Class Action Claims Graceland Properties Breached Dealer Contracts by Miscalculating Commissions

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Graceland Properties, LLC faces a proposed class action lawsuit filed in Kentucky that claims the portable building company breached its contracts with dealers by failing to make agreed-upon commission payments.

According to the complaint, the defendant contracts with dealers across the nation who rent and maintain lots at which they display and ultimately sell Graceland Portable Buildings. Graceland Properties, the suit says, enters into written contracts whereby it agrees to pay full-time dealers commissions based on the total cost of the portable buildings before taxes.

Although Graceland’s dealer agreements provide that the company will pay “10% commissions of total cost of buildings before taxes,” the lawsuit claims the defendant failed to pay dealers according to this formula, and instead calculated commission sales based on the number of customer payments made.

Further, the case claims that dealers “were subject to” Graceland Properties’ refusal to pay a commission in the event a buyer did not make two consecutive payments on a building. Further still, the suit alleges Graceland has refunded itself commissions from dealers’ paychecks at random despite the fact that it is not contractually allowed to do so. The lawsuit contends that Graceland violated the terms of its dealer agreements and breached its contract with the plaintiff by withholding or deducting payments from proposed class members’ commissions without the authority to do so.

As a result of Graceland’s allegedly improper deductions, the lead plaintiff, a full-time dealer of Graceland Portable Buildings, claims to have lost more than $13,000 in revenue. According to the complaint, many other full-time Graceland dealers have had experiences similar to that of the plaintiff.  

The lawsuit looks to represent a class comprised of all individuals who signed Graceland’s dealer agreement, sold a Graceland building as a full-time dealer and had part of their commission payment withheld or rescinded by the defendant since January 1, 2014. The suit requests that the defendant be made to compensate putative class members for their unpaid commissions.