32-2151.02. Real estate employment agreements; definition
A. All real estate employment agreements shall:
1. Be written in clear and unambiguous language.
2. Fully set forth all material terms, including the terms of broker compensation.
3. Have a definite duration or expiration date, showing dates of inception and expiration.
4. Be signed by all parties to the agreement.
B. An employing broker shall not assign a real estate employment agreement to another broker without the express written consent of all parties to the agreement at the time of the assignment.
C. A licensee shall not procure, or attempt to procure, a real estate employment agreement from a party who is already subject to an existing exclusive real estate employment agreement unless the licensee has received written acknowledgment from the party that the execution of additional real estate employment agreements could expose the party to liability for substantial additional commissions. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to abrogate any civil liability of a licensee arising out of this conduct.
D. A real estate employment agreement is not required for a licensee to represent a party in a transaction.
E. For the purposes of this section, "real estate employment agreement" means a written agreement by which a real estate broker is entitled to compensation for services rendered pursuant to section 44-101, paragraph 7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 2012–2020 · leading case:
Young v. Rose, 286 P.3d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
Young v. Rose, 286 P.3d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 25× “3 Young opposed the motion, arguing A.R.S. § 32-2151.02 is a “regulatory statute” that does not bar a civil cause of action and that the Roses’ signatures on the 2009 Agreement satisfied the statute of frauds.”
D/aq Corp v. Intravest 2851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 10× “5% difference did not constitute a real estate employment agreement as contemplated by A.R.S. § 32-2151.02 nor was it subject to the statute of frauds, A.”
Ck Fam. Irrevocable v. My Home (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Young, however, involved a real estate agent who allegedly had not signed the listing agreement as required under § 32-2151.02. See 230 Ariz. at 435, ¶ 9 .”
Com./cra v. Zinke (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “We therefore confine our review to the argument Zinke advanced in its motion for summary judgment regarding the Assignment Agreement: that the assignment was “unlawful and void” because Zinke did not consent to it, as required by A.R.S. § 32-2151.02(B). ¶14 A.R.S. § 32-2151.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2151.02(A): 2 cases
Young v. Rose, 286 P.3d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“3 Young opposed the motion, arguing A.R.S. § 32-2151.02 is a “regulatory statute” that does not bar a civil cause of action and that the Roses’ signatures on the 2009 Agreement satisfied the statute of frauds.”
D/aq Corp v. Intravest 2851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“5% difference did not constitute a real estate employment agreement as contemplated by A.R.S. § 32-2151.02 nor was it subject to the statute of frauds, A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2151.02(A)(1): 1 case
D/aq Corp v. Intravest 2851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“5% difference did not constitute a real estate employment agreement as contemplated by A.R.S. § 32-2151.02 nor was it subject to the statute of frauds, A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2151.02(A)(4): 1 case
Young v. Rose, 286 P.3d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“3 Young opposed the motion, arguing A.R.S. § 32-2151.02 is a “regulatory statute” that does not bar a civil cause of action and that the Roses’ signatures on the 2009 Agreement satisfied the statute of frauds.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2151.02(B): 1 case
Com./cra v. Zinke (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“We therefore confine our review to the argument Zinke advanced in its motion for summary judgment regarding the Assignment Agreement: that the assignment was “unlawful and void” because Zinke did not consent to it, as required by A.R.S. § 32-2151.02(B). ¶14 A.R.S. § 32-2151.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2151.02(E): 2 cases
Young v. Rose, 286 P.3d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“3 Young opposed the motion, arguing A.R.S. § 32-2151.02 is a “regulatory statute” that does not bar a civil cause of action and that the Roses’ signatures on the 2009 Agreement satisfied the statute of frauds.”
D/aq Corp v. Intravest 2851 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“5% difference did not constitute a real estate employment agreement as contemplated by A.R.S. § 32-2151.02 nor was it subject to the statute of frauds, A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.