Seller's disclosure statement used to determine what property is subject to an exclusive listing agreement.  Hale & Hale, Ltd, and Dakota J. Hale, individually, Respondent v. The Arnold and Jeanie Pettit Declaration of Trust dated 2/1/95, Arnold and Jeanie Pettit, Appellants, No. 69872, (Mo. App. W.D., September 15, 2009), Newton, C.J.

Mr. Arnold Pettit signed an exclusive listing agreement ("listing agreement") employing Hale & Hale, Ltd. (the "broker") to sell his farmhouse and the surrounding 160 acres of farmland for $208,000.  The listing agreement stated that the broker would receive a 6% commission if it procured a ready, willing and able buyer at the stated price and terms acceptable to Mr. Pettit before January 15, 2006.  Mr. Pettit did not reserve the right to sell his property in the listing agreement.  Mr. Pettit also signed a seller's disclosure statement stating that the gas system for his property was a propane tank, but did not indicate whether the tank was owned or leased.

In September 2005, the broker presented a signed offer for $208,000.  Mr. Pettit did not accept or counter the offer and informed the broker that he would not be selling the property for that price.

The broker sued Appellants for breach of contract claiming the commission and attorneys fees for damages.  The trial court found in favor of Respondents.  The Appellants raised several points on appeal.  One point raised was that the broker did not provide sufficient evidence that it was licensed at the time it rendered its services to the Appellants and therefore pursuant to RSMo Section 339.160 the broker should not be entitled to receive a commission.  Mr. Hale testified that he maintained his broker license since 1978 and the trial court inferred that the broker was licensed in 2005 at the time it rendered its services.  The court found such an inference to be reasonable based on precedence which suggests that testimony indicating one is a licensed broker is sufficient proof of the statutorily required licensure.  This point was denied by the court.

Another point raised by Appellants was that the there was no substantial evidence that the broker procured a ready, willing and able buyer.  The Appellants argued that the broker's offer did not represent a ready, willing and able buyer because the offer included the propane tank which was not included in the description of the property on the listing agreement.  Based on Mr. Hale's testimony that Mr. Pettit told him everything on the property was included and the seller's disclosure statement that did not exclude the propane tank, the trial court determined that the propane tank was part of the property to be sold under the listing agreement.  Therefore, the offer presented by the broker was for the full listing price and as such, the broker procured a ready, willing and able buyer entitling it to a commission.

Held:  Affirmed and remanded for calculation of Respondent's attorneys fees.  The court denied all points raised by Appellants and affirmed the trial court's finding awarding a commission.