The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P began working for D in 1966, first as a real estate salesman and later as a sales manager. Eventually, P became the district manager in charge of Paradise Hills and Rio Communities, which were located near Albuquerque. He had been paid a salary, but in 1977, it was decided by D to pay him a lower salary, plus commissions and overrides based on real estate sales in his district. On one transaction, P sold property that D owned to a corporation in which P’s wife had a one-third interest. D was not apprised of the details of this transaction. The purchaser corporation was organized almost contemporaneously with the sale. The land had been for sale for some time (one or two years) prior to P's arrival in New Mexico. The home office of D in Tucson had set the sales price at $ 165,000. P, working as an agent of D, sold an option to buy the tract to B & C Enterprises, a New Mexico corporation. P's wife had advanced the $2,500 price of the option herself. Within the month, B & C sold the option to Professional Homes at a $57,500 profit. Professional Homes then exercised it and paid Horizon $165,000 for the property. Within the month, B & C sold the option to Professional Homes at a $57,500 profit. Professional Homes paid B & C $ 60,000 for the option, then exercised it and paid Horizon $165,000 for the property. The profit was split three ways; $20,000 went to Mrs. Gelfand, and the balance was divided between Stewart Braums and David Simms, who were the other partners in B & C. B & C went out of business immediately after this transaction. P was fired and claimed D owed him commissions and overrides on some completed transactions. D refused to pay. P filed suit in the Federal District Court in New Mexico, alleging that he was owed parts of some twelve different sales. Trial court concluded that P was entitled to commissions of eleven of the twelve sales, and judgment was entered in favor of P in the sum of $140,322.88. D appealed. D claimed P was guilty of a breach of fiduciary duties with respect to the sale involving his wife. D maintains that as a result of the breach of the fiduciary relationship, D was entitled to an offset not only for profits accruing directly to P but also for profits which accrued to the third parties allied with P. The trial court gave damages based upon only those profits which had accrued directly to P.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.