696.020
License required for individuals engaged in professional real estate
activities; exception; rules.
(1) The Real Estate Agency may issue a real estate license only to an
individual.
(2) An individual
may not engage in, carry on, advertise or purport to engage in or carry on
professional real estate activity, or act in the capacity of a real estate
licensee, within this state unless the individual holds an active license as
provided for in this chapter.
(3) Real estate
brokers, managing principal brokers and principal real estate brokers are bound
by and subject to the requirements of ORS 696.010 to 696.495, 696.600 to
696.785, 696.800 to 696.870, 696.990 and 696.995 while:
(a) Engaging in
professional real estate activity; or
(b) Acting on the
licensee’s own behalf in the sale, exchange, lease option or purchase of real
estate or in the offer or negotiations for the sale, exchange, lease option or
purchase of real estate.
(4) A real estate
broker, managing principal broker, principal real estate broker or licensed
real estate property manager is bound by and subject to the requirements of ORS
696.010 to 696.495, 696.600 to 696.785, 696.890, 696.990 and 696.995 while
engaging in the management of rental real estate.
(5) A timeshare
sales agent is bound by and subject to the requirements of ORS 696.010 to
696.495, 696.600 to 696.785, 696.800 to 696.870, 696.990 and 696.995 while
selling or offering to sell timeshares.
(6) The agency by
rule may establish provisions for a nonlicensed individual whose license is
inactive or suspended and who acts on the licensee’s own behalf in the sale,
exchange, lease option or purchase of real estate or in the offer or
negotiations for the sale, exchange, lease option or purchase of real estate. [Amended
by 1969 c.674 §1; 1975 c.746 §1a; 1977 c.649 §10; 1981 c.617 §2a; 2007 c.319 §4;
2013 c.145 §5; 2025 c.39 §3; 2025 c.389 §3a]
Notes of Decisions
Moody v. Hurricane Creek Lumber Co., 625 P.2d 1306 (Or. 1981).
· cites it 2× “ORS 696.020 provides that a person must have a license to engage in professional real estate activity.”
Blank v. Black, 512 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “The effect of this statutory change was to raise the standard of business conduct of realtors when engaged in selling their own property to the same high standard applicable when they are functioning in transactions between private parties.”
Jolma v. Steinbock, 596 P.2d 980 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
“Finally, ORS 696.020 provided: "(1) No person shall engage in or carry on or advertise or hold himself out as engaging in or carrying on the business, or act in the capacity of, a real estate broker or a real estate salesman within this state without first obtaining a license as…”
Lane v. Floyd, 159 P.3d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 2007).
“” ORS 696.020 (1999). We infer from the record that the company was licensed as a “real estate organization” under former ORS 696.”
Sawyer v. Real Est. Agency, 342 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“ve status of the license or voluntary surrender of the license by the real estate licensee, does not deprive the commissioner of jurisdiction to: “(1) Proceed with an investigation of the licensee; “(2) Conduct disciplinary proceedings relating to the licensee', “(3) Take action…”
Ferris v. Meeker Fertilizer Co., 482 P.2d 523 (Or. 1971).
“① ORS 696.020 provides that no person shall engage in or carry on or advertise or hold himself out as engaging in or *386 carrying on the business, or act in the capacity of, a real estate broker or a real estate salesman within this state without first obtaining a license as…”
Gergen v. Bartzat, 611 P.2d 352 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Former ORS 696.020. That term was defined in former ORS 696.”
Fields v. Macnab, 688 P.2d 409 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 3× “The summary judgment in this appeal is based on ORS 696.020 and 696.710. The trial court interpreted these provisions to preclude plaintiffs use of the Oregon *157 courts to recover compensation for any real estate activity, because he was not licensed as a broker in this state.”
Smith v. Real Est. Agency, 939 P.2d 77 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 696.020(1) provides: “No person shall engage in, carry on, advertise or purport to engage in or carry on professional real estate activity, or act in the capacity of, a real estate licensee within this state without first obtaining a license as provided for in this chapter.”
MacDonald v. Dormaier, 535 P.2d 527 (Or. 1975).
· cites it 2× “ORS 696.020(2) (b). The effect of this statutory change was to raise the standard of business conduct of realtors when engaged in selling their own property to the same high standard applicable when they are functioning in transactions between private parties.”
Atwood v. Real Est. Comm'r, 775 P.2d 880 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 12× “He also does not assert here that, if ORS 696.020 does cover the contract’s performance, his failure to maintain the override account for Atka throughout the contract term was not conduct constituting “improper dealings” under ORS 696.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.020(1) — 3 cases
Smith v. Real Est. Agency, 939 P.2d 77 (Or. Ct. App. 1997).
“ORS 696.020(1) provides: “No person shall engage in, carry on, advertise or purport to engage in or carry on professional real estate activity, or act in the capacity of, a real estate licensee within this state without first obtaining a license as provided for in this chapter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.020(2) — 4 cases
Sawyer v. Real Est. Agency, 342 P.3d 104 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“ve status of the license or voluntary surrender of the license by the real estate licensee, does not deprive the commissioner of jurisdiction to: “(1) Proceed with an investigation of the licensee; “(2) Conduct disciplinary proceedings relating to the licensee', “(3) Take action…”
MacDonald v. Dormaier, 535 P.2d 527 (Or. 1975).
“ORS 696.020(2) (b). The effect of this statutory change was to raise the standard of business conduct of realtors when engaged in selling their own property to the same high standard applicable when they are functioning in transactions between private parties.”
Atwood v. Real Est. Comm'r, 775 P.2d 880 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“He also does not assert here that, if ORS 696.020 does cover the contract’s performance, his failure to maintain the override account for Atka throughout the contract term was not conduct constituting “improper dealings” under ORS 696.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.020(2)(b) — 2 cases
Blank v. Black, 512 P.2d 1016 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
“The effect of this statutory change was to raise the standard of business conduct of realtors when engaged in selling their own property to the same high standard applicable when they are functioning in transactions between private parties.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 696.020(3)(a) — 1 case
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.