Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 9-508 (2026)
Real estate commission contracts to be in writing.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Real estate commission contracts to be in writing.
No contract for the payment of any sum of money or thing of value, as and for a commission or reward for the finding or procuring by one person of a purchaser of real estate of another shall be valid unless the same shall be in writing, signed by the owner of such real estate, or his legal, appointed and duly qualified representative.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1958–2010 · leading case: Callies v. O'NEAL, 216 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2009).
Callies v. O'NEAL, 216 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2009). “I.C. § 9-508. That section provides: No contract for the payment of any sum of money or thing of value, as and for a commission or reward for the finding or procuring by one person of a purchaser of real estate of another shall be valid unless the same shall be in writing,…”
C. Forsman Real Est. Co. v. Hatch, 547 P.2d 1116 (Idaho 1976). “§ 9-508 setting forth the statute of fraud requirements for real estate broker's contracts provides: "No contract for the payment of any sum of money or thing of value, as and for a commission or reward for the finding or procuring by one person of a purchaser of real estate for…”
Com. Ventures, Inc. v. Rex M. & Lynn Lea Fam. Trust, 177 P.3d 955 (Idaho 2008). “Since the terms of the Listing Agreement do not provide for a commission, it is not necessary for the Court to determine whether Lynn’s signature on the “owner” line, but not the “real estate owner” fine, is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, I.C. § 9-508.…”
Jones v. Maestas, 696 P.2d 920 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985). “He argues that a listing agreement signed only by the seller violates I.C. § 9-508. However, the statute merely provides that a contract of employment to sell real estate must be “in writing [and] signed by the owner of such real estate____” Maestas relies on C.”
Marshall Bros., Inc. v. Geisler, 588 P.2d 933 (Idaho 1978). “1 Defendants contend that the real estate broker’s employment contract made by defendants, Marshall, and William Greaves & Associates is not an enforceable contract under I.C. § 9-508 2 since Loewen, one of the co-owners of the property, did not sign it.”
Rexburg Realty, Inc. v. Compton, 616 P.2d 245 (Idaho 1980). “They argue that I.C. § 9-508 2 requires that all co-owners of real estate sign a real estate broker’s employment contract before that agreement is enforceable by a realtor and maintain that here the broker’s failure to obtain the signature of Mrs.”
Am. Pension Servs., Inc. v. Cornerstone Home Builders, LLC, 213 P.3d 1038 (Idaho 2009). “I.C. § 9-508 states: No contract for the payment of any sum of money or thing of value, as and for a commission or reward for the finding or procuring by one person of a purchaser of real estate of another shall be valid unless the same shall be in writing, signed by the owner…”
Century 21 Quality Props., Inc. v. Chandler, 646 P.2d 435 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “Idaho Code § 9-508 requires real estate commission contracts to be in writing: No contract for the payment of any sum of money or thing of value, as and for a commission or reward for the finding or procuring by one person of a purchaser of real estate of another shall be valid…”
Cent. Idaho Agency, Inc. v. Turner, 442 P.2d 442 (Idaho 1968). “By her second assignment of error, defendant contends the court erred in refusing to grant her motion for summary j udgment.”
Garfield v. Tindall, 573 P.2d 966 (Idaho 1978). “First, Tindall claims that the brokerage contract was invalid under the provisions of I.C. § 9-508 in that it was not signed by all the owners of the property and because the property description was insufficient.”
Lunders v. Est. of Snyder, 963 P.2d 372 (Idaho 1998). “The Snyders claim that instruction 8C as given, which stated that a contract to pay a real estate commission must be in writing and signed by the owner (I.C. § 9-508), was incomplete because it did not state that the name United National in the listing agreement could only refer…”
Isaguirre v. Echevarria, 534 P.2d 471 (Idaho 1975). “Moreover,, appellant continues, the deviation between the terms of the first and second agreements indicates that the respondent had not secured a buyer prepared to meet the terms desired by the appellant.”
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.