







Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 21, 2005








Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 21,
2005.
 
 
In The
 
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
 
NO. 14-04-00364-CV
_______________
 
NORTHBOROUGH CORPORATE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, L.L.P., Appellant
 
V.
 
CUSHMAN
& WAKEFIELD OF TEXAS, INC., Appellee
__________________________________________________________
 
On Appeal from the 151st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 02-34003
__________________________________________________________
 
C O N C U R R I N G  
O P I N I O N
 
Because
the Texas Real Estate License Act (the AAct@) provides, as a ground for revoking
a real estate license, a license holder=s failure to specify a definite
termination date in a contract, Northborough contends that the inclusion of
such a date in a commission agreement is a statutory prerequisite to recovering
a brokerage commission under the Act. Our decision in this case addresses only
this specific contention and does not reach the separate issue (not asserted by
Northborough) of whether a commission agreement is unenforceable as against
public policy if it does not specify such a date.




In
addition, preceding its revision in 1997, article 6573a, the predecessor to
section 1101.652, stated as the corresponding ground for revocation, Afailing to specify in a listing
contract a definite termination date which is not subject to prior notice.@ 
Act of Sept. 1, 1991, 72nd Leg., R.S., ch. 553, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws
1913, repealed by Act of June 1, 2003, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1421, ' 13, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5020
(emphasis added).  In 1997, this language
was expanded to Afailing to specify in a listing contract or in another
contract in which the licensee agrees to perform services for which a license
is required under this Act a definite termination date which is not subject
to prior notice.@  Act of Sept. 1, 1997,
75th Leg., R.S., ch. 839, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2705, repealed by Act of
June 1, 2003, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1421, ' 13, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5020
(emphasis added).  Therefore, in 1994,
when the Star lease was entered, it was not subject to the termination date
requirement because it was not a listing contract.
 
/s/        Richard H. Edelman
Justice
 
Judgment rendered
and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 21, 2005.
Panel consists of
Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Frost. 
(Fowler, J., majority.)
 
 

