* Washington Professional Real Estate, LLC v Dr. Kip Young, et ux

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

FILED
OCTOBER 6, 2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL REAL 	) 	No. 32375-7-111
ESTATE LLC, d/b/a Prudential Almon 	)
Realty, 	)
)
Appellant, 	)
)
v. 	) 	PUBLISHED OPINION
)
DR. KIPP YOUNG and CARMEN 	)
YOUNG, husband and wife, 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
SIDDOWAY, C.J. 	This is the second time this dispute arising under an exclusive
residential listing agreement between Dr. Kipp and Mrs. Carmen Young and Prudential
Almon Realty has made its way to our court. Within five weeks after the expiration of
the listing period under the agreement, the Youngs entered into a binding contract for the
sale of their Yakima home to purchasers who Prudential claims learned of the home
through its marketing efforts.
The trial court initially dismissed Prudential's claim for a commission under the
''tail'' provision of the listing agreement on summary judgment and awarded the Youngs
contractual attorney fees. 	We concluded that the parties mistakenly relied on case law
dealing with the common law concept of "procuring cause" rather than the tail provision
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-III
Wash. Profl Real Estate v. Young
of their own contract, which did not adopt a "procuring cause" approach. Unpersuaded
by the Youngs' arguments that the tail provision supported their position as a matter of
law, we found that disputed facts presented issues for the trier of fact. 	In a footnote, we
observed that the Youngs raised new legal arguments at oral argument that we would not
reach since the issues had not been raised in the trial court or addressed in the Youngs'
brief, and Prudential had not had an opportunity to respond. 	Wash. Profl Real Estate,
LLC v. Young, 163 Wn. App. 800, 818 n.3, 260 P.3d 991 (2011) ("We will not decide a
case on the basis of issues that were not set forth in the parties' briefs.").
Following remand, both parties renewed motions for summary judgment, which
were denied, and the case proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court found for Prudential.
The Youngs appeaL
We now conclude that the Youngs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
based on the legal arguments that were briefed and decided following the remand. 	We
reverse the judgment in favor of Prudential and remand with instructions to enter
judgment in favor of the Youngs.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The following statement of facts that are most material to this appeal are based on
the trial court's findings following the bench trial.
2
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-III
Wash. Profl Real Estate v. Young
In May 2008, Dr. and Mrs. Young entered into a listing agreement with Prudential
for the sale of their home in Yakima. The original six-month term of the listing ended on
November 7, 2008, but the parties agreed to extend the term to December 31, 2008.
Meg Irwin, the listing broker, aggressively executed her responsibilities under the
listing agreement. Among many other things, she caused a "For Sale" sign to be placed
in the front yard of the Young property. 	She composed a flyer containing the details of
the property and made copies available in a box attached to the "For Sale" sign.
Dr. John Rockwell and Linda Rockwell were next door neighbors to the Youngs.
The Rockwells were friends of Dr. John Place, an orthopedic surgeon, and his wife,
Mary. 	During the summer and fall of2008, Dr. Place visited Dr. Rockwell at the
Rockwell home to check on him following a surgery and Dr. and Mrs. Place also paid a
social visit to the Rockwell home. On these occasions, Dr. and Mrs. Place saw the
Prudential "For Sale" sign in the Youngs' yard.
Dr. Place's sister, Dr. Pat Eastman, and her husband, Dr. Tom Eastman, were
living in Nebraska in 2008 but were interested in relocating to Yakima, with the intention
that Dr. Tom Eastman would join Dr. Place's medical practice. 	With that prospect in
mind, Dr. Place looked for possible homes for the Eastmans and furnished information to
his sister about homes that were for sale. In October 2008, Dr. Place was riding his
motorcycle in the area of the Youngs' property, stopped at the property, and picked up
3
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-111
Wash. Prof'l Real Estate v. Young
one of the flyers. 	Although he took it home and showed it to his wife, he never provided
it to the Eastmans.
In mid-January 2009, shortly before Dr. Pat Eastman would be traveling to
Yakima to look at homes, Dr. Place e-mailed her either the address or the MLS (Multiple
Listing Service) listing number for the Youngs' property. Upon receiving the e-mail, Dr.
Eastman looked for information on the Youngs' property on the Internet but could not
find any because the MLS posting had been removed after the listing agreement expired.
Dr. Eastman also asked a real estate agent she had engaged, Sue Gifford, to provide her
with information about the Youngs' property, but Ms. Gifford was unable to find any
information either, for the same reason.
In anticipation of the Eastmans visiting Yakima in late January 2009, Ms. Gifford
prepared a list of nine properties for them to visit. The Youngs' property was not
included. On Saturday, January 24, Ms. Gifford drove Dr. Pat Eastman around to see the
homes she had identified. Dr. Place accompanied them, and at one point, when they were
in the vicinity of the Youngs' property, he suggested that they drive by it. They viewed
the Youngs' home from the road. Although the "For Sale" sign was gone, Dr. Place told
his sister he would inquire of the Rockwells whether the property was still for sale.
The next morning, after the Places had breakfast at a local restaurant with the
Eastmans, the Places ran into the Rockwells outside the restaurant and asked if the
Youngs' property was still for sale. The Rockwells did not know, but Mrs. Rockwell
4
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-III
Wash. Pro!'l Real Estate v. Young
offered to contact the Youngs. 	She did, learned that it might be, and passed contact
information for the Eastmans along to Dr. Young. Dr. Young then contacted the
Eastmans to let them know that the home was off the market but that he and his wife
might still be willing to sell it. Arrangements were made for the Eastmans to tour the
property on two occasions in the following days. On January 28, the Eastmans made an
offer to purchase. On or about January 29, the Eastmans reached an agreement to
purchase the Young property.
Before the closing, Prudential learned of the pending sale and investigated whether
a commission was owed under the listing agreement. It also offered to assist with the
closing, but Dr. Young declined the help. Based on what its personnel learned about the
Rockwell connection, Prudential initially concluded that a commission was not owed.
But upon learning that Dr. Place had seen the "For Sale" sign and picked up a flyer, they
concluded otherwise and demanded that the Youngs pay a $55,000 commission. The
Youngs continued to disclaim liability for a commission, and this suit followed.
The tail provision of the parties' agreement provides:
If the property or any portion thereof or any interest therein is, directly or
indirectly, sold, exchanged, leased or is purchased under an option, within
365 days after the expiration of this Agreement to any person with whom a
Broker negotiated or to whose attention the Property was brought through
the signs, advertising, or any other action or effort of a Broker, Broker's
agents, employees or subagents, or on information secured directly or
indirectly from or through a Broker during the term of this Agreement, then
Seller shall pay Broker the above compensation.
5
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-III
Wash. Prof'l Real Estate v. Young
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 8. Prudential's complaint and its trial brief contended that a
commission was payable under the tail provision because the property had been sold,
directly or indirectly, "to [a] person ... to whose attention the Property was brought
through the signs, advertising, or any other action or effort of ... Broker's agents." CP at
5 (complaint, para. 4.2), 426 (trial brief).
Following the court's summary judgment in favor of the Youngs, our reversal, and
the trial court's denial of renewed cross motions for summary judgment, the matter
proceeded to a three-day bench trial. In a letter opinion that interpreted the listing
agreement in favor of Prudential, the trial court reformatted the tail provision for
purposes of its analysis, identifying three clauses (A, B, and C), as follows:
If the property or any portion thereof or any interest therein is, directly or
indirectly, sold, exchanged, leased or is purchased under an option, within
365 days after the expiration of this agreement to:
A. 	Any person with whom a Broker negotiated or,
B. 	(a buyer) to whose attention the Property was brought through
the signs, advertising or, any other action or effort of a Broker,
Broker's agents, employees, or subagents or,
C. 	(to a buyer based upon) information secured directly or
indirectly from or through a Broker during the term of this
agreement,
Then Seller shall pay Broker the above compensation.
CP at 464.
The court then reasoned:
Given the facts in our case as they apply to the outline above, the
transaction between the Eastmans and the Youngs does not fit into "A"
because [Prudential] did not negotiate with the Eastmans at any time.
6
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-III
Wash. Profl Real Estate v. Young
Section "B" does not fit the facts either because it requires direct
contact between the Broker or Broker's agents and the purchasers who
receive information from the Broker. I conclude "B" requires direct contact
because "B" does not say "direct or indirect" as used in other parts of the
contract and the tail provision itself and thus appears to be intentional and
specific.
Section "C" appears to fit the facts proven in this case. Given a
reasonable interpretation and based upon the rules applicable to the
construction and analysis of contracts, Section "C" says that if a buyer
purchases the Property based on information secured directly or indirectly
from or because of (common meaning for the word "through") a Broker
during the term of this agreement a commission is owed.
CP at 465. Among the court's findings were that since Prudential selected the generic
MLS agreement, it was effectively the drafter of the agreement.
Having found for Prudential, the trial court also addressed a dispute over the
amount of the commission owed that arose because the Eastmans purchased more
acreage from the Youngs than had been listed with Prudential. Given our disposition of
the appeal, we do not address the evidence presented on that issue or the court's
resolution.
The court later entered findings and conclusions and a judgment awarding
Prudential damages and contractual attorney fees. 	The Youngs appeal.
ANALYSIS
The Youngs make six assignments of error that they characterize as "interrelated"
and that they argue jointly; the overarching issue presented is whether the trial court's
7
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-III
Wash. Pro!'l Real Estate v. Young
interpretation of clause C of the tail provision is reasonable. l 	Br. of Appellants at 7. The
Youngs' few challenges to the trial court's findings of fact are to those that are couched
in language used in the tail provision, which the Youngs argue are more in the nature of
concl us ions of law. We find three of their arguments controlling and, like the Youngs,
provide a unified analysis.
Washington follows the objective manifestation theory of contracts, under which
we declare the meaning of what is written rather than what was intended to be written.
Go2Net, Inc. v. C I Host, Inc., 115 Wn. App. 73, 85,60 P.3d 1245 (2003). 	Our
interpretation of a contract can be informed not only by its language but also by its
subject matter and objective, all the circumstances surrounding its making, and the
reasonableness of the respective interpretations advocated by the parties. Scott
Galvanizing, Inc. v. Nw. EnviroServices, Inc., 120 Wn.2d 573, 580-81,844 P.2d 428
(1993). Our primary goal in interpreting a contract is to ascertain the parties' intent.
Paradise Orchards Gen. P'ship v. Fearing, 122 Wn. App. 507, 516, 94 P.3d 372 (2004).
I The Youngs argue that the trial court construed clause C in a manner that makes
clause B meaningless, that it misapplied the timing element of clause C, that it misapplied
the rule that construes ambiguities against a drafter, that it failed to consider the "object
and purpose" of a tail provision, that it granted relief based on an argument never
advanced by Prudential, and that several of its conclusions and findings lack a sufficient
basis. Br. of Appellants at 7-8.
8
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-111
Wash. Pro!'l Real Estate v. Young
In the first appeal, we held that Prudential's claim "[could not] be resolved as a
matter oflaw on the bases urged by the Youngs." 	Young, 163 Wn. App. at 818. But we
pointed out at the same time that the Youngs had belatedly identified legal arguments that
we declined to reach. Id. at 818 n.3. On remand, the parties renewed cross motions for
summary judgment-they clearly continued to view their dispute as one of law, not fact.
Although the trial court denied both motions, a threshold observation in its letter opinion
following the bench trial was that "[m]ost of the critical facts in this matter are really not
disputed." CP at 461. With the parties' focus on remand having become the language of
the tail provision rather than the procuring cause doctrine that preoccupied them earlier,
we agree with them, and with the ultimate conclusion of the court, that there are no
material disputes of fact. Because the parties agree that the contract language controls
and the trial court did not rely on extrinsic evidence to inform its meaning, we determine
the contract's meaning as a matter oflaw, and therefore de novo. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins.
Co. v. USF Ins. Co., 164 Wn.2d 411,424 n.9, 191 P.3d 866 (2008).
It does not help in interpreting the tail provision that it is flawed by a nonparallel
construction. The trial court adjusted for the lack of parallelism when it reformatted the
provision into its proposed clauses A, B, and C, but if we refrain from adding words, the
applicable language of the third clause of the tail provision says, "If the property ... is
... sold ... within 365 days after the expiration of this Agreement to any person ... on
information secured directly or indirectly from or through a Broker during the term of
9
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-III
Wash. Pro!'l Real Estate v. Young
this Agreement, then Seller shall pay Broker the above compensation."2 CP at 8
(emphasis added).
As found by the trial court, Dr. Place never provided to his sister the flyer that he
picked up. The only "information" he ever provided to her was either the street address
of the Young home or its MLS listing number. 	And he did not provide that until mid-
January 2009-after the listing period under Prudential's agreement with the Youngs had
expired. The address or MLS listing number he provided did not lead to the purchase
because neither Dr. Pat Eastman nor Ms. Gifford was able to find any further information
on the property using the information. Instead, what led to Dr. Eastman seeing the home
was the fact that her brother accompanied her on her home tour on January 24, suggested
at that time that they look at the Youngs' property, and led her and Ms. Gifford to it.
One of the Youngs' arguments against the trial court's construction of the contract
is that if buying "on information secured directly or indirectly from or through a Broker"
under clause C is broad enough to include seeing a "For Sale" sign, then there is no
reason for the more specific clause B. Clause B requires payment of a commission for a
2 It was pointed out in the course of our internal review that another possible
reading of the third clause of the tail provision is "If the property ... is ... sold
... within 365 days after the expiration of this Agreement to any person to whose
attention the Property was brought on information secured directly or indirectly from or
through a Broker during the term of this Agreement, then Seller shall pay Broker the
above compensation." This alternative reading does not affect our analysis, so we do not
address it further.
10
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-III
Wash. Prof'l Real Estate v. Young
postlisting term sale to a buyer "to whose attention the Property was brought through the
signs, advertising, or any other action or effort of a Broker." CP at 8. Under the court's
interpretation, every clause B buyer who sees a "For Sale" sign would also be a clause C
buyer "on information secured directly or indirectly from or through a Broker." "An
interpretation of a contract that gives effect to all provisions is favored over an
interpretation that renders a provision ineffective, and a court should not disregard
language that the parties have used." Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp.
v. FirstGroupAm., Inc., 173 Wn.2d 829,840,271 P.3d 850 (2012). By including both
clauses Band C and the disjunctive "or," the parties' agreement plainly treats
"information secured ... from or through a Broker" as something different from the
broker's general marketing efforts and should be construed accordingly.
Another of the Youngs' arguments is that the trial court's interpretation of clause
C ignores its requirement that the buyer receive the information "during the term of this
Agreement." CP at 8. The trial court reasoned that it was enough that Dr. Place saw the
sign "during the term ofth[e] Agreement," but that reading is not faithful to the grammar
of the tail provision. Under clause C, the property must be "sold ... to any person ... on
information." Id. 	The only reasonable reading of the awkward "sold ... on information"
language is that the buyer had the information. "[D]uring the term of this Agreement" is
an adverbial clause that addresses when the "information" must be "secured." While the
trial court relies on the fact that the information can be secured "directly or indirectly,"
11
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-111
Wash. Prof'I Real Estate v. Young
that does not change the requirement that the information "on which" the property is sold
must be "secured" "during the term of this Agreement.;; Id.
We also agree with the Youngs' argument that the trial court's interpretation of
clause C cannot be reconciled with the usual purpose sought to be accomplished by a tail
provision. 	Our Supreme Court has reiterated the protection for the agent generally
contemplated by such an agreement several times:
"[R]eal estate brokerage is a highly competitive business and it is a logical
conclusion that the provision was intended to protect the agent beyond the
duration of the exclusive agency or right to sell the property in order that he
might not be deprived of his compensation for finding and presenting a
purchaser during that period should the owner sell to him. Without such
protection, it would have been an easy matter for the owners to circumvent
his right by postponing acceptance until the definite time had expired."
Lloyd Hammerstad, Inc. v. Saunders, 6 Wn. App. 633, 635-36, 495 P.2d 349 (1972)
(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Clients' Serv., Inc. v. Pupo,
71 Wn.2d 610, 613-14, 430 P.2d 552 (1967)). This purpose of protecting the broker's
right to compensation for success during the listing period is served by our reading of
clause C as requiring payment of a commission if a buyer secures information directly or
indirectly from or through the broker during the listing period. 	It is not served by
requiring payment where a buyer secures information after the listing period has expired.
By contract, the broker's marketing authority ends with the expiration of the listing
period. If the broker has no authority to market thereafter, it makes no sense to treat a
person who saw a "For Sale" sign during the listing period and mentions it to someone
12
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-111
Wash. Prof'l Real Estate v. Young
after the listing has expired as if he or she could thereby procure a commission for the
broker.
F or these reasons, we interpret clause C of the tail provision as requiring payment
of a commission only where a buyer who purchases the listed property during the tail
period secured information about the property from or through the broker in a manner
different from the activities addressed by clause B, and secures that information during
the period of the listing. Because that did not occur here, we reverse the judgment in
favor of Prudential.
The Youngs request an award of attorney fees for trial and appeal under paragraph
14 of the listing agreement. A party may be awarded contractual attorney fees at the trial
and appellate level under any law that grants the right to recover them. RAP 18.1(a).
Washington law generally provides for an award of attorney fees when authorized by
contract, a statute, or a recognized ground of equity. Labriola v. Pollard Grp., Inc., 152
Wn.2d 828, 839, 100 P.3d 791 (2004); Cornish Coli. of Arts v. 1000 Va. Ltd. P'ship, 158
Wn. App. 203,231,242 PJd 1 (2010) (reasonable fees and costs are recoverable where a
bilateral contract provision provides such a right). 	Paragraph 14 of the listing agreement
includes a bilateral contractual right to an award of "reasonable attorneys fees and costs,
including those for appeals," to the prevailing party. 	CP at 9.
To facilitate the identification of reasonable fees and costs that are not duplicative
and are limited to successful claims, we award both trial and appellate fees and costs to
13
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

No. 32375-7-111
Wash. Prof'l Real Estate v. Young
the Youngs, to be determined by our commissioner, subject to compliance with RAP
18.l(d).
We reverse and remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of the Youngs,
consistent with this opinion.
dz£Lo~'C§-	Siddoway, C.J.'
WE CONCUR:
Brown, J.
14