Broker Seeks $174K Commission After Real Estate Sale

Court denies defendant's motion for summary disposition in dispute over brokerage agreement.

Apr. 9, 2026 at 6:41pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A photorealistic studio still life featuring a stack of legal documents, a pen, and a calculator on a clean, monochromatic background, conceptually representing the abstract corporate strategy and legal complexities around brokerage agreements and commissions.A legal dispute over a $174,000 real estate commission payment exposes the nuances of brokerage agreements and the Statute of Frauds.Holland Today

A plaintiff has brought suit seeking $174,000 in damages for the alleged breach of an agreement to pay a commission upon the sale of commercial real estate. The defendant's motion for summary disposition was denied because the defendant's position that no agreement exists satisfying the Statute of Frauds is based on a misinterpretation of the law.

Why it matters

This case highlights the complexities around brokerage agreements and commissions, especially when the sale occurs after the termination of the original agreement. The court's ruling suggests that the Statute of Frauds can be satisfied through various written documents, not just a standalone 'Brokerage Agreement'.

The details

The plaintiff, Lutz Financial Services, claims it identified a buyer for the defendant's commercial property in Holland, Michigan. The defendant, 3303 John F. Donnelly Drive, LLC, then entered into a Letter of Intent and a Buy and Sell Agreement with the buyer. Lutz is now seeking $174,000 in damages, alleging Donnelly breached the agreement to pay Lutz a commission on the sale. Donnelly argued the claims should be dismissed because there was no written brokerage agreement between the parties, as required by the Statute of Frauds. However, the court ruled that the Statute of Frauds can be satisfied through the various written documents, including the Letter of Intent and Buy and Sell Agreement, which both referenced Lutz's role as the broker and Donnelly's promise to pay a commission.

  • In April 2025, the defendant sought the plaintiff's services as a broker to find prospective buyers for the commercial property.
  • On April 4, 2025, the plaintiff contacted the defendant about a potential buyer, Michael Paterson, and attached a proposed Letter of Intent.
  • On April 7, 2025, the defendant formally entered the Letter of Intent with the buyer.
  • On April 28, 2025, the defendant and the buyer executed a Buy and Sell Agreement.

The players

Lutz Financial Services, LLC

The plaintiff that is seeking $174,000 in damages for the alleged breach of an agreement to pay a commission upon the sale of commercial real estate.

3303 John F. Donnelly Drive, LLC

The defendant that sought the plaintiff's services as a broker to find prospective buyers for the commercial property.

Michael Paterson

The buyer that the plaintiff identified and that the defendant entered into a Letter of Intent and Buy and Sell Agreement with.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What’s next

The judge will determine whether the brokerage commission provisions in the Letter of Intent and Buy and Sell Agreement are enforceable, or if the procuring cause doctrine can be invoked to support Lutz's claim for a commission payment.

The takeaway

This case highlights the nuances of brokerage agreements and commissions, underscoring that the Statute of Frauds can be satisfied through various written documents, not just a standalone 'Brokerage Agreement.' It also raises questions about the enforceability of commission provisions when a sale occurs after the termination of the original agreement.