7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

657A.2d301(1995)
RDPDEVELOPMENTCORP.,Appellant,v.PeterN.G.SCHWARTZ,Appellee.
No.93CV601.
DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppeals.
ArguedOctober26,1994.
DecidedApril20,1995.
*302GeoffreyP.Gitner,Washington,DC,forappellant.
NeilI.Levy,Washington,DC,forappellee.
BeforeSCHWELBandKING,AssociateJudges,andKENNEDY,AssociateJudgeoftheSuperiorCourtoftheDistrictof
Columbia.[*]
KENNEDY,AssociateJudgeoftheSuperiorCourtoftheDistrictofColumbia:
Thisappealarisesfromanactionforfraudandbreachofcontractbetweenappellant,RDPDevelopmentCorporation("RDP")and
appellee,PeterN.G.Schwartz("Schwartz"),thegeneralpartnerofJudiciarySquareLimitedPartnership("Partnership").Inits
complaint,RDPallegedthatitwasduecompensationfortheservicesitspresident,R.DonahuePeebles("Peebles"),providedto
SchwartzinconnectionwithSchwartz'seffortstoleaseoneofthePartnership'spropertiestotheDistrictofColumbia.Inthetrial
court,Schwartzmovedforsummaryjudgment,arguingthatRDP'ssuitwasbarredbytheDistrictofColumbiaRealEstate
LicensureActof1982,D.C.Code451921etseq.(1990),becausePeeblesperformedservicesasarealestatebroker
althoughhewasnotlicensedtodoso.The*303trialcourtagreedand,accordingly,grantedSchwartz'smotionforsummary
judgment.[1]Findingnoerror,weaffirm.
I.
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

1/9

7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

Atalltimesrelevanttothissuit,thePartnershipownedanofficebuildingknownasOneJudiciarySquare.Beginninginthefallof
1989,thePartnership,throughSchwartz,attemptedtoleaseOneJudiciarySquaretotheDistrictofColumbiagovernment.These
negotiationsendedabruptlyonMay29,1990,whentheMayor,MarionBarry,announcedthattheDistricthaddecidedtolease
spaceinanotherofficebuilding.
Shortlyafterthisannouncement,PeeblesandSchwartzmettodiscussthepossibilityofhiringPeeblestoassistintheprocurement
ofaleaseofOneJudiciarySquarebytheDistrict.Thereafter,onJune8,1990,SchwartzsentPeeblesaletterofagreement
offeringtohirehiminthefollowingterms:
InconsiderationofyourpersonalfulleffortprovidedingoodfaithtoourobjectiveintheobtainingofaleaseofOneJudiciarySquare
...[Schwartz]agreestopayDonPeeblesanamountequaltoof[sic]oneandthreequarterspercent(1.75%)ofthefaceleasevalue
fortheleasetermnottoexceedten(10)years.Paymentshallonlybedueifyoureffortdirectlyproducesalease....
Afterconsultingwithhisattorney,Peeblesmodifiedthewordingoftheproposedletterofagreementbecausehisattorneyadvised
himthatitappearedtobeabrokeragecontractwhich,becausehewasnotlicensedasarealestatebroker,hecouldnotenforce.
[2]Peeblesthenofferedhisservicesinthefollowingterms:
Re:ConsultingAgreementForOneJudiciarySquare(4014thStreet,N.W.,Washington,D.C.)DearDon:Thislettershallconfirm
ouragreementpursuanttowhichRDPDevelopmentCorporationshallconsultwith[propertyowner]inregardtotheidentificationof
possibleleasingrequirementsoftheDistrictofColumbiaandthesuitabilityofourOneJudiciarySquareBuildingtomeetsuch
requirements.Intheeventyouadviseusofaleasingrequirement,andwesubsequentlyenterintoaleaseorleaseswiththe
governmentoftheDistrictofColumbiaoranyagencyorinstrumentalitythereof,weagreetopayyouforyourservicesanamount
[commissionstated]....
Inresponsetothisproposal,Schwartzagainrewordedthewritingwhichcametomemorializetheparties'agreement.Thisletter,
againreferringinitscaptiontoa"consultingagreement,"inpertinentpartprovides:
ThislettershallconfirmouragreementpursuanttowhichRDPDevelopmentCorporationshallconsultwith(propertyowner)and
contributeyourgoodfaitheffortinregardtopresentingourleasingproposaltotheDistrictofColumbiaandyoumarketingthe
suitabilityofourOneJudiciarySquareBuildingtotheDistrict.Intheeventyouassistusasabovewiththeleasingrequirement,and
wesubsequentlyenterintoaleaseorleaseswiththeGovernmentoftheDistrictofColumbiaoranyagencyorinstrumentality
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

2/9

7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

thereof,weagreetopayyou[commissionstated]....
*304ThiswritingwassignedbythepartiesonJune13,1990.[3]
PursuanttotheAgreement,PeeblesattemptedtobringabouttheleasingofOneJudiciarySquarebytheDistrictofColumbia.His
activitiesincludedadvisingSchwartzregardinghowtobestmarketOneJudiciarySquareandmeetingwiththeMayorandseveral
membersoftheCityCouncilinanefforttoconvincethemofthebenefitsofleasingtheproperty.
Eventually,inthefallof1990,thePartnershipenteredintocompetitivebiddingpursuanttotheDistrict'snewpropertyandspace
procurementprogram.[4]ItofferedtosellOneJudiciarySquaretotheDistrictandleasethelandbeneathit.OnJuly17,1991,the
Partnership'sbidwasapprovedbytheCityCouncil,andthecontractwasfinalizedonMarch17,1992.WhenRDP'sdemandfor
paymentwasrebuffed,itfiledthesuitwhichisthesubjectofthisappeal.
II.
Summaryjudgmentshallbeenterediftherecord"show[s]thatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemoving
partyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw."Super.Ct.Civ.R.56(c).Inreviewingthetrialcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment,we
alsoapplythisstandardandreviewtherecorddenovo.Hollandv.Hannan,456A.2d807,814(D.C.1983)(citationsomitted).We
mustdecide,therefore,whetherSchwartzwasentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflawbasedupontheundisputedfactssetforth
above.
RDPcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinconcludingthatitactedasarealestatebrokerinperformanceofitsagreementwith
Schwartz.TheresolutionofRDP'scontentionrequiresthiscourt,forthefirsttime,tointerpretprovisionsoftheDistrictofColumbia
RealEstateLicensureActof1982,D.C.Code451921etseq.(1990)(the"Act").TheActwasenacted"torevisetherealestate
licensurelawtoestablisheducationalandotherqualificationsforrealestatebrokers,salespersons,andpropertymanagersto
provideincreasedprotectiontothepublicagainstincompetence,fraud,anddeceptioninrealestatetransactions[and]toestablish
arealestateguarantyfund...."CommitteeReportonBill4230,Iat2(October1982).
TheActdefinesa"realestatebroker"asonewho"forafee,commission,orothervalueconsideration,listsforsale,orsells,
exchanges,purchases,rentsorleasesrealproperty...."D.C.Code451922(12)(A).TheActprohibitspersonswhoactasreal
estatebrokersandwhoarenotlicensedassuchfrombringingactionstorecoverfortheirservices.Section1926(c)statesthat:
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

3/9

7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

Nopersonengagedinorconductingthebusiness,oractinginthecapacityofarealestatebroker,realestatesalesperson,or
propertymanagerwithintheDistrictshallbringormaintainanyactioninthecourtsoftheDistrictforthecollectionofcompensation
foranyservicesperformedinthatcapacity,orfortheenforcementofanycontractrelatingtorealestateorbusinesswithoutalleging
thatheorshewasdulylicensedunderthechapter.
ThetrialcourtdeterminedthatPeebleshadactedasarealestatebrokerbecausehehadparticipatedinnegotiationson
Schwartz'sbehalfinanefforttosecurea*305leaseforOneJudiciarySquare.[5]ThetrialcourtnotedthatPeebleshadmetwith
variousDistrictofficialswiththeintenttopersuadeandconvincetheDistricttooccupyOneJudiciarySquareandhadsubmitted
suggestionsandproposalstotheDistrictregardingthepossibleusesforandsuitabilityofthebuilding.Thecourtconcludedthatthis
patternofinteractionbetweenPeeblesandtheDistrictconstitutedrealestatebrokerageactivity.Consequently,becauseneither
PeeblesnorRDPpossessedarealestatelicense,RDP'ssuittorecoveracommissionwasstatutorilybarred.
RDPdoesnotdisputeanyofthecourt'sfactualfindingsregardingPeebles'activity.However,itfindsconsiderablefaultwithhowits
activitieshavebeencharacterized,particularlythetrialcourt'sconclusionthatPeebleshad"negotiated"withDistrictofficialsinan
efforttosecurealease.RDParguesthatitcontractedtoactasa"consultant,"notabroker,andthatPeebles'meetingswithDistrict
officialswereperformed"inconnectionwithRDP'sconsultancy."RDPcontendsthatPeebles'rolewasnottonegotiatewithDistrict
officials,but"merelytobringthepartiestoapointwherethey[would]subsequentlybeinclinedtonegotiate."
RDPassertsthatitspositionissupportedbytheAct'slegislativehistory.ItnotesthatwhilethelicensingstatutewhichtheAct
revisedspecificallyincludedthosewhonegotiateleaseswithinitsdefinitionof"realestatebroker,"theAct,byitsterms,doesnot.In
theformerlicensingstatute,theterm"realestatebroker"wasdefinedtoincludeanypersonorentity"who,foranotherandforafee
...listsforsale,sells,exchanges,purchases,rentsorleases,oroffersorattemptsoragreestonegotiateasale,exchange,
purchase,lease,orrentalofanestateorinterestinrealestate...."RealEstateandBusinessBrokers'LicenseActoftheDistrictof
Columbia,D.C.Code1402(1961)(emphasissupplied).RDPcontendsthattheomissionofanyreferencetothe"negotiation"of
leasesintheAct'sdefinitionofrealestatebrokerrenderstheActnarrowerinitsreachthantheformerlicensingstatute.
BuildinguponthepremisethattheformerlicensingstatutewasbroaderinitsreachthantheAct,RDPfindssignificanceinseveral
courtdecisionswhichhaveappliedtheformerstatute.Wagmanv.DistrictofColumbia,148A.2d308,309(D.C.1959)
UnderwritersConstr.Co.v.DistrictofColumbia,170A.2d236,237(D.C.1961)Draisnerv.DistrictofColumbia,131A.2d297,
298(D.C.1957)Wickershamv.Harris,313F.2d468,471(10thCir.1963).RDPcontendsthatinthesecasestheproscription
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

4/9

7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

againstunlicensedbrokerageactivitywasheldtoapplyonlywhentheservicesprovidedincludedactualparticipationinthe
negotiationofthetermsofacontractorlease.RDPreasonsthatsincetheformerlicensingstatutewasbroaderthantheActand
wasappliedincircumstanceswheretherewasactualparticipationinthenegotiationofthetermsofasaleorleaseofrealestate,
theActdoesnotreachPeebles'conductsinceitwaspreliminarytonegotiationsbetweenSchwartzandtheDistrictregardingthe
actualtermsofalease.
RDP'sanalysiscannotwithstandscrutiny.Attheoutset,thepremisethattheActisnarrowerinitsreachthantheformerlicensing
statutewhichitrevisedispatentlyincorrect.InsettingforththepurposeandeffectoftheAct,TheReportoftheCommitteeonPublic
ServicesandHumanAffairsspecificallystatesthat"[t]hebillexpandsthelistofimproperactivitiesengagedinbyrealestate
professionalswhichwouldbeunlawfulunderthelawandprovidessanctionsfortheseprovisions,withtheexpressintentofensuring
thatfewermembersofthepublicareinjuredbyunscrupulousrealestateprofessionals."CommitteeReportonBill4230,Iat2
(October1982)(emphasissupplied).Thus,theActwasdesignedtobebroaderinitsreachthantheformerlicensingstatute.*306
Moreover,asidefromtheAct'slegislativehistory,theAct'scomprehensivedefinitionoftheterm"realestatebroker"demonstrates
thatitsreachwasintendedtobebroad,coveringthefullrangeofactivitiespursuedbythosewithinthebrokeragebusiness,
includingthenegotiationofrealestatecontracts.[6]
WithrespecttothecourtdecisionscitedbyRDPwhichhaveappliedtheformerlicensingstatute,theyneitherinvolvecircumstances
similartothoseinthiscasenorholdthatthenegotiationoftheactualtermsofasaleorleaseofrealestateisthesinequanonfor
theformerlicensingstatute'sapplication.Wagman,supra,148A.2dat308(holdingthatinprosecutionforviolationoflicensing
statute,conflictingevidenceastowhetherdefendantwasactingasanunlicensedbrokeroranattorneywasaquestionoffactfor
thejury)UnderwritersConstr.Co.,supra,170A.2dat23738(affirmingconvictionforviolationoflicensingstatutewheretrial
court'sdenialofdefendant's"MotionforaBillofParticularsandtoCorrectorDismisstheInformation,"itsadmissionofcertain
itemsofevidenceoverobjection,anditsjuryinstructionswerechallenged,butfoundnoterroneous)Draisner,supra,131A.2dat
29899(affirmingconvictionforviolationoflicensingstatutewheredefendant,foracommission,actedasabrokerbynegotiatinga
saleofrealestateonbehalfofhimselfandothersandthuswasrequiredtobelicensedasarealestatebrokerunderthetermsof
thestatute)Wickersham,supra,313F.2dat47172(reversingjudgmentforplaintiffinactiontorecovercompensationforservices
renderedinconnectionwiththeeffectuationofacontractforthesaleoflandreversedwhere,contrarytotrialcourt'sfindingthat
plaintiffwasa"finder,"plaintiffheldtobeanunlicensedrealestatebrokersincehehadauthoritytoprocureaprospective
purchaser).
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

5/9

7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

ItisdifficulttounderstandhowanyofthecasescitedbyRDPsupportitsposition.Tothecontrary,thisjurisdiction'scaselawis
repletewithinstanceswhereabroker'srighttoacommissionhasbeenupheldwithoutthebroker'sparticipationinthenegotiation
ofthetermsofacontract,includingthewholecategoryofcasesinvolvingbrokerswithexclusivelistingcontractswhoreceive
commissionswhenasecondbroker,workingindependently,securesawillingbuyerorlessee.E.g.,Bowlesv.Hagans,256A.2d
407(D.C.1969)(findingbrokerentitledtocommissiononsaleofboattobuyerheprocuredfollowingnegotiationsbetweenowner
andbuyer)Moranv.Audette,217A.2d653(D.C.1966)(decidingbrokerentitledtocommissionwhereownertakesover
negotiations)Dunnv.Cox,163A.2d609(D.C.1960)(holdingbrokerwithexclusivelistingentitledtocommissiononsaleofrealty
byasecondbroker)seealsoRiskinv.Baltimore&O.R.R.,234F.Supp.979,981(D.D.C.1964)(stating"abrokerisentitledto
commissionwherehehasbroughtthepartiestogether,eventhoughheisprecludedfromtheremainingnegotiations").Weagree
withthetrialcourtthattheundisputedfactsshowthatRDPactedasarealestatebroker.
WerejectRDP'srestrictivereadingoftheAct,particularlythedistinctionitwouldhaveusdrawbetweennegotiationandconduct
preliminarytonegotiation,asartificial*307andincompatiblewiththebroadprotectivepurposesoftheAct'slicensure
requirements.Moreover,thefactthatRDP'scompensationunderthecontractwastobepaidonacommissionbasiscontingent
uponsuccessintheleasingofrealproperty,withtheamounttieddirectlytothevalueofthelease,anelementcommontoreal
estatebrokeragecontracts,underscorestheconclusionthatRDPcontractedtoperformandactedasarealestatebroker.
III.
RDPalsoarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatitssuitwasbarredsincetheActwasnotintendedtoapplytocommercial
realestatetransactionsinvolvingknowledgeableandsophisticatedpartieswhoarecapableofprotectingthemselves.RDPasserts
furtherthatthetrialcourt'srulingis"atoddswithmodernbusinessrealitywhichfrequentlyinvolvestheparticipationofconsultantsin
businesstransactions."NothinginthelanguageoftheActoritslegislativehistorysupportsRDP'sposition.Schwartzisclearly
withintheclasstheActwasdesignedtoprotect.TheActisdesignedtochillunlicensedpracticebydenyingtransgressorsany
recoveryregardlessoftheservicestheyprovideorthestatusoftheirclient.GiventhebroadremedialobjectivesoftheAct,we
construeitgenerouslyandwillnotcreateanexceptiontothelegislativemandatewhichwouldexemptfromtheAct'scoveragethe
mostlucrativeareaofbrokeragepractice.See,e.g.,EDM&Assocs.v.GEMCellular,597A.2d384,387(D.C.1991)(citing
Tenantsof738LongfellowSt.,N.W.v.DistrictofColumbiaRentalHous.Comm'n,575A.2d1205,1211(D.C.1990))(holdingthata
remedialstatutemustbeaccordedgenerousconstructiontoachieveitspurposes).
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

6/9

7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

We,therefore,holdthattheagreementbetweenRDPandSchwartzandPeebles'conduct,pursuanttotheagreement,camewithin
thescopeoftheAct.Consequently,sinceneitherRDPnorPeeblespossessalicense,thisactionisbarred.[7]Accordingly,the
judgmentofthetrialcourtis
Affirmed.
NOTES
[*]SittingbydesignationpursuanttoD.C.Code11707(a)(1989).
[1]SchwartzfiledacounterclaimandathirdpartycomplaintagainstRDPandPeeblesallegingcivilconspiracy,breachofgood
faithandfairdealing,fraud,andabuseofprocess,allarisingfromthetransactionthatisthesubjectofRDP'scomplaint.Thetrial
courtgrantedPeebles'andRDP'smotionforsummaryjudgmentwithrespecttotheseclaims.WhileSchwartzhasappealedthis
ruling,hisattorneyhasstatedthathewillwithdrawhisappealifthiscourtaffirmsthetrialcourt'srulinggrantingsummaryjudgment
withrespecttoRDP'sclaims.Inviewofouraffirmanceofthetrialcourt'srulinggrantingSchwartz'smotionforsummaryjudgment,
Schwartz'sappealstandswithdrawnandwillnotbeconsidered.
[2]Peebles'attorney,StephenB.Huttler,testifiedathisdeposition,"Itold[Peebles]Iwasconcernedthattheserviceshewas
providingascharacterizedinthedocumentdraftedbyMr.Schwartzcouldbecharacterizedasprovidingbrokerageservicesorthat
itlookedlikeabrokeragecontract.ItoldhimthatintheDistrictofColumbia,giventhathedidnothaveabrokeragelicense,ifit
weresocharacterized,itwouldnotbeenforceable."
[3]Atoralargument,counselforappellantstatedthattheparties'agreementhadbeenmodifiedorally.Sincethiscontentionwas
raisedforthefirsttimeonappeal,andmorepreciselyduringoralargument,itwillnotbeconsidered."Appellatereviewislimitedto
mattersappearingintherecordbefore[thiscourt],andwecannotbaseourreviewoferrorsuponstatementsofcounselwhichare
unsupportedbythatrecord."D.C.TransitSys.,Inc.v.Milton,250A.2d549,550(D.C.1969)seealsoCobbv.StandardDrugCo.,
453A.2d110,11112(D.C.1982).
[4]ThislegislationhaschangedtheproceduresbywhichtheDistrictconductsitsrealestateleasingtransactions.Pursuanttothis
legislation,theMayorwasprohibitedfromobligatingorexpendingDistrictfundsorfromperforminganycontractforthepurchaseof
goodsandservicesover$1,000,000.00,withoutCityCouncilapproval.Further,allleasesandpurchasesofrealpropertybecame
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

7/9

7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

subjecttoanopenandcompetitiveprocurementprocess.DistrictofColumbiaProcurementPracticesActof1985CouncilContract
ApprovalProceduresAmendmentActof1992,D.C.Code11181.5a(1992).
[5]ThetrialcourtfoundtheanalysisoftheDistrictCourtinKassatlyv.Yazbeck,734F.Supp.13(D.D.C.1990),tobepersuasive.In
Kassatly,thecourtcharacterizedarealestatebrokerasan"intermediaryormiddlemanwhosefunctionanddutyistobringtogether
thebuyerandsellerorownerorlessee."Id.at15.Distinguishingbetweena"finder"anda"broker,"thecourtstatedthatifaperson
takesanypartin"negotiations,"thenthatpersonisabrokerwhomustbelicensedtocollectacommission.
[6]D.C.Code451922(12)definestheterm"realestatebroker"asanyperson,firm,association,partnership,orcorporation
(domesticorforeign)which:
(A)Forafee,commission,orothervaluableconsideration,listsforsale,orsells,exchanges,purchases,rents,orleasesreal
property.Arealestatebrokermaycollectoroffertocollectrentorincomefortheuseofrealestate,ornegotiatealoansecuredby
amortgage,deedoftrust,orotherencumbranceuponthetransferofrealestate.Arealestatebrokermayalsoengageinthe
businessoferectinghousingforsaleandmayselloroffertosellthathousing,orwhoasownermaysellor,throughsolicitationor
advertising,offertosellornegotiatethesaleofanylotinanysubdivisionoflandcomprising5lotsormore.Thisdefinitionshallnot
applytothesaleofspacefortheadvertisingofrealestateinanynewspaper,magazine,orotherpublicationand
(B)Mayemployrealestatebrokers,associaterealestatebrokers,realestatesalespersons,propertymanagersandresidential
managers.Therealestatebrokershallbeheldaccountableforthedaytodayjobrelatedactivitiesofhisorheremployees.These
activitiesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,propertymanagement,leasingorrentingofproperty,listingforsale,buyingornegotiating
thepurchaseorsale,orexchangingrealestateornegotiatingaloanonrealproperty.
[7]RDP'sothercontentionsoferrormaybesummarilyrejected.RDParguesthattherearematerialissuesoffactregardingthe
parties'intentiontomakethecontractseverable.RDPclaimsthatevenifaportionofitscontractisunenforceable,itshouldbe
compensatedofitsnonbrokerageactivity.Theparties'intentiontomakeacontractseverablemustbeclearlyexpressedinthe
agreement.HowardUniversityv.Durham,408A.2d1216(D.C.1979)seealsoRESTATEMENT(2ND)CONTRACTS,240.
Courtsthathavebarredrecoveryforservicesprohibitedbylicensureactshavepermittedrecoveryforotherservicesnotcoveredby
suchactsonlywherethestructureofthecontractdemonstratedtheparties'intenttodoso.See,e.g.,HolidayHomesv.Briley,122
A.2d229(D.C.1956)FoodManagement,Inc.v.BlueRibbonBeefPack.,Inc.,413F.2d716(8thCir.1969).Theparties'
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

8/9

7/4/2015

RDPDevelopmentCorp.v.Schwartz::1995::DistrictofColumbiaCourtofAppealsDecisions::DistrictofColumbiaCaseLaw::DistrictofColumbiaLaw::U.S.Law::Justia

agreementcontainsnosuchexpression.Indeed,paymentwasexpresslyconditionedupontheexecutionofalease.
RDPalsoclaimsthatthetrialcourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmentwithrespecttoitsclaimforfraud.RDP'sclaimforfraud,
andthedamageswhichitseeksunderthisclaim,arisefromthesamecircumstanceswhichunderlieitsclaimforbreachofcontract.
TheActcouldnotbemoreclearonthisissue.Itbars"anyactioninthecourtsoftheDistrictforthecollectionofcompensationfor
anyservicesperformedinthat[realestatebroker]capacity."D.C.Code451926(c)(emphasissupplied).RDPwillnotbe
permittedtorecoverbythesimpleexpedientoflabelingitsclaim"fraud."

data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Cp%20style%3D%22boxsizing%3A%20borderbox%3B%20margin%3A%200.5em%200px%201em%3B%20color%3A%20rgb(51%2C%2051%2C%2051)%3B%20fontfamily%3A%

9/9