A. A broker shall employ and pay only active licensees, and a licensee shall accept employment and compensation as a licensee only from either or both of the following:
1. The legally licensed broker to whom the licensee is licensed.
2. An employer other than the legally licensed broker as described in paragraph 1 of this subsection if the all of the following apply:
(a) The employer holds a license.
(b) The licensee is the employer's employee and receives a federal form W-2 wage and tax statement.
(c) The employer has the same employing broker as the licensee.
(d) The employer obtains written permission from the employing broker to pay the licensee.
B. If the licensee is licensed through a professional corporation or a professional limited liability company, the employing broker may pay and the licensee may receive compensation only through the licensed professional corporation of which the licensee is an officer and shareholder or the licensed professional limited liability company of which the licensee is a member or manager.
C. It is unlawful for a person, firm or corporation, whether an obligor, escrow holder or otherwise, to pay or deliver to anyone compensation for performing any of the acts specified by this chapter, as a broker, who is not licensed at the time the service is rendered. An identification card or certificate of license issued by the state real estate department showing that the person, firm or corporation holds a license for the year in which the payment is made or earned is sufficient proof to relieve from any penalty for a violation of this section the obligor, escrow holder or other person who relied in good faith on the card or certificate.
D. A real estate broker or real estate salesperson shall not collect compensation for rendering services in negotiating loans secured by real property unless all of the following apply:
1. The broker or salesperson is licensed pursuant to title 6, chapter 9 or is an employee, officer or partner of a corporation or partnership licensed pursuant to title 6, chapter 9.
2. The broker or salesperson has disclosed to the person from whom the compensation is collected that the broker or salesperson is receiving compensation both for real estate brokerage, when applicable, and for mortgage broker services.
3. The compensation does not violate any other state or federal law.
E. Notwithstanding subsection A or B of this section, brokers licensed under this chapter may employ residential leasing agents or managers of residential rental properties, as prescribed by section 32-2121, subsection A, paragraph 6. The exemption of residential leasing agents or managers of residential rental property under article 2 of this chapter does not exempt the designated broker from the responsibility to exercise reasonable supervision over these leasing agents or managers.
Notes of Decisions
Sherman v. First Am. Title Ins., 38 P.3d 1229 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “Estoppel ¶ 19 Sherman further argues that the title companies are equitably estopped from contending that § 32-2155 bars her claim. However, equitable estoppel not only requires that a person show he or she relied upon another’s conduct but that, as a result of such reliance,…”
Adams Realty Corp. v. Realty Ctr. Investments, Inc., 719 P.2d 291 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 12× “The letter further proposed that Ticor might have violated A.R.S. § 32-2155. 1 Finally, Adams Realty demanded that Ticor hold the remaining sum of $64,500 in escrow until further instructions from Adams Realty and Sycamore Shadows.”
Pruitt v. Pavelin, 685 P.2d 1347 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 32-2155(A). Thus, the statutes provide that a salesman must work under the direction of a broker.”
Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc., 572 P.2d 1195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 4× “” It is Mangels’ further position that he is forbidden to pay any of the commission to Grutzmacher because such payment would violate A.R.S. § 32-2155(B): “It is unlawful for a person, firm or corporation, whether obliger, escrow holder or otherwise, to pay or deliver to anyone…”
Brown v. Arizona Dep't of Real Est., 890 P.2d 615 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 32-2155(A). The commissioner may suspend or revoke a license, deny the issuance of a license or deny the renewal or the right of renewal of a license issued under the provisions of this chapter if it appears that the holder or applicant, while a licensee under this…”
Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC, 381 P.3d 248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 32-2155(A). Brokers must maintain records of all transactions facilitated by salespersons and must review all real estate sales agreements.”
Realty Executives, Inc. v. Northrup, King & Co., 539 P.2d 514 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “§ 32-2122), as well as for a broker to employ and utilize the services of an unlicensed salesman (A.R.S. § 32-2155). A broker or salesman is not entitled to recover where his cause of action cannot be established without showing that he has violated the law.”
Pauley & McDonald, Inc. v. Brown, 215 B.R. 37 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1996).
“The Court, in the statement of facts, has previously questioned the initial effect of the letter from the designated broker to a title company in December 1994, attempting to have the title company pay several Agents directly.”
Kode v. United Dental Corp. (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “”); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2155 (C) (“It is unlawful for any person, firm 17 or corporation .”
Durable Investments LLC v. Steve Villarreal (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 32-2155 (forbidding payment or receipt of compensation for unlicensed brokerage acts); see also § 32-2101(17) (“‘Compensation’ means any fee, commission, salary, monies or other valuable consideration for services rendered or to be rendered as well as the promise of…”
Com./cra v. Zinke (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The superior court ruled the claim arose when the Property was sold to the Town, finding Appellants conflated the “at the time the claim arose” language of § 32-2152(A) with A.R.S. § 32-2155(B), which makes it unlawful to pay compensation to a real estate broker “who is not…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2155(A) — 4 cases
Sherman v. First Am. Title Ins., 38 P.3d 1229 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“Estoppel ¶ 19 Sherman further argues that the title companies are equitably estopped from contending that § 32-2155 bars her claim. However, equitable estoppel not only requires that a person show he or she relied upon another’s conduct but that, as a result of such reliance,…”
Pruitt v. Pavelin, 685 P.2d 1347 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“A.R.S. § 32-2155(A). Thus, the statutes provide that a salesman must work under the direction of a broker.”
Brown v. Arizona Dep't of Real Est., 890 P.2d 615 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“A.R.S. § 32-2155(A). The commissioner may suspend or revoke a license, deny the issuance of a license or deny the renewal or the right of renewal of a license issued under the provisions of this chapter if it appears that the holder or applicant, while a licensee under this…”
Santorii v. MartinezRusso, LLC, 381 P.3d 248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“A.R.S. § 32-2155(A). Brokers must maintain records of all transactions facilitated by salespersons and must review all real estate sales agreements.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2155(B) — 3 cases
Ness v. Greater Arizona Realty, Inc., 572 P.2d 1195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“” It is Mangels’ further position that he is forbidden to pay any of the commission to Grutzmacher because such payment would violate A.R.S. § 32-2155(B): “It is unlawful for a person, firm or corporation, whether obliger, escrow holder or otherwise, to pay or deliver to anyone…”
Adams Realty Corp. v. Realty Ctr. Investments, Inc., 719 P.2d 291 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“The letter further proposed that Ticor might have violated A.R.S. § 32-2155. 1 Finally, Adams Realty demanded that Ticor hold the remaining sum of $64,500 in escrow until further instructions from Adams Realty and Sycamore Shadows.”
Com./cra v. Zinke (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“The superior court ruled the claim arose when the Property was sold to the Town, finding Appellants conflated the “at the time the claim arose” language of § 32-2152(A) with A.R.S. § 32-2155(B), which makes it unlawful to pay compensation to a real estate broker “who is not…”
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.