I Showed the House. Does That Mean I Get the Commission?

Practical information: This article provides general legal information. Advice about your circumstances requires a consultation.

“I got the call.” “I showed the house first.” “I wrote the first offer.” “I wrote the second offer—the one that actually closed.”

Real estate commission disputes often begin with someone pointing to a particular task and declaring that the commission belongs to them. The work may have been important. It may even have been essential. But a task, standing alone, does not necessarily establish a right to payment.

For Florida agents and brokers, the useful questions are what agreement governs the compensation and how the transaction came about. Who started the negotiations? Who continued them? Did the first effort end? Was someone deliberately cut out? The answers require a timeline, not a slogan.

Start with the agreement

Before arguing about procuring cause, identify who promised to pay whom and on what conditions. A seller’s listing agreement, a buyer-broker agreement, a referral agreement, a compensation agreement between brokerages, and an agent’s agreement with the employing broker address different obligations. They should not be treated as interchangeable.

Florida’s procuring-cause doctrine generally applies to brokerage agreements unless a contractual provision supersedes it. The Third District Court of Appeal explained that relationship in Real Capital Partners, LLC v. Alhambra Center International, Ltd. in 2024. The doctrine is important, but it is not permission to disregard the contract. [1]

A signed buyer-broker agreement may establish obligations between the buyer and that brokerage. It does not, by its existence alone, establish that a different brokerage promised to pay the same compensation. Read the actual promises, parties, conditions, and any termination or protection provisions.

Procuring cause examines how the sale happened

In Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., Inc., the Florida Supreme Court described two essential tasks. Ordinarily, the broker must take an affirmative step that brings buyer and seller together to begin negotiations, then remain involved in the continuing negotiations. There is an exception when buyer and seller intentionally exclude the broker. [2]

The brokers in Rotemi did more than make an introduction. Their work included initiating negotiations, communicating with the buyer’s real estate director, conveying an offer and the seller’s response, and maintaining contact as the transaction progressed. The court upheld the finding that they procured the sale. [2]

That is why “I was first” is an incomplete argument. The relevant question is how the broker’s efforts connect to the transaction for which compensation is claimed. Being present at the beginning is evidence. It is not necessarily the answer.

I showed the house first

A showing can introduce the buyer to the property, generate interest, and lead directly into negotiations. It can be a significant part of the causal chain. But a showing can also lead nowhere: the buyer rejects the property, the agent stops pursuing it, and a later effort produces a different result.

For broker-to-broker arbitration, National Association of REALTORS® (NAR’s) guidelines reject rules that predetermine entitlement. They direct the panel to examine the whole sequence of events, including the compensation agreements, rather than award the commission automatically to whoever first opened the door. [3]

Ask what followed the showing. Did the agent discuss terms, arrange further visits, pursue an offer, and stay involved? Did the buyer remain interested? Did the relationship end? The significance of the showing depends on those facts.

I wrote the first offer

Writing the first offer proves that the agent participated in an attempted transaction. The harder question is whether that effort continued into the eventual sale.

Real Capital Partners provides a useful example. A broker presented an offer that the seller rejected. The broker then stopped pursuing a sale to that buyer and promoted another buyer instead. The original buyer later returned through a different broker, and a sale closed. [1]

The appellate court affirmed judgment against the first broker. On the record before it, the broker had abandoned its efforts involving the eventual purchaser, and there was no evidence of intentional exclusion. The court’s analysis concerned the surrounding conduct, not a universal waiting period after a rejected offer. [1]

An unsuccessful first offer does not permanently reserve a commission. Equally, rejection does not automatically erase the first broker’s claim if negotiations continued and led to the sale. The question is what actually happened afterward.

I wrote the offer that closed

The final offer is important evidence, too. The second agent may have revived a genuinely dead transaction, resolved an obstacle, or conducted new negotiations that produced the agreement. Those facts deserve attention.

But preparing the successful paperwork does not automatically establish that all earlier efforts became irrelevant. If the first broker initiated and continued the negotiations, the final document must be examined in that context. Neither “first” nor “last” substitutes for the full account.

These are applications of the underlying principles, not promises about the outcome of any particular dispute. A change in price, timing, or terms can matter without necessarily creating a wholly independent transaction.

Being cut out is different from walking away

In Siegel v. Landquest, Inc., the Fifth District explained that an introduction alone ordinarily is not enough: continuing involvement matters. But the court also recognized an exception where buyer and seller intentionally exclude the broker from negotiations. [4]

Siegel did not automatically win his commission. The court vacated summary judgment because material facts were disputed, including his continuing role and whether he had been intentionally excluded. [4]

That distinction belongs in every serious discussion. A broker who voluntarily stops pursuing the transaction presents a different case from a broker who remains engaged but is deliberately bypassed. A claim of exclusion still requires supporting evidence; the fact that someone else completed the deal does not itself prove it.

An agent’s share is a separate question

There may be two disputes: whether a brokerage is entitled to compensation from another party, and how the brokerage must compensate its own agent. A procuring-cause argument about the first dispute does not necessarily answer the second.

Florida Statutes section 475.42(1)(d) restricts a sales associate’s collection of brokerage money and limits a commission action to the person registered as the associate’s employer when the relevant services were performed. An associate should not assume a personal right to sue the buyer, seller, or another brokerage for the commission. [5]

Inside the brokerage, examine the agent’s compensation agreement, applicable team arrangements, referral terms, and any provisions addressing pending transactions when an agent leaves. Who did the work matters, but so does what the broker and agent agreed.

Court litigation and REALTOR arbitration are different

Florida court decisions provide the legal foundation, but many familiar disputes between competing brokerages proceed through REALTOR association arbitration. NAR expressly distinguishes disputes between sellers and listing brokers from disputes involving listing and cooperating brokers. The principles may be similar without being identical. [3]

The relevant arbitration rules, parties, and compensation agreements must be identified. An arbitration guideline is not a statute, and a seller-broker court decision should not be presented as an automatic answer to every dispute between cooperating brokerages.

The questions worth asking

• Who is claiming payment, from whom, and under which agreement?
• What act began negotiations for this particular property?
• What happened after the first showing or offer?
• What communications connect the initial effort to the eventual sale?
• Did negotiations continue, end, or genuinely restart?
• Why did the buyer change agents or brokerages?
• Did the first broker stop working on the transaction, or was the broker intentionally excluded?
• What did the later broker do that helped produce the completed transaction?
• What do the relevant contracts, texts, emails, showing records, and offer versions establish?
• Is this a claim between brokerages, against a client, or between an agent and the employing broker?

Build the timeline before claiming the commission

A commission dispute is easier to assess when the parties organize the evidence in chronological order. Begin with the governing agreements. Then identify the introduction, showings, offers, rejections, follow-up communications, any termination, the later negotiations, and the completed transaction.

“I got the call” tells us where someone entered the story. “I showed the house” tells us one thing they did. “I wrote the offer” tells us another. None tells the whole story.

The better question is whether the governing agreement and the complete sequence of events establish the claimed right to payment. That is where a commission dispute becomes a legal analysis rather than a contest over who can repeat “my buyer” the loudest.