his commissions exceeded any overhead expenses he owed Re/Max under the independent contractor agreement. Prior to being terminated as an agent by Re/Max, Thurman assigned to C.E. an anticipated $10,000 commission for the sale of property on Keller Lake Drive (Keller Lake commission). Re/Max refused to pay the commission because Thurman had accrued $11,126.38 in overhead expenses. C.E. sued Re/Max to enforce its right as assignee to collect the Keller Lake commission. Re/Max moved for summary judgment and the trial court found that Thurman was not entitled to recover the commission for the sale of the Keller Lake property because the commission did not exceed the overhead expenses he owed Re/Max. The court granted summary judgment on the ground that C.E., as assignee, was not entitled to a greater recovery than the recovery to which the assignor, Thurman, was entitled. C.E. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Halbrooks, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
