TO: Cosmos EubanyFROM: Jennifer CarsonDATE: 02/24/2016RE: Zimmerman v. Bank of America, 191 Cal. App. 2d 55, Case Brief

FACTS: Appellant Zimmerman is a real estate broker that was hired by two separate and independent sellers to find buyers for their properties. Through the efforts of the appellant, the two separate sellers agreed to exchange properties with one another and pay the broker a commission. The respondent bank induced the sellers to pay the broker a lesser commission than originally agreed upon because the contract for the commission was not in writing. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Appellant originally filed a lawsuit against the defendant sellers and the bank in the Superior Court of San Francisco. The Superior Court ordered a take nothing judgement in favor of the defendants because the bank raised the issue of statute of frauds, claiming that their advice was not interference because the contract between the sellers and the broker was not in writing. Appellant sought review from the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One. ISSUE: Can the bank induce a party to a transaction to pay a lesser commission to the opposite party of the transaction because the contract between the parties was not in writing when the bank is not a party to the original transaction?

RULE/S: Interference with an advantageous relationship is an independent tort and cannot be based on the enforceability of a contract between parties. Statute of frauds is designed to protect only the parties of a transaction.

ANALYSIS: The parties of the transaction was the sellers and the broker. The bank was a stranger to the transaction and thus when the bank induced the sellers to pay the broker a lesser commission solely based on the assumption that no written contract existed between the sellers and the broker, the bank sufficiently interfered in the relationship. The only actionable tort that should have been considered was the tort of interference with an advantageous relationship and the bank had no grounds with which to raise the statute of frauds because the bank was not a party to the transaction. CONCLUSION: The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence that the bank interfered with the transaction but was not a party to the transaction and thus could not raise the issue of statute of frauds. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgement of the Superior Court.