The first small section that I couldn't get a picture of to give back information said: Facts Woischke Enterprises, LLC, owned a mobile-home park in Pine County, Minnesota. Woischke contracted with Stursberg & Fine, Inc., for Stursberg & Fine to act "as a mortgage broker.Through Stursberg & Fine, Woischke obtained new financing for real-estate forthe park, presumably allowing the owner to pay off a high-interest mortgage by means of a new, lower-interest loan. Later, Woischke discovered that no Stursberg & Fine employee was a real-estate broker, mortgage broker, or loan broker licensed under Minnesota's real-estate licensing statute. Woischke refused to pay Stursberg & Fine's $60,000 fee and filed a complaint in a Minnesota state court... [then it continues into the picture].

252 Business Law Today: The Essentials against the firm, claiming that their agreement was void. The court that persons who contract for the brokering of real-estate held that the agreement was valid and dismissed the complaint. mortgages without a license cannot enforce any contractual Woischke appealed. right to compensation in court. In this case, Stursberg & Fine Issue Was the agreement between Woischke and Stursberg & agreed to perform a real-estate service for which the firm was not licensed in Minnesota. The contract placed an obligation Fine enforceable? on Woischke to compensate Stursberg & Fine for this service. Decision No. A state intermediate appellate court reversed Given the statutory prohibitions, "we have no difficulty conclud- the judgment of the lower court. "Contracts made in violation of a ing that . . . contracts under which unlicensed persons broker licensing statute are void as a matter of law when the legislature real-estate . . . mortgage loans for compensation [are] invalid has expressly or impliedly directed this outcome." as to the violating party." Reason When a statute prohibits a certain service, the validity and enforceability of a contract to perform that ser- Critical Thinking vice depends on the reason for the ban. Is the purpose of the . What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose that the statute to protect the public or to raise revenue? In the state Minnesota legislature had not expressly declared in the state's of Minnesota, the legislature enacted the real-estate licensing real-estate licensing statute that unlicensed brokers could not statute "in the public interest to prevent abuses by unqualified collect fees for their broker services. Would the result in the or unreliable real estate brokers." The statute also provides Woischke case have been different? Discuss