Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 645 - REAL ESTATE BROKERS AND SALESPERSONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.320 (2026)

Requirements for exclusive agency representation

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 645.320  Requirements for exclusive agency representation.  Every brokerage agreement which includes a provision for an exclusive agency representation must:

      1.  Have set forth in its terms a definite, specified and complete termination.

      2.  Contain no provision which requires the client who signs the brokerage agreement to notify the real estate broker of the client’s intention to cancel the exclusive features of the brokerage agreement after the termination of the brokerage agreement.

      3.  Be signed by both the client or his or her authorized representative and the broker or his or her authorized representative in order to be enforceable.

      [28.5:150:1947; added 1955, 18]—(NRS A 1995, 2075; 2003, 932; 2025, 137)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2022 · leading case: Bangle v. Holland Realty Inv. Co., 393 P.2d 138 (Nev. 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bangle v. Holland Realty Inv. Co., 393 P.2d 138 (Nev. 1964). · cites it 7× “However, it did not contain a specific termination date as required by NRS 645.320. No other *333 agreement was made between Holland and Bangle governing Holland’s commissions for selling houses in Sunset Manor, nor did Holland ever reach an understanding with Palomar Associates…”
Morrow v. Barger, 737 P.2d 1153 (Nev. 1987). · cites it 4× “The district court found that the 1979 written listing agreement did not create a valid “exclusive” listing agreement pursuant to NRS 645.320 because that contract did not contain a termination date.”
Easton Bus. Opportunities, Inc. v. Town Exec. Suites-E. Marketplace, LLC, 230 P.3d 827 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 2× “4 The parties make no argument that NRS 645.320(1), as a type of statute of frauds, required Century 21’s assignment of commission rights to Easton to be in writing.”
Caldwell v. Consol. Realty & Mgmt. Co., 668 P.2d 284 (Nev. 1983). “Lastly, under respondents’ interpretation of the extension clause wording, respondents need only present the property to the ultimate purchaser during the term of the listing agreement to become entitled to a commission upon the sale of the property, whether the sale occurred…”
Saye v. Paradise Mem'l Gardens, Inc., 554 P.2d 274 (Nev. 1976). · cites it 3× “That contract was an exclusive listing contract for the sale of cemetery lots and, as such, fell within the purview of NRS 645.320. 3 However, the contract, having no definite, specified and complete date of termination, fails to satisfy the requirements of NRS 645.”
Gaal v. Las Vegas 101 Inc., 516 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 12× “Gaal now appeals the judgment, primarily arguing that the exclusive listing agreement is not valid under NRS 645.320.' The district court's interpretation and construction of statutes and contracts are reviewed d.”
Focus Com. Grp., Inc. v. Rebeil, 956 P.2d 123 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 9× “The district court granted Rebeil’s motion for summary judgment by concluding as a matter of law that the agreement was invalid because it did not contain a definite termination date as required by NRS 645.320. Focus now appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to…”
Network Realty, Inc. v. Thompson C/W 61950, No. 61145 (Nev. Sept. 20, 2013). · cites it 3× “009 (defining "client" as "a person who has entered into a brokerage agreement with a broker"); NRS 645.320 (specifying a signature by a "client"); NRS 645.”
Network Realty, Inc. v. Thompson C/W 61950, No. 61145 (Nev. Sept. 20, 2013). · cites it 3× “009 (defining "client" as "a person who has entered into a brokerage agreement with a broker"); NRS 645.320 (specifying a signature by a "client"); NRS 645.”
Led-Mil of Nevada, Inc. v. Skyland Realty & Ins., 518 P.2d 606 (Nev. 1974). · cites it 5× “*73 OPINION Per Curiam: In Chapter 645 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, which governs the professional conduct and activities of real estate brokers and salesmen, NRS 645.320 declares that every “exclusive listing” agreement shall be in writing.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.320(1): 1 case
Easton Bus. Opportunities, Inc. v. Town Exec. Suites-E. Marketplace, LLC, 230 P.3d 827 (Nev. 2010). “4 The parties make no argument that NRS 645.320(1), as a type of statute of frauds, required Century 21’s assignment of commission rights to Easton to be in writing.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.320(2): 3 cases
Caldwell v. Consol. Realty & Mgmt. Co., 668 P.2d 284 (Nev. 1983). “Lastly, under respondents’ interpretation of the extension clause wording, respondents need only present the property to the ultimate purchaser during the term of the listing agreement to become entitled to a commission upon the sale of the property, whether the sale occurred…”
Network Realty, Inc. v. Thompson C/W 61950, No. 61145 (Nev. Sept. 20, 2013). “009 (defining "client" as "a person who has entered into a brokerage agreement with a broker"); NRS 645.320 (specifying a signature by a "client"); NRS 645.”
Network Realty, Inc. v. Thompson C/W 61950, No. 61145 (Nev. Sept. 20, 2013). “009 (defining "client" as "a person who has entered into a brokerage agreement with a broker"); NRS 645.320 (specifying a signature by a "client"); NRS 645.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 645.320(4): 1 case
Gaal v. Las Vegas 101 Inc., 516 P.3d 1111 (Nev. 2022). “Gaal now appeals the judgment, primarily arguing that the exclusive listing agreement is not valid under NRS 645.320.' The district court's interpretation and construction of statutes and contracts are reviewed d.”
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.