Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 475.41 (2025)
Contracts of unlicensed person for commissions invalid.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
475.41 Contracts of unlicensed person for commissions invalid.—No contract for a commission or compensation for any act or service enumerated in s. 475.01(3) is valid unless the broker or sales associate has complied with this chapter in regard to issuance and renewal of the license at the time the act or service was performed.
History.—s. 44, ch. 12223, 1927; CGL 4105; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 24, 42, 43, ch. 79-239; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 28, 30, ch. 88-20; s. 10, ch. 91-89; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 13, ch. 93-261; s. 39, ch. 2003-164.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: In Re Vilsack, 356 B.R. 546 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2006).
In Re Vilsack, 356 B.R. 546 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2006). “Fla. Stat. § 475.41 entitled, Contracts of unlicensed person for commissions invalid, states: No contract for a commission or compensation for any act or service enumerated in § 475.”
Tassy v. Hall, 429 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). “), not being a registered Florida broker, was not entitled to a broker's commission under section 475.41, Florida Statutes; and to further adjudicate that since no one was entitled to the brokerage commission the court should declare that the plaintiffs, as sellers, were…”
Bakst v. O'Connor & Taylor Dev. Corp., 356 B.R. 546 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 2006). “Fla. Stat. § 475.41 entitled, Contracts of unlicensed person for commissions invalid, states: No contract for a commission or compensation for any act or service enumerated in § 475.”
Shochet Sec., Inc. v. First Union Corp., 663 F. Supp. 1035 (S.D. Fla. 1987). “The defendant has moved for summary judgment in order to clarify the application of Fla.Stat. §§ 475.41 and 475.01(3) to this transaction.”
Bradley v. Banks, 260 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). “" Fla. Stat. § 475.41 , F.S.A. [1] Appellant Bradley claimed a portion of a real estate commission and it appears that appellee Banks agreed to pay that portion to appellant for appellant's services in securing a listing.”
Trum Corp. v. Satterfield, 421 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). “01 shall be valid unless the broker or salesman shall have complied with this chapter in regard to registration and renewal of the certificate at the time the act or service was performed.”
Pokress v. Tisch Florida Props., Inc., 153 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). “, [1] taken into conjunction with § 475.41, Fla. Stat., F.S.A., [2] prohibits payment of a commission *350 for a property sale in Florida in which brokers not licensed in the State of Florida have actively participated.”
Arbogast v. Bryan, 393 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “Bryan also contends that the payments to Ryan were against public policy because they amounted to splitting fees with a person not licensed to sell real estate, contrary to Section 475.41, Florida Statutes (1975). He argues that waiver cannot apply to transactions which are…”
Hardcastle Pointe Corp. v. Cohen, 505 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). “Section 475.41, Florida Statutes (1983), prohibits unlicensed brokers from collecting a commission on any contract.”
Trafalgar Developers, Ltd. v. GENEVA INVEST. LTD., 285 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1973). “The basis of the District Court's opinion was that respondents were only required to be registered at the time services were performed, Section 475.41, Florida Statutes, that the parties executed the contracts in a jurisdiction which did not require the registration of real…”
Moorings Dev. Co. v. Porpoise Bay Co., 487 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). “Essentially, appellants argue that, although The Moorings Development Company was not a licensed broker as required by section 475.41, Florida Statutes (1983), 1 its wholly owned subsidiary, Moorings Realty Sales, Inc.”
Willner v. Wilder, 280 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). “The appellants contend the trial court committed reversible error by denying their motions for directed verdict on the ground that when the evidence showed that the services relied on to support the broker's allegation of performance of the listing contract were those and only…”
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.