Published May 2026 • Real Estate Law & Brokerage Insights

In a closely watched Pennsylvania real estate dispute, the Superior Court reinforced a fundamental rule for brokers and real estate advisors: if you expect to collect a commission, you need a compliant written agreement.

The case, McNamee Real Estate v. Haverford Properties, centered on whether a licensed real estate advisor could recover compensation after helping identify and facilitate a property acquisition without a formal signed brokerage agreement.

The Background

McNamee Real Estate Advisors, LLC claimed it helped source and advise on an investment property purchased by Haverford Properties, Inc. and related entities.

According to McNamee:

• The parties had an understanding that brokerage and advisory services would be compensated.
• Email and text exchanges allegedly confirmed the arrangement.
• McNamee expected to receive a standard brokerage commission tied to the property purchase.

When compensation was not paid, McNamee sued for:

1. Breach of contract
2. Unjust enrichment

The Pennsylvania trial court dismissed the claims, and the Superior Court affirmed that dismissal.

The Core Legal Issue

The key question was simple:

Can a licensed real estate broker recover compensation without a signed written brokerage agreement by reframing the work as “advisory” services?

The court said no.

Why the Court Rejected McNamee’s Claims

1. The Services Were Still Brokerage Services

McNamee attempted to distinguish between:

• “consulting” or “advisory” work, and
• traditional brokerage activity.

But the court looked at the actual conduct — not the label.

The complaint alleged that McNamee:

• identified investment opportunities,
• advised on the property,
• connected parties,
• acted as a buy-side broker or finder, and
• expected a percentage-based commission.

The court concluded those activities fit squarely within Pennsylvania’s definition of brokerage services under RELRA (the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act).

2. Pennsylvania Law Requires Written Agreements

The court emphasized that licensed brokers generally cannot recover commissions unless they have a written agreement satisfying statutory requirements.

McNamee acknowledged on appeal that it lacked a fully compliant written brokerage contract.

Emails and text messages were not enough to save the claim.

3. Unjust Enrichment Could Not Circumvent the Statute

McNamee also argued that even if no enforceable contract existed, Haverford was unjustly enriched by receiving the benefit of its advisory work.

The court rejected that theory because:

• the claimed “advisory” services were inseparable from brokerage activity,
• the requested payment was essentially a commission, and
• equitable claims cannot be used to bypass statutory brokerage requirements.

This was one of the most important aspects of the ruling for real estate professionals.

Practical Lessons for Real Estate Professionals

Always Use Signed Brokerage Agreements

This case is a reminder that handshake deals, informal understandings, and scattered email exchanges can create major legal risk.

If compensation is expected:

• memorialize the relationship,
• define the scope of services clearly,
• obtain signatures, and
• ensure compliance with applicable licensing laws.

“Consulting” Labels May Not Protect You

Calling services “consulting,” “advisory,” or “finder” work will not necessarily avoid brokerage regulations if the actual conduct resembles brokerage activity.

Courts will examine:

• what services were performed,
• whether a transaction was facilitated,
• whether a commission was expected, and
• whether the provider was a licensed broker.

Equity Is Not a Backup Plan

Many professionals assume unjust enrichment can rescue a weak contract claim.

This decision demonstrates that courts may refuse equitable recovery when statutes specifically regulate compensation rights in licensed industries.

Why This Case Matters

Although the decision was labeled non-precedential, it still offers a strong indication of how Pennsylvania courts view:

• brokerage compensation disputes,
• informal deal structures,
• advisory-versus-broker distinctions, and
• attempts to recover commissions without compliant agreements.

For brokers, investors, developers, and acquisition advisors, the message is straightforward:

If you want to protect your fee, document the relationship before the deal closes.

Final Takeaway

McNamee Real Estate v. Haverford Properties reinforces a longstanding principle in real estate law:

A broker cannot avoid statutory contract requirements simply by rebranding brokerage work as consulting services.

In high-value real estate transactions, documentation is not just administrative paperwork — it is often the deciding factor between getting paid and walking away empty-handed.