Andrew Nemeth Properties, LLC v. William A. Panzica
Headline: Real estate agent denied commission due to lack of written agreement
Citation:
Case Summary
This case involves a dispute over a real estate commission. Andrew Nemeth Properties (ANP) sued William Panzica, alleging that Panzica owed them a commission for a property sale. ANP claimed they had an agreement with Panzica to represent him in selling his property and that they procured a buyer, leading to the sale. Panzica, however, argued that ANP did not have a valid listing agreement and therefore was not entitled to a commission. The court had to determine if a valid agreement existed and if ANP fulfilled their obligations under that agreement. The court ultimately ruled in favor of William Panzica, finding that Andrew Nemeth Properties did not have a valid, written listing agreement as required by law to claim a commission. Because no enforceable contract existed, ANP could not recover any commission from Panzica for the sale of the property. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, denying ANP's claim.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- A real estate broker cannot recover a commission without a written listing agreement signed by the party to be charged.
- Oral agreements for real estate commissions are unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
Entities and Participants
Parties
- Andrew Nemeth Properties, LLC (party)
- William A. Panzica (party)
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (5)
Q: What was the main issue in this case?
The main issue was whether Andrew Nemeth Properties (ANP) was entitled to a real estate commission from William Panzica for a property sale, given the absence of a written listing agreement.
Q: Did the court find a valid agreement between ANP and Panzica?
No, the court found that there was no valid, written listing agreement between ANP and Panzica, which is required by law to claim a commission.
Q: What legal principle prevented ANP from recovering a commission?
The Statute of Frauds, which requires real estate listing agreements to be in writing to be enforceable, prevented ANP from recovering a commission.
Q: Who won the case?
William A. Panzica won the case.
Q: What was the outcome for Andrew Nemeth Properties?
Andrew Nemeth Properties lost their claim for a commission.
Case Details
| Case Name | Andrew Nemeth Properties, LLC v. William A. Panzica |
| Citation | |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-11-06 |
| Docket Number | 24S-PL-00356 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Impact Score | 65 / 100 |
| Legal Topics | real-estate-law, contract-law, commission-disputes, statute-of-frauds |
| Jurisdiction | in |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This AI-generated analysis of Andrew Nemeth Properties, LLC v. William A. Panzica was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on real-estate-law or from the Indiana Supreme Court:
-
James Fitzer and Jonathan W. Fitzer v. Pui Chi Ramnarace
Appellate Court Upholds Ruling Against Buyers in Real Estate Contract DisputeFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-03-31
-
Allegaert v. Harbor View Hotel Owner LLC
Broker Denied Commission for Hotel Sale Due to Lack of Enforceable Contract and Failure to Prove Procuring CauseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2026-03-25
-
Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance New Certificate of Title After Mortgage Foreclosure Sale Certificate No. 112938 – ...
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's Foreclosure Voided Due to Failure to Provide Statutory Notice to HomeownerMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18
-
In re: ARC Realty, LLC; Joy Dill; Stacey McKinley; Eric McKinley; The Closing Agency, LLC, d/b/a Lake Martin Closing; Martha Louise McKee-Blackham; and Big Fish Real Estate Group at Lake Martin, LLC v. Brian Smith; Baltic Holdings, LLC; Arrowhead LM, LLC; Bay Pine LMP, LLC; and Kowaliga Investment Zero, LLC
Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal of Real Estate Commission Dispute, Allowing Case to ProceedAlabama Supreme Court · 2026-03-06
-
State ex rel. Harris v. Rothgery
Court finds no enforceable contract in property sale dispute, rules for seller.Ohio Supreme Court · 2026-02-24
-
Aras v. B-U Realty Corp.
Broker Denied Commission as Buyer Was Not Ready, Willing, and Able to Purchase PropertyNew York Court of Appeals · 2026-02-11
-
Spring Valley Interests, LLC v. The Best for Last, LLC
Court rules buyer did not breach contract by terminating due to inability to secure financing.South Carolina Supreme Court · 2026-01-07
-
Cothran v. Jauregui
Virginia Court of Appeals Rules on Enforceability of Real Estate ContractVirginia Supreme Court · 2025-12-30