Procuring Cause in California - A general overview of procuring case principles and guidelines to help you in your real estate commission dispute

The following is general legal information only and may not be 100% accurate, complete or up-to date.  Additional legal cases may need to be reviewed.  In addition, this article is not designed to be, nor should it be construed as legal advice, or a substitute for legal advice.  Rather, it is merely an overview of some of the legal issues and cases involving procuring cause.  For specific questions about your case, please consult with a qualified attorney to discuss the unique facts of your case. 

Attorney Steve Vondran is licensed to practice law in both California and Arizona and is a licensed real estate broker in both states.  He can be reached at steve@vondranlegal.com or by calling (877) 276-5084.

Generally speaking, there are three requirements necessary to assert a right to enforce a real estate commission in California: 

1. Proper licensing of the broker / salesperson

1. A valid and enforceable written commission agreement obligating either the buyer or seller, to pay a commission (this is a statute of frauds requirement Under California Civil Code Section 1624), or, an agreement (oral or written) with the Listing Broker to pay a commission.

1. The broker or salesperson seeking the commission must be able to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she is the “procuring cause” of the sale.

Note: Agency Relationships do not determine whether or not a party is entitled to compensation.  Agency is a separate issue. The issue is whether or not there is an enforceable agreement for compensation between either: (a) the cooperating broker and the listing broker that would entitle the cooperating broker to recover a portion of the commission from the listing broker (in this event there must be an express agreement between brokers to share the commission, but the agreement need not be in writing), or (b) whether the cooperating broker has an enforceable right to recover compensation from either the owner or buyer directly based on contract principles that require a written agreement in that event. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let’s look at each of these issues briefly.

I.    Requirement of a Valid Real Estate License at the time of the real estate transaction:  This pretty much goes without saying, but a brokerage is only entitled to a real estate commission if it is properly licensed at the time of the real estate transaction (basically meaning at the time the compensation agreement was signed with the Seller).  If there is no valid license then the compensation and listing agreement would likely be deemed void and unenforceable thus quashing the broker’s claim for a commission.

A salesperson can only be paid through a broker who has a duty to supervise the activities of the salesperson.  By contacting the DRE, it is possible to obtain a licensing history on any individual claiming to be properly licensed and working for a broker and this can be verified.  You may also want to check for basic licensing information on the California Department of Real Estate website which can be searched here: http://www2.dre.ca.gov/PublicASP/pplinfo.asp 

II.    There must be a writing creating a commission obligation.  This is a statute of frauds requirement in California (Civil Code Section 1624) and a pre-requisite to obtaining commissions claimed.

This section of the code states:

1622.  All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.

1623.  Where a contract, which is required by law to be in writing,is prevented from being put into writing by the fraud of a party thereto, any other party who is by such fraud led to believe that it is in writing, and acts upon such belief to his prejudice, may enforce it against the fraudulent party.

1624.  (a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party's agent:

   (1) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.

   (2) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in Section 2794.

   (3) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.

   (4) An agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any other person to purchase or sell real estate, or to lease real estate for a longer period than one year, or to procure, introduce, or find a purchaser or seller of real estate or a lessee or lessor of real estate where the lease is for a longer period than one year,

for compensation or a commission.

Pursuant to this Section, a broker's real estate agency/commission agreement, with either the buyer or seller of the property must be in writing (as per California Civil Code Section 1624(d)), and the writing must unequivocally show on its face the fact of employment of the broker if the broker seeks to recover a real estate commission. It is for the court to determine whether letters, memos, and other documents passed between parties constitute an agreement between them. 

In order for a memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds, only the essential terms must be stated, while details or particulars need not be, and what is essential depends on the agreement and its context and also on the subsequent conduct of the parties. Restatement Second of Contracts Section 131.  A memorandum of a contract for the sale of real property must identify the buyer, the seller, the price, and the property.  See Sterling v. Taylor, 40 Cal.4th 757 (2007).

A licensed real estate broker's presumed knowledge of the statute of frauds precludes him from showing the reasonable reliance on an oral agreement that is necessary to assert equitable estoppel. 

Likewise, an oral promise by a broker's principal to execute the required writing at a later date will not give rise to estoppel. Likewise, a broker's reliance on an oral promise to pay a commission or an oral promise to execute the required writing at a later date cannot be sufficiently reasonable to support an action for fraud. A broker's reliance, however, on a representation that the necessary contract has in fact been executed may be reasonable and thus support an action for fraud or the assertion of equitable estoppel.  Phillippe v. Shapell Industries, 43 Cal.3d 1247 (1987).

To summarize the above material another way, If the agreement is to employ a real estate agent for the purpose of obtaining a commission, this agreement must be in writing per California Civil Code Section 1624. To enforce a right to commission against an owner or property (or against the Buyer who may employ you as an agent), a written agreement would be required.  Many Buyer representation agreements provide that the Buyer agrees to pay the commission if the Seller does not. What this means is that at the end of the day if you are a Broker and you want to enforce a real estate commission against either the buyer or seller directly (where you have procured a ready, willing, and able buyer on terms and conditions of the listing), you are wise, and indeed usually required, to have a signed written agreement setting forth the fact of employment and other important details of the representation.  

As an example, a Buyer’s agent may submit an offer directly to the seller.  If the written offer contains a commission obligation, and the Seller agrees to the price and terms set forth in the offer this agreement will create an express contractual right of the Buyer’s agent to enforce the commission against the seller.  Also Note, There may be limited grounds to enforce the commission against the seller - who signed a written contract with the listing agent, which contract expressly sought and authorized (appointed) the participation of the 3rd party co-operating buyer’s brokers (A third party beneficiary of the seller / listing agent contract).  See Steve Schmidt & Co v. Berry, 183 Cal.App.3d 1299 (1986) and Smith v. Wright, 188 Cal.App2d 790 (1986).

If, however, a co-operating broker (ex. Buyer’s agent) is seeking to enforce a commitment to pay a commission against the other broker (ex. listing agent), an express writing / contract is NOT required.  An oral/verbal or written agreement (ex. MLS Listing that seeks cooperation from other brokers and which assert/agrees to pay a commission if a seller ready, willing and able to complete the transaction on terms acceptable to the seller is procured) with the co-operating broker is a sufficient agreement to enforce a right to commission against the listing broker directly.  When the listing broker receives their compensation, they are obligated, pursuant to the duty to execute contracts in good faith, to ensure your commission is paid as agreed.

Basically, a brokerage MLS listing is an offer of a unilateral contract, the act requested being the procuring by the broker of a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy upon the terms stated in the offer and is revocable at will of owner in good faith at any time before performance, regardless of broker's efforts. Baumgartner v. Meek, 126 Cal.App.2d 505, 508 (1954).

III.     The Broker must be the “Procuring Cause”

Assuming the Broker/Salesperson is properly licensed, and assuming a right to enforce the commission exists, the Broker (whether listing agent or buyer’s agent)   still needs to be able to show that they were the “procuring cause of the sale.”  One or more licensees / entities may be claiming to be the procuring cause of a sale, thus initiating the commission dispute.

Although there is no easy way to answer the question as to what PROCURING CAUSE OF A SALE actually is, and therefore identify who is entitled to the commission, here are a few general guidelines.  We also have a few “factors” and “considerations” that may provide some measure of guidance.  

Procuring cause’ has been defined as the cause originating a series of events that, without break in their continuity, result in the accomplishment of the prime object of the employment.‘ (9 Cal.Jur.2d, Brokers, § 80, pp. 242-243). 

Where several agencies have been active in bringing about a sale the crucial question is, which broker was the predominating efficient cause?   The Sessions case case held that: “Predominating efficient cause may be defined as the broker who set in motion a chain of events, which, without their break in continuity, cause the buyer and seller to come to terms as the proximate cause if his peculiar activities, the mere fact that he contributes indirectly or incidentally to the sale by imparting information which tends to arouse interest being insufficient.”  A  Broker who is, in fact, the primary procuring cause, will not be deprived if his commission merely because negotiations were completed through someone else, even perhaps, without broker having personally met or communicated with the Buyer. See Sessions v. Pacific Imp. Co. 57 Cal.App 1, 18.

‘The word 'procure’ does not necessarily imply the formal consummation of an agreement. ... In its broadest sense, the word means to prevail upon, induce or persuade a person to do something. ... The originating cause, which ultimately led to the conclusion of the transaction, is held to be the procuring cause.  Rose v. Hunter, 155 Cal.App.2d 319 (1957).

If the broker is, in fact, the procuring cause ‘it is unnecessary for the broker to prove that he was the first one to bring to the attention of the purchaser the fact that the property in question was for sale. ...‘ Webster v. Parra, 72 Cal.App 639.

FOR MY ARIZONA BROKER CLIENTS: A broker is the "procuring cause" of a sale, (entitled to commission), if her efforts are the foundation on which the negotiations resulting in a sale are begun. A cause originating a series of events which, without break in their continuity, result in accomplishment of the prime objective of the employment of the broker who is producing a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy real estate on the owner's terms. Mohamed v. Robbins, 23 Ariz. App. 195.

According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) - Professional Standards in regard to procuring cause:

A broker is the “procuring cause” if the broker’s efforts are the foundation on which negotiations resulting in a sale begin.  

They go on to state: “it is the cause originating a series of events which, without break in their continuity, result in the accomplishment of the prime objective of the employment of the broker who produces a ready, willing and able purchaser to buy real estate on the owner’s terms.”

Whether a broker is deemed to be the procuring cause of a sale depends on looking at and analyzing a wide variety of factors.  There is no simple solution in most cases, but a case-by-case, fact-by-fact analysis is normally required.  Here are a few factors to think about in regard to who is the procuring broker of a sale (a hypothetical broker #1 and the subsequent, or perhaps simultaneous broker #2).  No fact should be deemed conclusive, but rather, just tipping the scale in favor of one broker or the other. Procuring cause is complicated and not always predictable.

In addition, in an arbitration or commission dispute hearing the arbitrator or hearing panel will likely consider all available facts and evidence and seek to achieve a fair and just outcome.  They may also find that two or more brokers are “partial procuring cases” thus requiring a split of the commission.

Factors Leading toward a Finding of Procuring Cause for Broker #1 (Intro Broker)

1. Broker #1 was the first to show or introduce the actual property to be purchased to the buyer (more than merely mentioning the property is listed for sale).  Closing Broker never showed the Property.  Note: merely being the first to show the property or present an offer will not automatically make a broker the procuring cause;
   
2. Buyer was ready, able and willing to buy and a written offer was communicated to the Seller even if not accepted;
   
3. Closing Broker submitted a similar offer within a short time frame of Broker #1’s offer;
   
4. The introduction by Broker was instrumental in creating the desire to purchase (broker motivated the buyer);
   
5. Broker gave proper agency disclosures when making an offer;
   
6. Broker makes continued efforts and continued contacts with buyer after showing the property (didn’t withdraw from the representation in the eyes of the buyer) and/or removed impediments to the sale;
   
7. Broker made a proposal upon which the final transaction was based;
   
8. Broker exerted more effort than any other broker (ex. provided significant information about the property, neighborhood, schools, financing, etc. (things that contribute to the Buyer’s interest);
   
9. Broker acted in good faith at all times during the transaction;
   
10. There was a continuous and uninterrupted closing of the sale (buyer did not come back and buy the property many months or years later);
    
11. Subsequent broker interferes in bad faith (ex. before representing Buyer, Closing Broker never asked if Buyer had dealt with any other brokers or signed any agreements with anyone);
    
12. Seller “locks out” or “freezes out” the Broker in an attempt to avoid paying a commission;

On this topic note: Normally, the price at which a broker is authorized to sell the property (i.e. the asking price listed in the MLS) is usually just a guide for the broker to consider in conducting her negotiations with co-operating brokers.  Therefore, if the broker procures a purchaser willing to pay a lower price to purchase the property, the owner cannot deprive the broker of a commission simply by eliminating the broker and conducting the final negotiations himself, and, selling at a lower price to the purchaser who was actually procured by the broker. See Palmtag v. Danielson, 30 Cal. 2d 517, 521, Bail v. Glantz, 78 Cal. App. 49, and Rutherford v. Berick, 82 Cal. App. 2d 331.

     13.  The sale would not have occurred “but for” the efforts of the broker #1;

   14. Intro Broker knows Client will be attending open houses and informs Buyer to tell any other broker that they are represented by Broker #1;

   15. Closing Broker is not a member of the MLS wherein the property was listed; or a reciprocal MLS, and had no other commission agreement with the Listing broker for a commission;

    16.  Intro Broker has a written right to represent buyer (either exclusive or non-exclusive), signed and dated before Broker #2 enters the scene.

These are just some of the factors that will weigh into a finding that Broker#1 was the procuring cause of the sale and thus owed a real estate commission.

Factors that Mitigate against a finding of Procuring Cause for Broker #1 (Meaning, Broker #2 - Closing Broker - is more likely to be deemed the procuring cause)

      1.  Buyer knew of Property before Intro broker introduced (buyer found property on his own) and Closing Broker also showed property;
      2.  There were previous dealings between the buyer and the seller so that Intro Broker’s Claims of introduction are not as strong;

      3.  Buyer Found property via an open house through no help of Broker #1;

     4.  Broker #1 engaged in some type of mis-conduct (act or ommission, lack of knowledge, misrepresentations, lack of professionalism etc.) that made the buyer seek out a second broker.  A buyer who has not signed a buyer’s agency agreement is free to choose a new broker to work with;

      5.  Closing Broker set forth events that created the desire to purchase  the subject property (broker #2 motivated buyer to purchase);

     6.  Closing Broker made offer to purchase after significant passage of time from the previous offers and exerted greater effort in getting the deal done;

   7.  Original negotiations broke down with Broker #1 (gap in continuity) and were revived in good faith and without intentional interference by Broker #2;

      8.  Closing broker wrote and negotiated offer and performed all closing services while escrow was closing;

      9.  Intro Broker failed to keep in touch with Buyer after first offer was rejected;

Again, these are all just factors that are weighed along with the facts of the case to make the factual determination of who the procuring broker was entitled to a commission.  An arbitrator will hear and weigh all of the facts surrounding the case.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Typical Defenses Raised by Sellers in an attempt to defeat a commission dispute:

1. The commission contract is not valid and enforceable;
   
2. The broker was not the procuring cause of the sale;
   
3. Breach of fiduciary duty by Broker (ex. broker breaches duty of reasonable care, skill, loyalty, etc.);
   
4. Broker had knowledge the Seller was not able to convey the property (ex. Broker knew Seller could not convey marketable title);
   
5. Broker did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the Broker agreement;
   
6. Buyer was not ready, willing and able to buy the property on Seller’s terms;
   
7. Brokers claims for commission are outside the statute of limitations period.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Potential Damages a Seller / Broker May face who refuses to Pay the commission owed (this assumes for the most part that litigation of the dispute, rather than arbitration, is pursued):

1. Commission owed;
   
2. Interest on Commission;
   
3. Reasonable Attorney Fees;
   
4. Punitive damages where the property owner / Broker has committed bad faith acts (willful, wanton, and/or malicious) designed to interfere with the Listing Broker’s / Co-operating broker's entitlement to a commission.

IF YOU ARE IN NEED OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO ANALYZE YOUR COMMISSION DISPUTE, OR ASSERT A CLAIM FOR COMMISSIONS OR DEFEND A CLAIM OF PROCURING CAUSE, CONTACT US TO DISCUSS YOUR SITUATION.  WE CAN OUTLINE YOUR LEGAL POSITION TO YOUR OPPONENT AND HOPEFULLY DETRACT THEM FROM PURSUING THE MATTER.  IF FORCED TO ARBITRATE OR LITIGATE YOUR CLAIM, WE ARE HERE TO HELP FRAME YOUR CASE IN THE BEST POSSIBLE LIGHT.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OTHER LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN C. VONDRAN, P.C.

• Real Estate Commission Disputes - "Procuring Cause"
• Real Estate Arbitration and Litigation (http://vondranlegal.com/real-estate-litigation/)
• Phoenix / Scottsdale (Maricopa County) Eminent Domain Law.
• Zoning and Land Use in the Greater Phoenix area (Variance / Special Use Permits / Rezoning)
• Real Estate Broker Law (Commission disputes / Business Formation/ Broker Contracts)
• Advance Fee Agreements
• Real Estate investigations, accusations, complaints
• License admission cases
• BRE real estate recovery account
• Real Estate compliance
• Financial Elder Abuse cases involving real estate

We are able to serve our California Broker Clients in the following California Counties and Cities

Alameda
Albany
Berkeley
Dublin
Emeryville
Fremont
Hayward
Livermore
Newark
Oakland
Piedmont
Pleasanton
San Leandro
Union City
Amador
Amador City
Ione
Jackson
Plymouth
Sutter Creek
Chico
Gridley
Oroville
Paradise
Angels Camp
Colusa
Colusa
Williams
Antioch
Brentwood
Clayton
Concord
Danville
El Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
Martinez
Moraga
Orinda
Pinole
Pittsburg
Pleasant Hill
Richmond
San Pablo
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
Crescent City
Placerville
South Lake Tahoe
Clovis
Coalinga
Firebaugh
Fowler
Fresno
Huron
Kerman
Kingsburg
Mendota
Orange Cove
Parlier
Reedley
San Joaquin
Sanger
Selma
Orland
Willows
Humboldt
Arcata
Blue Lake
Eureka
Ferndale
Fortuna
Rio Dell
Trinidad
Imperial
Brawley
Calexico
Calipatria
El Centro
Holtville
Westmorland
Inyo
Bishop
Kern
Arvin
Bakersfield
California City
Delano
Kern County
Maricopa
McFarland
Ridgecrest
Shafter
Taft
Tehachapi
Wasco
Avenal
Corcoran
Hanford
Lemoore
Lake
Clearlake
Lakeport
Susanville
Los Angeles
Agoura Hills
Alhambra
Arcadia
Artesia
Azusa
Baldwin Park
Bell
Bell Gardens
Bellflower
Beverly Hills
Bradbury
Burbank
CalabasCarson
Cerritos
Claremont
Commerce
Compton
Covina
Cudahy
Culver City
Diamond Bar
Downey
Duarte
El Monte
El Segundo
Gardena
Glendale
Glendora
Hawaiian Gardens
Hawthorne
Hermosa Beach
Hidden Hills
Huntington Park
Industry
Inglewood
Irwindale
La Canada-Flintridge
La Habra Heights
La Mirada
La Puente
La Verne
Lakewood
Lancaster
Lawndale
Lomita
Long Beach
Lynwood
Malibu
Manhattan Beach
Maywood
Monrovia
Montebello
Monterey Park
Norwalk
Palmdale
Palos Verdes Estates
Paramount
Pasadena
Pico Rivera
Pomona
Rancho Palos Verdes
Redondo Beach
Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills Estates
Rosemead
San Dimas
San Fernando
San Gabriel
San Marino
Santa Clarita
Santa Fe Springs
Santa Monica
Sierra Madre
Signal Hill
South El Monte
South Gate
South Pasadena
Temple City
Torrance
Vernon
Walnut
West Covina
West Hollywood
Westlake Village
Whittier
Chowchilla
Madera
Marin
Belvedere
Corte Madera
Fairfax
Larkspur
Mill Valley
Novato
Ross
San Anselmo
San Rafael
Sausalito
Tiburon
Mariposa
Mendocino
Fort Bragg
Point Arena
Ukiah
Willits
Merced
Atwater
Dos Palos
Gustine
Livingston
Los Banos
Merced
Modoc
Alturas
Mono
Mammoth Lakes
Monterey
Carmel
Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales
Greenfield
King City
Marina
Monterey
Pacific Grove
Salinas
Sand City
Seaside
Soledad
Napa
American Canyon
Calistoga
Napa
St. Helena
Yountville
Nevada
Grass Valley
Nevada City
Truckee
Orange
Anaheim
Brea
Buena Park
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Dana Point
Fountain Valley
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine
La Habra
La Palma
Laguna Beach
Laguna Hills
Laguna Niguel
Lake Forest
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Newport Beach
Orange
Placentia
San Clemente
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Ana
Seal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
Villa Park
Westminster
Yorba Linda
Placer
Auburn
Colfax
Lincoln
Loomis
Rocklin
Roseville
Plumas
Portola
Riverside
Banning
Beaumont
Blythe
Calimesa
Canyon Lake
Cathedral City
Coachella
Corona
Desert Hot Springs
Hemet
Indian Wells
Indio
La Quinta
Lake Elsinore
Moreno Valley
Murrieta
Norco
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Perris
Rancho Mirage
Riversi
San Jacinto
Temecula
Folsom
Galt
Isleton
Sacramento
San Benito
Hollister
San Juan Bautista
San Bernardino
Adelanto
Apple Valley
Barstow
Big Bear Lake
Chino
Chino Hills
Colton
Fontana
Grand Terrace
Hesperia
Highland
Loma Linda
Montclair
Needles
Ontario
Rancho Cucamonga
Redlands
Rialto
Twentynine Palms
Upland
Victorville
Yucaipa
Yucca Valley
San Diego
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial Beach
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Marcos
Santee
Solana Beach
Vista
San Francisco
San Joaquin
Escalon
Lathrop
Lodi
Manteca
Ripon
Stockton
Tracy
Arroyo Grande
Atascadero
Grover Beach
Morro Bay
Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Hillsborough
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
Woodside
Santa Barbara
Buellton
Carpinteria
Guadalupe
Lompoc
Santa Barbara
Santa Maria
Solvang
Santa Clara
Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Santa Cruz
Capitola
Santa Cruz
Scotts Valley
Watsonville
Shasta
Anderson
Redding
Shasta Lak
Sierra
Loyalton
Siskiyou
Dorris
Dunsmuir
Etna
Fort Jones
Montague
Mount Shasta
Tulelake
Weed
Yreka
Solano
Benicia
Dixon
Fairfield
Rio Vista
Suisun City
Vacaville
Vallejo
Sonoma
Cloverdale
Cotati
Healdsburg
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Santa Rosa
Sebastopol
Sonoma
Windsor
Stanislaus
Ceres
Hughson
Modesto
Newman
Oakdale
Patterson
Riverbank
Turlock
Waterford
Sutter
Live Oak
Yuba City
Tehama
Corning
Red Bluff
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Dinuba
Exeter
Farmersville
Lindsay
Porterville
Tulare
Tulare
Visalia
Woodlake
Tuolumne
Sonora
Ventura
Camarillo
Fillmore
MoorpaOjai
Oxnard
Port Hueneme
Santa Paula
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Ventura
Yolo
Davis
West Sacramento
Winters
Woodland
Yuba
Marysville
Wheatland

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OUR OFFICES:

We have offices in San Diego (serving Carlsbad/LaJolla), Newport Beach (serving Orange County/Riverside/SanBeranrdino), Beverly Hills (serving Los Angeles, Manhatten Beach, Hermosa Beach) San Francisco (Serving Bay Oakland, San Jose) and Phoenix, Arizona (Serving Phoenix, Scottsdale, Maricopa County) 

Web:  www.VondranLegal.com 

Phone: (877) 276-5084

Email: Steve@VondranLegal.com

We help California brokers and salespeople in the following cities: San Diego, La Jolla, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Dana Point, Huntington Beach, Anaheim, Fullerton, Brea, Orange, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, Aliso Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Dana Point, Coto de Caza, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno, and other cities in California.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is an advertisement and communication pursuant to state bar rules.  The law offices of Steven C. Vondran, P.C. is licensed to practice law only in the States of California and Arizona and only seeks to represent Clients from these two states.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

KEYWORDS: California commission disputes, Arizona commission disputes, procuring cause arbitration, orange county commission dispute, orange county real estate attorney, phoenix arizona commission dispute attorney, scottsdale commission dispute attorney, arizona commission dispute attorney, what is procuring cause?  Real Estate dispute lawyer, real estate dispute attorney, phoenix real estate lawyer, phoenix real estate attorney.