Certiorari was granted to consider the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate Transactions Act “BRRETA” or “the Act”,1 as amended in 2000, does not prevent a real estate professional from seeking a common law remedy such as procuring cause or quantum meruit when no written brokerage engagement agreement has been executed.2 Having considered this issue, we conclude that nothing in BRRETA indicates that the General Assembly intended to foreclose the availability of remedies outside the Act’s scope, including those available under statute and at common law. Accordingly, we affirm. Southeast Properties, Inc., “Southeast” filed suit against Killearn Partners, Inc., “Killearn” seeking to recover compensation for real estate services. Southeast alleged that it had acted as Killearn’s agent and representative in connection with Killearn’s acquisition of property in Fulton County. In that capacity, Southeast claimed it had undertaken significant professional services on Killearn’s behalf, including performing an assessment of the feasibility of Killearn’s acquisition of the property. Southeast asserted it had an understanding with Killearn under which Southeast would provide these professional services in exchange for Killearn’s payment to Southeast of an amount not less than seven percent of the transaction’s value.
Killearn answered and sought summary judgment, arguing that because no written contract existed between itself and Southeast, BRRETA as amended in 2000 precluded Southeast from recovering compensation under any theory whatsoever. The trial court found: 1 that Southeast had acted as Killearn’s real estate agent by providing services that were more than mere ministerial acts, and 2 that there was no written brokerage engagement agreement between the parties. Nonetheless, the trial court denied summary judgment, holding that under BRRETA, no written brokerage engagement agreement is required before an agency relationship exists between a real estate professional and a client, and that the absence of a written agreement did not preclude Southeast from seeking to recover. Killearn appealed, arguing that before a real estate agent may be compensated for his or her services, BRRETA requires a written contract establishing the agent’s right to payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
