02/12/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

not qualify for the developer exemption because: 1.) It does not improve the property it acquires for resale, and 2.) It does not maintain a trust account which is reportable and on file with the Department of Commerce. The trust account requirements are very strict, with the account being so identified by the financial institution, deposits being made directly into the account, separate ledgers being maintained for the account, and proper reporting being made to the Commissioner of Commerce. Minn. Stat §82.75. Minnesota law makes it clear that an unlicensed broker may not maintain any action in the courts for collection of compensation. Specifically, the statues provide as follows: "No person shall bring or maintain any action in the courts of this state for the collection of compensation for the performance of any of the acts for which a license is required under this chapter without alleging and proving that the person was a duly licensed real estate broker, salesperson, or closing agent at the time the alleges cause of action arose." Minn. Stat. §82.85, subd. 1. . The Courts have uniformly held that this statute is penal in nature and will defeat a claim for commissions if a plaintiff fails to allege and prove that he or she is licensed. Ike v. Anderson, 369 N.W. 2d. 321, 322 (Mn. App. 1985); Albers v. Fitschen, 274 Minn. 375, 143 N.W. 2d 841, 843 (1966) The Courts have uniformly been so strict on this issue that it prohibited an unlicensed broker from bringing a lawsuit to claim unjust enrichment. Relocation Realty Services Cot p. v. Carlson Companies, Inc., 264 N.W. 2d 643 (Minn 1978) To do otherwise, the Court reasoned, would "decrease the risks of doing business by unlicensed brokers and dilute the protections provided to the public." Id. In the sixties, the Minnesota Supreme Court tried to carve out an exemption in a situation where the parties were both sophisticated and where all parties knew that the broker was unlicensed. Peske v. Liberty Equities Corp, 283 Minn, 167, 167 N.W. 2d 30 (1969) After the Peske decision was rendered, the legislature amended the law to make it clear that the court can not look at the equities of the arrangement. Rather, the Courts must solely look to whether the activity was that of a licensed broker and, if so, whether the broker was licensed. Gahagan v. Patterson, 316 F. Supp. 1099 (D. Minn, 1970); Dellwood Enterprises v. Pac. Am. Real Estate Fund, 505, F. Supp 187 (1981) Absent the required license, a broker may not use the courts to enforce any compensation arrangement required such activity. The above case law makes it clear that, unless Landform is licensed as a real estate broker or is exempt from licensure, it may not file any action in court to collect on any fees relating to brokerage activity, which includes the activity involving the McDonalds Restaurants, the SuperAmerica service stations, and the Flaherty & Collins project. The statutes also provide that any person who violates any provision of the real estate code is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, Minn. Stat. §82.83. 8