Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-33 (2026)
License required to sue for compensation; suit by salesperson in own name
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) No person, partnership, association or corporation shall bring or maintain an action in any court of this state for the recovery of a commission, fee or compensation for any act done or services rendered, the doing or rendering of which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter for persons other than licensed real estate brokers, unless such person was duly licensed hereunder as a real estate broker at the time of the doing of such act or the rendering of such service.
- (2) No real estate salesperson shall have the right to institute suits in his own name for the recovery of a fee, commission or compensation for services as a real estate salesperson, but any such action shall be instituted and brought by the broker employing such salesperson. However, any real estate salesperson shall have the right to bring an action in his own name if the action is against the broker employing such salesperson for the recovery of any fees owed to him.
Codes, 1942, § 8920-17; Laws, 1954, ch. 318, § 17; reenacted, Laws, 1980, ch. 499, § 17; Laws, 1988, ch. 477, § 16; Laws, 1992, ch. 533, § 9, eff. 7/1/1992.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Lutz Homes, Inc. v. Weston, 19 So. 3d 60 (Miss. 2009).
Lutz Homes, Inc. v. Weston, 19 So. 3d 60 (Miss. 2009). “2008) (in order to maintain an action to recover a commission, fee, or *64 compensation, a real estate appraiser must have been licensed at the time of doing the act or rendering the service); Miss.Code Ann. § 73-35-33(1) (Rev.2008) (in order to maintain an action to recover a…”
Harold Mosley v. Triangle Townhouses, LLC, 170 So. 3d 1251 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-33 (1). So the chancellor was right to dismiss Mosley’s complaint 'for “[fjailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Transnational Ventures, Inc. v. Derr Plantation, Inc., 187 So. 3d 185 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “County Circuit Court judge granted DPI’s motion for a directed verdict on three grounds: (1), the alleged commission agreement was insufficiently specific as to the terms of an acceptable sale to require a commission in the absence of a sale; (2) Transnational was barred from…”
Lynn B. Jefcoat v. Singer Hous. Co. D/B/A the Mitchell Co., 619 F.2d 539 (5th Cir. 1980). “The Mitchell Company’s sixth contention is that under Miss.Code Ann. § 73-35-33 (1972) and Rules 22 and 23 of the Mississippi Real Estate Commission, Jefcoat did not have the right to bring suit in his own name for recovery of his fee since he was employed by broker realty…”
Pierce Realty Inc. & Darian Pierce v. Dennis Pierce, Dennis Pierce Inc., Piercon Inc., & Westover Crossing LLC; (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-33 (2) (Rev. 2017) (“No real estate salesperson shall have the right to institute suits in his own name for the recovery of a fee, commission or compensation for services as a real estate salesperson, but any such action shall be instituted and…”
Lutz Homes, Inc. v. Carl Weston (Miss. 2008). “2008) (in order to maintain an action to recover a commission, fee, or compensation, a real estate appraiser must have been licensed at the time of doing the act or rendering the service); Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-33 (1) (Rev. 2008) (in order to maintain an action to recover a…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-33(1) — 3 cases
Lutz Homes, Inc. v. Weston, 19 So. 3d 60 (Miss. 2009). “2008) (in order to maintain an action to recover a commission, fee, or *64 compensation, a real estate appraiser must have been licensed at the time of doing the act or rendering the service); Miss.Code Ann. § 73-35-33(1) (Rev.2008) (in order to maintain an action to recover a…”
Harold Mosley v. Triangle Townhouses, LLC, 170 So. 3d 1251 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 73-35-33 (1). So the chancellor was right to dismiss Mosley’s complaint 'for “[fjailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Transnational Ventures, Inc. v. Derr Plantation, Inc., 187 So. 3d 185 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “County Circuit Court judge granted DPI’s motion for a directed verdict on three grounds: (1), the alleged commission agreement was insufficiently specific as to the terms of an acceptable sale to require a commission in the absence of a sale; (2) Transnational was barred from…”
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.