Connecticut Statutes

§ 20-325a — Actions to recover commissions arising out of real estate transactions. Real estate broker's lien for real property. Claim for lien. Provisions re commercial real estate transactions.

Connecticut § 20-325a
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 20Professional and Occupational Licensing, Certification, Title Protection and Registration. Examining Boards
Ch. 392Real Estate Licensees

This text of Connecticut § 20-325a (Actions to recover commissions arising out of real estate transactions. Real estate broker's lien for real property. Claim for lien. Provisions re commercial real estate transactions.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-325a (2026).

Text

(a)Except for an out-of-state real estate licensee who is an individual and seeking to recover agreed compensation authorized under subsection (e) of section 20-325 l, no person who is not licensed under the provisions of this chapter, and who was not so licensed at the time the person performed the acts or rendered the services for which recovery is sought, shall commence or bring any action in any court of this state, after October 1, 1971, to recover any commission, compensation or other payment with respect to any act done or service rendered by the person, the doing or rendering of which is prohibited under the provisions of this chapter except by persons duly licensed under this chapter.
(b)No person, licensed under the provisions of this chapter, shall commence or bring any action

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marina Management Corp. v. John D. Brewer, Jr.
572 F.2d 43 (Second Circuit, 1978)
19 case citations
Slainte Investments Ltd. Partnership v. Jeffrey
142 F. Supp. 3d 239 (D. Connecticut, 2015)
15 case citations
Sotheby's International Realty, Inc. v. Relocation Group, LLC
588 F. App'x 64 (Second Circuit, 2015)
3 case citations
Sotheby's International Realty, Inc. v. Relocation Group, LLC
987 F. Supp. 2d 157 (D. Connecticut, 2013)
1 case citations
Lyman v. Anteon Corp., No. 561134 (Feb. 26, 2003)
2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 2689 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2003)
Century 21 A. Francia v. Violette, No. Cv94-0536821-S (Apr. 4, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 3967 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Godbout v. N.J. Real Estate, Inc., No. Pjr Cv-95-0552369 (Jan. 29, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1046 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Classic Realty of New Haven, LLC v. Lewin, No. 434562 (May 16, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 5882 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Sterling Path v. Pitt Real Estate Ltd., No. Cv 960333682s (Sep. 26, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5588 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
The Doyle Group v. Brickyard Bus. Center, No. Cv94 0540639 (Mar. 14, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2768 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
William T. Beazley Co. v. Business Park Assoc., No. 523977 (May 26, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 5314-a (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)
Munzer v. Sms Associates, No. 105833 (Jan. 17, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 383 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Thomas v. Doherty, No. Cv97-0080958 (May 6, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 5500 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Jackson v. Vaill, No. Cv 95 0068694 (Nov. 26, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9736 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Founders 14 v. C.B. Richard ellis-n.E., No. Cv 02 821207 (Mar. 12, 2003)
2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 3044 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2003)
Century 21 v. Angotti, No. Cv 97 0570013 S (Sep. 5, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 9360 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Dow Condon v. Brookfield Development, No. Cv-00-0596719s (Feb. 4, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 1432 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Select Sites v. Nuzzo, No. Cv 02 0462741 S (Jan. 10, 2003)
2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 156 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2003)
Kavanagh Fritz v. Chase Family Ltd. Part., No. Cv96 0565076 (Jun. 2, 1999)
1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 7297 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1999)

Legislative History

(1971, P.A. 378, S. 1–3; 1972, P.A. 175; P.A. 73-29; P.A. 84-137; P.A. 85-166, S. 1, 2; P.A. 93-355, S. 1; P.A. 94-240, S. 3, 14; P.A. 95-164; 95-186, S. 1; P.A. 00-21, S. 1; 00-99, S. 58, 154; 00-160, S. 2; P.A. 02-24, S. 12, 13; P.A. 04-131, S. 1; P.A. 23-84, S. 27.) History: 1972 act deleted word “such” in Subsec. (b) modifying “person”, “action” and “acts”; P.A. 73-29 made Subsec. (b) applicable to persons “licensed under the provisions of this chapter” and added phrase “as set forth in subsection (a)”; P.A. 84-137 amended Subsec. (b) to require that the authorization or contract be signed by the seller or his duly authorized agent and the broker or his authorized agent rather than by the “parties thereto”; P.A. 85-166 amended Subsec. (b) to require that the contract or authorization be signed by the owner, rather than the seller, and clarified the scope of authority of any agent permitted to act on his behalf; P.A. 93-355 added provisions re real estate broker's liens on commercial real property as Subsec. (b)(6) and Subsecs. (c) to (n), inclusive, and Subsec. (p), relettering former Subsec. (c) as (o); P.A. 94-240 amended Subsec. (b) by requiring that contract be signed by the real estate broker or the broker's authorized agent, added a new Subsec. (b)(6) requiring a lien rights statement to be included in a commercial real property contract or authorization and (b)(7) requiring the listing contract for the sale of real estate be signed by the owner of the property or an agent authorized to act on his behalf, inserted new Subsec. (c) regarding the recovery of commission, compensation or other payment with respect to acts done or services rendered if the broker has substantially complied, relettered the remaining Subsecs., redefined “commercial real property” in Subsec. (d), added a provision in Subsec. (i) regarding the service of a claim for lien and made minor changes for clarity, effective July 1, 1994; P.A. 95-164 amended Subsec. (b)(7) to eliminate the requirement that the listing contract for the sale of real estate be signed by the owner of the property or an agent authorized to act on his behalf and substituted a provision requiring a signature by the person or persons for whom the acts were done or services rendered, except in the sale of land intended for residential use, in which case the owner of the real estate or an authorized agent is required to sign the contract; P.A. 95-186 amended Subsec. (b) by changing the applicable date from July 1, 1994, to October 1, 1995, deleted references to “commercial real property” and substitute “any real property” in Subsecs. (b), (d) to (k), inclusive, (o) and (q), in Subsec. (d) deleted definition of “commercial real property” and in Subsec. (h) made a technical correction by changing the reference to “(8)” to “(q)”; P.A. 00-21 amended Subsecs. (a), (b) and (c) by substituting “the person” for “him” and “he” and substituting “with respect to” for “in respect of”; P.A. 00-99 replaced references to sheriff with state marshal in former Subsecs. (i), (m) and (q), redesignated as Subsecs. (j), (n) and (r), effective December 1, 2000; P.A. 00-160 deleted reference to Sec. 20-325a(d) in Subsec. (b), inserted new Subsec. (c) re commercial real estate transactions, redesignated former Subsecs. (c) to (q), inclusive, as Subsecs. (d) to (r), respectively, amended Subsec. (d) to insert proviso re inequity of denying recovery and provisions re substantial compliance with certain provisions of section with respect to commercial real estate transaction, substituted “owner or buyer” for “owner” in Subsec. (e), amended Subsec. (f) to substitute “written listing or buyer representation contract” for “written contract”, amended Subsec. (r) to require written notice after the later of the conveyance date set forth in the contract or lease or the actual date of conveyance or date when the tenant takes possession, and substituted “with respect to” for “in respect of” in Subsecs. (a), (b) and (d) and made other technical changes throughout the section; P.A. 02-24 amended Subsec. (b)(7) to provide that the listing contract be signed for acts or services that involve a listing contract, and made technical changes in Subsecs. (c) and (r); P.A. 04-131 amended Subsec. (g) to delete “from the owner of real property” re broker entitled to compensation and referenced the lessor or lessee re moneys still owed, amended Subsec. (h) to add “where the broker's compensation will not be paid in installments”, amended Subsec. (k) to add Subdiv. designators (1) to (4), inclusive, and amended Subdiv. (3) to add “real property” re purchase and substitute “six months after the conveyance or lease” for “this time”, amended Subsec. (l) to allow claim for lien to be signed by real estate broker's authorized agent, inserted Subdiv. designators (1) and (2) in Subsec. (q), amended Subsec. (r) to insert Subdiv. designators (1) and (2), insert in Subdiv. (2) an exception if broker is unable to give written notice because identity cannot be ascertained after due diligence and reasonable effort, make conforming changes and substitute “prospective buyer” for “buyer”, and made technical changes in Subsecs. (e), (i), (k), (n), (p), (q), and (r); P.A. 23-84 amended Subsec. (a) by adding exception re individual out-of-state real estate licensee seeking to recover agreed compensation authorized under Sec. 20-325 l (e), effective April 1, 2024. Section pertains only to listing contracts and not to the sales contract. 186 C. 82. Plaintiff's cause of action arose out of his employment contract with defendant and was not an action seeking to recover a commission from a real estate transaction. 190 C. 808. Cited. 191 C. 276; 203 C. 475; 213 C. 612; 218 C. 512; 232 C. 645; 236 C. 746. Although plaintiff, a corporate broker licensee, was not duly licensed as a real estate broker because its president was not licensed as a real estate broker, trial court improperly granted summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff's license was automatically void, which alone was insufficient to deprive plaintiff of its right to recover a commission; trial court failed to consider language and legislative history of former Subsec. (c), which permits licensee who is not duly licensed to recover if, in light of all facts and circumstances of the case, it would be inequitable to deny the right to recover commission that was otherwise earned. 273 C. 766. Section eliminates a separate equitable recovery under common law theory of unjust enrichment; substantial compliance requirement in Subsec. (d) is sole avenue to recovery that legislature chose to provide in circumstances wherein strict construction of section would lead to unfair results of unjust enrichment. 287 C. 706. Cited. 6 CA 720; 7 CA 709; 9 CA 293. Agreement between brokers is not subject to requirements of statute. 11 CA 557. Cited. 13 CA 527; 17 CA 294; 24 CA 250; 25 CA 51; 28 CA 563; 31 CA 682; 35 CA 31; 36 CA 653. Requirements of statute mandatory except where equitable estoppel applies and real estate broker believed the contract was validly extended. 50 CA 640. Trial court's determination that plaintiff had not established the statutorily required inequity in denying recovery of commission was not clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion. 69 CA 220. Electronic mail correspondence that identified obligation to compensate realtor for services and contained names of both real estate broker and person for whom services were rendered and that was signed by such person complied with requirements of section. 133 CA 445. Listing agreements in which parties are bound to a time period that can be calculated only by reference to an uncertain future event is of an indefinite duration and does not comply with provisions of section and is contrary to public policy and custom in the commercial real estate industry. 205 CA 299. Section acts as a restriction on the conduct of an occupation which, were it not for statute, would be allowed, and must be strictly construed. 35 CS 220. Cited. 38 CS 509; 41 CS 225. Subsec. (a): Cited. 215 C. 316; 218 C. 396. Although section sets forth a necessary condition for filing action to recover a commission, namely, that person filing action be licensed under chapter's provisions, compliance with that condition is not, in and of itself, sufficient to permit recovery. 266 C. 572. Cited. 3 CA 675; 5 CA 76. Subsec. (b): Cited. 178 C. 381; 184 C. 228; 185 C. 463; 186 C. 74. Requirements of section apply to listing contract, not sales contract. Id., 237. Cited. 189 C. 52. Requirements of statute concerning actions to recover real estate commissions are not applicable to action by real estate salesman seeking a share of commissions from his employer. 190 C. 808. Cited. 197 C. 264; 213 C. 612. “Owner” as used in Subsec. refers to owner of the property interest that is the subject of the listing agreement. 232 C. 645. Requirement that the agent signatory to a listing agreement be authorized by written document to act on behalf of the owner applies where owner may act individually or through an agent and chooses to act through an agent. 258 C. 121. Cited. 7 CA 120; 8 CA 371; 9 CA 87. Subdiv. (4): Location and price of units not necessary in order to state “conditioning of such contract or authorization” in this instance where owner reserved right to determine price and specific unit. Id., 293. Cited. 23 CA 688. Listing agreement was unenforceable because it was not in strict compliance with statute and did not reflect any authorization for general partners to sign as agents authorized to act on behalf of the owner; statute, as amended by P.A. 94-240 which permits recovery of commissions in cases of substantial compliance with statute, applies prospectively only because there is no clear and unequivocal language in act or legislative history that supports an inference in favor of retrospective application. 56 CA 815. Where listing agreement was mistakenly filled in but was nevertheless signed by the authorized agent of the broker, held that agreement complied with section. 75 CA 546. Subdiv. (7): Although decedent had not signed the listing agreement, by application of exception set forth in Subsec. (d), plaintiff was not precluded from recovering real estate commission. 124 CA 752. Legislature did not intend to require the lien notice set forth in Subdiv. (6) to be capitalized in contract. 162 CA 840. Separate documents, rather than a single contract, may collectively meet statutory requirements of Subsec. 35 CS 24. Cited. Id., 220. Action by broker to recover commission prohibited due to failure to comply with requirement that addresses of all parties be contained in contract. Id., 617. Merely obtaining a binding executory contract is insufficient to entitle broker to a commission where the commission was expressly made dependent upon the actual sale of the property; broker was not entitled to a commission where the listing agreement made the commission conditional upon the actual consummation of the sales transaction and the sale never took place. 36 CS 532. Cited. 37 CS 703; 38 CS 703. Legislature in enacting statute made no distinction between straight real estate sales and those integrated with commercial transactions. 39 CS 95. Subsec. (c): Subdiv. (2): Brokerage agreement that expired ten years from date of first sale or lease of unit satisfied statutory requirement that duration of agreement be specified despite lack of firm expiration date. 346 C. 391. Subsec. (d): Substantial compliance allowance under Subsec. contemplates written agreements only. 287 C. 706. On basis of Subsec., it would be inequitable to deny plaintiff recovery on basis of mistaken name of the partnership in an exclusive agreement with respect to commercial real property. 88 CA 445.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 20-325a, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/20-325a.