§ 82.33

Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Douglas v. Schuette · 2000 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Krogness v. Best Buy Co., Inc. · 1994 8 citations

Best Buy moved for summary judgment and argued that Krogness was not entitled to a commission because he did not directly submit the buyer to Best Buy as the listing agreement required and the sale closed after the listing agreement and the override period expired. Best Buy also argued that the existence of the express listing agreement and the written agreement requirement in Minn. Stat. § 82.33, subd. 2 (Supp.1993) barred recovery under an unjust enrichment or implied contract theory.

Best Buy moved for summary judgment and argued that Krogness was not entitled to a commission because he did not directly submit the buyer to Best Buy as the listing agreement required and the sale closed after the listing agreement and the override period expired. Best Buy also argued that the existence of the express listing agreement and the written agreement requirement in Minn. Stat. § 82.33, subd. 2 (Supp.1993) barred recovery under an unjust enrichment or implied contract theory.

Best Buy moved for summary judgment and argued that Krogness was not entitled to a commission because he did not directly submit the buyer to Best Buy as the listing agreement required and the sale closed after the listing agreement and the override period expired. Best Buy also argued that the existence of the express listing agreement and the written agreement requirement in Minn. Stat. § 82.33, subd. 2 (Supp.1993) barred recovery under an unjust enrichment or implied contract theory.

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Poser v. Abel · 1994 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

Rediske v. Johnson · 1987 13 citations

+ 13 more citations in this opinion.

Lynn Beechler Realty Co. v. Warnygora · 1986 2 citations

To recover a commission from respondents for the sale of their home, appellant must show that a valid listing agreement was in effect at the time. Minn. Stat. § 82.33, subd. 2 (1982). See also Minnesota Rules 2800.3800, subp. 2 (1983). The lack of written contract is a bar to an action brought by a broker. PMH Properties v. Nichols, 263 N.W.2d 799, 802 n. 3 (Minn.1978).

To recover a commission from respondents for the sale of their home, appellant must show that a valid listing agreement was in effect at the time. Minn. Stat. § 82.33, subd. 2 (1982). See also Minnesota Rules 2800.3800, subp. 2 (1983). The lack of written contract is a bar to an action brought by a broker. PMH Properties v. Nichols, 263 N.W.2d 799, 802 n. 3 (Minn.1978).

Teachout v. Wilson · 1985 1 citation

3. A real estate broker may not bring an action to recover a commission for the sale of real property “unless such property was first listed in writing for sale ⅜ * * with the person bringing or maintaining the action.” Minn. Stat. § 82.33, subd. 2 (1980).

Ike v. Anderson · 1985 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

R.M. Parranto Co. v. Bernick · 1984 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

Raddatz v. Northland Development Co. of Minneapolis · 1984 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Ass'n v. Sween Corp. · 1996 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

North Star Hotels Corp. v. Mid-City Hotel Associates · 1988 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

DELLWOOD ENTERPRISES v. Pac. Am. Real Estate Fund · 1981 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.