Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 240 — FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES AND CONTRACTS RELATING TO REAL ESTATE
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 240.10 (2026)

Real estate agency contracts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
240.10240.10 Real estate agency contracts.
240.10(1)(1) Every contract to pay a commission to a real estate agent or broker or to any other person for selling or buying real estate shall be void unless such contract or note or memorandum thereof describes that real estate; expresses the price for which the same may be sold or purchased, the commission to be paid and the period during which the agent or broker shall procure a buyer or seller; is in writing; and is subscribed by the person agreeing to pay such commission, except that a contract to pay a commission to a person for locating a type of property need not describe the property.
240.10(2)(2) Every contract to pay a commission to any real estate agent or broker or to any person for leasing real estate for a term exceeding 3 years shall be void unless such contract, note or memorandum thereof describes that real estate; expresses the rent to be paid or a method to determine the same, the length of the lease, the commission to be paid, and the period during which said person shall procure a tenant; is in writing; and is subscribed by the person agreeing to pay such commission, except that a contract to pay a commission to a person for locating a type of property need not describe the property.
240.10 HistoryHistory: 1991 a. 163.
240.10 AnnotationIf a defective commission agreement signed by a principal clearly refers to a certain transaction in which a binding lease or sales contract has previously been made, it does not defeat the purpose of sub. (1) to allow the integration of that document into the commission agreement, even though there is not a specific reference to the document itself; however, if the reference to the transaction is not clear and certain, then integration should not be allowed, even in the case of a previously existing lease or sales contract. Buckman v. E. H. Schaefer & Associates, Inc. 50 Wis. 2d 755, 185 N.W.2d 328 (1971).
240.10 AnnotationIf an otherwise sufficient written memorandum is executed after the broker has performed his or her services, the fact that it specifically states that all services have been completed and is signed by the principal should be deemed substantial compliance with the requirement that a time period be stated. Buckman v. E. H. Schaefer & Associates, Inc. 50 Wis. 2d 755, 185 N.W.2d 328 (1971).
240.10 AnnotationA valid real estate contract existed, notwithstanding the absence of a co-owner’s signature. Winston v. Minkin, 63 Wis. 2d 46, 216 N.W.2d 38.
240.10 AnnotationThis section was not applicable in a broker’s suit for a commission for negotiating a lease when oral authorization allegedly given to the broker was communicated to the broker in Wisconsin but the place of performance of the alleged contract was Tennessee. Paulson v. Shapiro, 490 F.2d 1 (1973).
240.10 AnnotationThis section barred an action in quantum meruit for services related to the sale of real estate. Farnsworth, McKoane & Co. v. North Shore Savings & Loan Association, 504 F. Supp. 673 (1981).
Down
Loading...
Loading...
× Details for
PDF view
Link (Permanent link)
Bookmark this location
 View toggle
 Go to top of document
Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Search in this agency
 Search in this chapter group
 Search in this chapter
 Search in this section
 Cross references for section
 Acts affecting this section
 References to this
 1970 Statutes Annotations
 Appellate Court Citations
 Administrative Code Index
Reference lines
 Clear highlighting
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases, 1926–2010 · leading case: Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc., 2006 WI 92 (Wis. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc., 2006 WI 92 (Wis. 2006). · cites it 12× “Wis. Stat. §§ 240.10 [6] and 452.135(1) (2003-04); Wis.”
Kersten v. H.C. Prange Co., 520 N.W.2d 99 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “5 Prange argues that including the leasing fee in Kersten's damages is contrary to § 240.10(2), Stats., because there was no written contract to pay the commission.”
Purtell v. Tehan, 139 N.W.2d 655 (Wis. 1966). · cites it 4× “The issues on this appeal are: (1) Is the allegation that “a listing contract” was entered into between Eugene Tehan and Purtell sufficient to permit such allegation to be construed as a valid real-estate broker’s agreement which contains the provisions required by sec. 240.10,…”
Farnsworth, McKoane & Co. v. North Shore Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 504 F. Supp. 673 (E.D. Wis. 1981). · cites it 3× “227 (1927), the Wisconsin Supreme court held that § 240.10 bars recovery except pursuant to a written contract for services rendered in the sale or acquisition of real estate: “ * * * [T]he rule permitting recovery on quantum meruit for services rendered under contracts void…”
Rollie Winter Agency, Inc. v. First Cent. Mortg., Inc., 248 N.W.2d 487 (Wis. 1977). · cites it 3× “If this contention is true, the cause of action must fail, and the demurrer should have been sustained because the agency has grounded its claim on the listing contract.”
Winston v. Minkin, 216 N.W.2d 38 (Wis. 1974). · cites it 3× “Whether or not the listing contract, signed by but one of the co-owners of said property, is in compliance with sec. 240.10, Stats., and enforceable. 2. Whether the plaintiff procured a buyer ready, willing and able to purchase upon the terms specified by the owner in the…”
Scheerer v. Fisher, 688 S.E.2d 472 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). “010 (West 2010); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 240.10 (1) (West 2009).”
Elbinger v. Capitol & Teutonia Co., 242 N.W. 568 (Wis. 1932). · cites it 2× “These services were not rendered pursuant to a written contract, as required by sec. 240.10, Stats., and it is conceded that an action by the brokers could not have been maintained to recover the value of the.”
Schoenfeld v. Silver Moon Springs, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 199 (E.D. Wis. 1971). · cites it 7× “This agreement was reached between affiant and defendant Langenfeld orally and was confirmed by affiant in his letter to Langenfeld on March 29, 1969.”
Otto v. Black Eagle Oil Co., 63 N.W.2d 47 (Wis. 1954). · cites it 2× “Sec. 240.10, Stats., provides: “Every contract to pay a commission to a real-estate agent or broker or to any other person for selling or buying real estate or negotiating lease therefor for a term or terms exceeding a period of three years shall be void unless such contract or…”
Krzysko v. Gaudynski, 242 N.W. 186 (Wis. 1932). “The errors of law claimed are (1) that Gaudynski’s agreement with the plaintiffs, if made, was an agreement for an interest in land and void under the statute of frauds because not in writing; and (2) that his agency agreement, if made, was void for the same reason under sec.…”
Badger III Ltd. P'ship v. Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, 539 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" 6 Badger III also asserts that the trial court erred in not concluding that the agreement to pay the commission was void under the statute of frauds, § 240.10(2), STATS., and that in refusing to hear its alternative argument that if the commission agreement was valid only some…”
Show all 43 citing cases →
— Wis. Stat. § 240.10(1) — 4 cases
Rollie Winter Agency, Inc. v. First Cent. Mortg., Inc., 248 N.W.2d 487 (Wis. 1977). “If this contention is true, the cause of action must fail, and the demurrer should have been sustained because the agency has grounded its claim on the listing contract.”
Farnsworth, McKoane & Co. v. North Shore Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 504 F. Supp. 673 (E.D. Wis. 1981). “227 (1927), the Wisconsin Supreme court held that § 240.10 bars recovery except pursuant to a written contract for services rendered in the sale or acquisition of real estate: “ * * * [T]he rule permitting recovery on quantum meruit for services rendered under contracts void…”
Schoenfeld v. Silver Moon Springs, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 199 (E.D. Wis. 1971). “This agreement was reached between affiant and defendant Langenfeld orally and was confirmed by affiant in his letter to Langenfeld on March 29, 1969.”
HUXHOLD v. Campbell, 680 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004).
— Wis. Stat. § 240.10(2) — 4 cases
Kersten v. H.C. Prange Co., 520 N.W.2d 99 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “5 Prange argues that including the leasing fee in Kersten's damages is contrary to § 240.10(2), Stats., because there was no written contract to pay the commission.”
Badger III Ltd. P'ship v. Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff, 539 N.W.2d 904 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “" 6 Badger III also asserts that the trial court erred in not concluding that the agreement to pay the commission was void under the statute of frauds, § 240.10(2), STATS., and that in refusing to hear its alternative argument that if the commission agreement was valid only some…”
Paulson v. Shapiro, 338 F. Supp. 516 (E.D. Wis. 1972).
Paulson v. Shapiro, 341 F. Supp. 440 (E.D. Wis. 1972).
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.