In Estate of Baldwin (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 596, the facts involved a probate sale of real property to a high bidder, in which the courts allowed Mr. Lembi, an individual unsuccessful bidder and real estate broker, to recover a commission for services in connection with the sale. Lembi was individually licensed as a broker under his own name, and he conducted business under the fictitious name of an unlicensed corporate dba, Skyline Realty (Skyline). Originally, the probate sellers had agreed to accept his personal buyer's bid, and he attached documents to the bid representing that Skyline would be the broker, and he or someone else wrote in his license number on the documents. (Id. at pp. 600-601.) However, at the probate hearing to confirm the sale, the higher bidder won the right to make the purchase. The probate court then awarded Lembi, as the originating broker, a portion of the commission on the sale. The probate principals (the sellers) appealed, as did the ultimate purchaser's broker, both objecting that Lembi should not get any commission. In Baldwin, the appellate court gave several reasons for allowing Lembi to receive a partial commission as the originating broker, even though Skyline or Skyline, Inc., his "fictitious" business names (Baldwin, supra, 34 Cal.App.3d at p. 599), did not have licenses and Lembi did not get the property. Most important here is the court's rejection of the argument by the other broker (Seeley-McGonagle) that the written contract employing Skyline as a broker was illegal, void and unenforceable under section 10136, because Skyline was unlicensed. The court explained that while Skyline itself could not recover a commission (unlicensed), Lembi was able to do so because he individually performed valuable professional services while doing business under the fictitious name, and his personal license number appeared in the bid documents (the bid, sellers' acceptance, and "Broker's Acceptance" of commission, as well as probate pleadings). (Baldwin, supra, at pp. 604-605.)