In November 2019, real estate billionaire Trygve Birke brought Frederic Dave and John Kvisgaard of Privatmegleren Dyve og Partnere to take over Selling luxury real estate Oster Holmen farm in Holmenkollen in Oslo.
Prior to this, attorney Tom E. Johnsen at Sem & Johnsen attempted to sell the property for NOK 175 million.
Trygve Bjerke is the third generation in Bjerke Eiendom, which rents out residential and commercial properties, among other things. According to the latest Kapital overview of the richest Norwegians, Bjerke is worth 2.1 billion NOK. (Photo: Michaela Berg)
Despite Dyve reducing the price by NOK 25 million, there were no sales until this appeared in August 2020 Birky sold himself The 11-acre property in Holmenkollveien is owned directly by investor and billionaire Jan Haudemann-Andersen and his brother Stein for NOK 113 million. The latter lives in residence.
Bjerke believed that the assignment agreement with the broker had expired, and refused to pay the sales commission to Dyve and Partners of approximately NOK 2.8 million.
Thus, Dyve and Partners went to court to get the commission they believed they were entitled to, and stated in court that Bjerke’s assignment agreement had been extended and applied upon the sale of Villa Holmenkollen.
Fredrik Dyve at Privatmegleren Dyve og Partnere is among the best selling brokers in the country and has been at the top of income for real estate agents for several years. (Photo: Michaela Berg)
expired contract
The two sides met in court two weeks ago and the verdict is already ready. It says Trygve Bjerke was acquitted and Dyve and Partners were ordered to pay all legal costs over 230,000 crowns.
Thus, the court fully supports Bjerke’s claim that the agreement between Dyve and Bjerke expired at the time of sale.
– It is clear that there has been no written extension of the agreement. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no waiver agreement in effect when the property was sold, and therefore Dyve & Partners is not entitled to pay in accordance with the agreement, as stated in the last ruling.
Frederick Dave told DN he hadn’t read the ruling yet and so could not comment. Bjerke’s tenant is naturally happy with the ruling of the day.
It is always good to be upheld in a court. The judgment is very well grounded in legal theory and preparatory work – it’s a strong judgment as we read it, says Bjerke’s attorney Erling Høyte.
– What does Bjerke say about the referee?
– He thinks it would have been nice if the court agreed with him that he was not obligated to pay. Høyte says it was also satisfying to be able to confirm that he had not acted illegally towards the broker.
Investor Jan Haudemann-Andersen and his brother Stein became interested in Bjerke’s property after former real estate agent André Aubert contacted him and suggested viewing it. Photo from 2014 (Photo: Elaine Hoyland)
Trygve Bjerke purchased the 11-acre property in western Oslo in 2007 from former Kvaerner manager Erik Tønseth for NOK 60 million and has since invested significant sums in upgrades.
Not satisfied
Dyve made it clear in court that he thought the cooperation with Bjerke was good, and considered the real estate investor a potential long-term customer as well. So Dyve was surprised by the turn the case took in May 2020.
Bjerke, the third generation in the Bjerke Eiendom and according to Kapital’s look at the richest Norwegians with a fortune of NOK 1.75 billion, was less satisfied with the collaboration.
– I wasn’t happy with the assignment. It is poorly handled by brokers. They were negative and I was not notified during the procedure. Birke explained in court on Wednesday that I had to call the whole time.
Bjerke explained that dissatisfaction had developed over time, and that in April 2020 he told Dyve that he was not happy with the agreement and that they should talk about it.(Terms)Copyright Dagens Næringsliv AS and/or our suppliers. We want you to share our cases using a link that leads directly to our pages. All or part of the Content may not be copied or otherwise used with written permission or as permitted by law. For additional terms look here.
“Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff.”
