Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 21, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-04-00364-CV

_______________

NORTHBOROUGH CORPORATE

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, L.L.P., Appellant

V.

CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF TEXAS, INC., Appellee

__________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 02-34003

__________________________________________________________

C O N C U R R I N G   O P I N I O N

Because the Texas Real Estate License Act (the AAct@) provides, as a ground for revoking a real estate license, a license holder=s failure to specify a definite termination date in a contract, Northborough contends that the inclusion of such a date in a commission agreement is a statutory prerequisite to recovering a brokerage commission under the Act. Our decision in this case addresses only this specific contention and does not reach the separate issue (not asserted by Northborough) of whether a commission agreement is unenforceable as against public policy if it does not specify such a date.

In addition, preceding its revision in 1997, article 6573a, the predecessor to section 1101.652, stated as the corresponding ground for revocation, Afailing to specify in a listing contract a definite termination date which is not subject to prior notice.@  Act of Sept. 1, 1991, 72nd Leg., R.S., ch. 553, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 1913, repealed by Act of June 1, 2003, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1421, ' 13, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5020 (emphasis added).  In 1997, this language was expanded to Afailing to specify in a listing contract or in another contract in which the licensee agrees to perform services for which a license is required under this Act a definite termination date which is not subject to prior notice.@  Act of Sept. 1, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 839, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2705, repealed by Act of June 1, 2003, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1421, ' 13, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 5020 (emphasis added).  Therefore, in 1994, when the Star lease was entered, it was not subject to the termination date requirement because it was not a listing contract.

/s/        Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed April 21, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Frost.  (Fowler, J., majority.)