Modifies a provision relating to brokerage services
HB 596 revises Missouri’s real estate brokerage laws by repealing and reenacting sections 339.150 and 339.780. The bill updates who a broker may employ or pay for brokerage-related services, including rules for out-of-state brokerage participants in commercial and other transactions, and it clarifies when compensation may be paid to licensed persons, brokers, or certain out-of-state brokerage professionals. It also preserves a civil remedy for unpaid services performed with a broker’s knowledge when the worker was not properly licensed, allowing recovery of the reasonable value of those services.
The bill further authorizes brokers to pay compensation directly to certain business entities owned by licensees, such as corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and similar entities, so long as ownership and association requirements are met. In addition, it revises brokerage-agreement requirements in section 339.780, specifying when designated brokers must enter written agreements for seller, landlord, buyer, tenant, limited agency, single agency, dual agency, subagency, and transaction brokerage relationships, and it requires exclusive brokerage agreements to list minimum services that must be provided. The bill also confirms that parties may contract for additional duties beyond the statutory minimums.
HB 596 changes the statutory framework governing real estate brokerage compensation, agency relationships, and written brokerage agreements in Missouri. It affects licensed brokers, salespersons, designated brokers, affiliated licensees, out-of-state brokerage firms involved in Missouri transactions, and business entities formed to receive licensee compensation. The bill also preserves enforcement and disciplinary authority under existing law while clarifying the conditions under which brokerage services may be performed and paid for.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House overwhelmingly, passed the Senate unanimously, and then cleared the House again with very large margins after Senate amendments. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or clarifying update to brokerage law rather than a controversial policy change.
No committee testimony or floor debate was provided, and the recorded votes show minimal dissent. The main substantive issues likely concern how far Missouri should allow compensation to flow to out-of-state brokerage participants and to licensee-owned business entities, as well as the exact scope of mandatory written agreements and minimum brokerage services. Any concern would most likely come from real estate industry participants focused on compliance, licensing boundaries, and compensation structures, but the available record does not show organized opposition.