Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Holloman v. Denson – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Holloman v. Denson, 640 S.W.2d 417, 419-20 (Tex. App.--Waco 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the Tenth Court of Appeals construed a statute providing that a person who received a commission for acting as a real estate broker and who did not have the required license was liable to "an aggrieved person" in an amount not less than the amount of the commission and not more than three times this amount, as determined by the trial court. See Holloman, 640 S.W.2d at 419-20.

The Holloman court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding that the plaintiffs were aggrieved persons in a transaction in which the plaintiffs did not pay any part of the unlicensed real estate broker's commission. See id. at 420.

As to this transaction, the Holloman court held, the man who paid the commission was the aggrieved person, and the plaintiffs were not aggrieved persons as a matter of law. See id.

In another part of its opinion, the Hollomon court held that the plaintiffs were aggrieved persons as to another transaction in which the plaintiffs paid the unlicensed broker's commission. See id.

The Holloman court rejected the broker's contention that he should not be liable because there was no complaint about the quality of the services that he had rendered. See id.

According to the Holloman court, the purpose of the statute was to penalize persons who acted as real estate brokers without a license. See id.

The Holloman court concluded that under the statute, a person was aggrieved by paying a commission to a real estate broker who did not have a required license, rather than by deficiencies in the services rendered by the broker. See id.