Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
56 comments 
STJ Rules That Real Estate Agents Are Entitled to Commission Even if the Client Withdraws, Reinforcing the Security of the Category and Raising an Alert in the Sector.
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has consolidated an understanding that promises to generate significant repercussions in the real estate market: real estate agents are entitled to commission even if the client withdraws from the deal. The decision, which has been followed in different courts across the country, establishes that once the so-called “useful result” of the mediation is achieved, the professional is entitled to compensation, even if the sale is not completed due to factors unrelated to their actions.
This understanding reinforces legal protection for the category, composed of more than 400,000 professionals registered with the Federal Council of Real Estate Agents (Cofeci), while also generating an alert for buyers and sellers, who will need to be clearer when signing brokerage contracts.
What Does “Useful Result” Mean in Real Estate Brokerage?
According to the STJ’s interpretation, the broker fulfills their obligation by bringing the parties together and enabling the closing of the deal. In other words, it is not necessary for the deed to be executed or for the keys to be handed over for the right to commission to arise.
-
The noise law will no longer be in effect at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
The Chamber opens a debate on driver’s licenses at 16 years old as part of a reform that includes around 270 proposals to change the Brazilian Traffic Code and may redesign rules for licensing, enforcement, and circulation in the country.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
The so-called “useful result” is achieved when the professional presents an interested buyer, facilitates visits, promotes negotiations, and creates the conditions for closing. If, after this process, the withdrawal comes from the client or the seller for reasons unrelated to the broker’s actions, the commission must be paid in full.
This concept seeks to prevent the broker, who invested time, effort, and resources in prospecting and mediation, from being harmed by unilateral decisions to withdraw.
Unjustified Refusal and the Right to Compensation
In practice, this means that a buyer who backs out at the last moment, even after signaling agreement with the price, conditions, and contract, cannot simply claim withdrawal to avoid paying the commission.
Similarly, a seller who removes the property from the market or decides to sell it to someone else after all the mediation cannot evade compensating the broker.
The STJ has emphasized that the withdrawal “strange” to the broker’s activity does not eliminate the right to commission. What can exclude payment is the proof that the broker failed in their basic duties, such as providing correct information, checking documentation, or acting diligently.
Brokerage Contract: Key Element to Avoid Conflicts
Although the jurisprudence protects the broker, experts highlight that the brokerage contract is essential to prevent litigation. It should contain:
- Commission percentage (usually between 5% and 6% of the property’s value).
- Situations in which the commission will be due.
- Validity period of the mediation.
- Rules in case of withdrawal by the buyer or seller.
A clear contract strengthens the broker’s position and provides greater security to the parties, avoiding prolonged legal disputes.
Impacts on the Real Estate Market
The STJ’s decision reinforces an aspect often overlooked: the broker’s work is not merely “selling a property,” but building a bridge between interests, resolving impasses, and making the deal possible.
For the category, this jurisprudence brings relief and recognition, as insecurity regarding commission receipt was one of the largest complaints among professionals.
For buyers and sellers, the decision raises a red flag: last-minute withdrawals can generate additional costs, even without the completion of the sale. This may lead to a behavioral change in the market, with increased caution before formalizing offers and negotiations.
Criticism and Points of Controversy
Despite the legal backing, the decision is not without criticism. Some argue that the commission should only be paid after the complete conclusion of the deal, as this is when the economic result materializes for the parties.
Another controversial point is the possibility of abusive charges, in cases where mediation has not progressed significantly, but the broker attempts to claim “useful result” even without a concrete negotiation.
Therefore, courts emphasize that each case should be analyzed individually, considering documents, contracts, and evidence of the broker’s actions.
Future of the Profession and Strengthening of the Category
The consolidation of this legal understanding strengthens the position of brokers in a highly competitive market. More than a corporate victory, it is a milestone for the recognition of the professional activity, which has long fought against practices of devaluation and commission defaults.
With greater legal security, brokers can invest in sales strategies, advertising, and prospecting with the confidence that their work will be compensated, regardless of sudden withdrawals.
Protection of Brokerage and Alert to the Market
The court’s decision confirming the right to commission even in case of client withdrawal is a watershed moment for the real estate sector. It recognizes the importance of the broker’s work and closes a loophole that has weakened the profession for years.
For buyers and sellers, the message is clear: initiating a deal is a commitment made, and withdrawal can have financial consequences.
The future of the Brazilian real estate market is likely to be more professionalized and transparent, but also more rigorous. The broker, previously seen merely as an intermediary, now gains legal support as an indispensable part of the mechanism that moves billions of reais in properties every year.
O corretor será visto como parte indispensável do negócio? Tem certeza disso? Muito pelo contrário. Agora e que aumentarão as placas com “direto combo proprietário” e, naturalmente os arranjos a respeito de declarações de valor a menor também. Observem os imóveis que até agora possuíam 2, 3 ou mais placas de imobiliárias cada um. Isso refletia no atendimento à urgência do vendedor e na opção de escolha do comprador. Daqui pra frente o vendedor vira refém do corretor ou opta pela liberdade, ainda que dê mais trabalho, necessidade de dedicar tempo e esforço em aprender e resolver por si só; é disso que se trata. Num País onde a mentalidade está presa à “reserva de mercado”, decisões desse tipo são tiros no pé e o resultado prático passará longe do pretendido. Para quem acha que é exagero de minha parte, lembro aqui do que ocorreu com os despachantes junto ao Detran. Outrora uma categoria representativa. Até que a corrupção e o acesso aos meios digitais de processos e documentação a levou praticamente à extinção. Legislações protecionistas têm esse mesmo efeito: se não agregam valor para quem são os mais importantes na relação de compra e venda, que são compradores e vendedores e se tenta dar ao auxiliar o protagonismo exagerado que ele não tem, é óbvio que serão contornadas pelos 2 primeiros atores. Simples assim.
Comprador desistir e lei. De acordo. Cdc. E aí ? E melhor. Não usar. Corretor de imóveis pra nada. !esse caso. Vendedor e comprador sem. Sangue suga. De corretor
Não quer comprar ou vender o imóvel? É simples, não assine o contrato..
Depois que assinou o contrato, não havendo nenhum impedimento, se quiser desistir do negócio é mais do que justo que seja paga a comissão…
Foi investimento financeiro e de tempo eu corretor que fez o seu trabalho, atendeu as necessidades das partes, e deve ser remunerado por isso.
Quem tem responsabilidade e respeito pelas pessoas envolvidas, nao terá problemas em relação a isso!
E tem a multa também a ser paga para a parte prejudicada, que parou de receber visitas ou procurar imóvel entendendo que já havia chego a um acordo..
Ou seja, a decisão só reforça o óbvio.. e quem está se doendo são justamente pessoas que não cumprem os compromissos firmados.