Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Prohibited Listings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee reviews draft to ban certain homeowner listing contracts; AARP and realtors seek tightened language
Summary
The Commerce and Consumer Affairs subcommittee reviewed an amendment targeting 'prohibited listing agreements' (homeowner listing contracts that impose lien or other problematic terms), heard AARP support, and asked for clarified statutory language and an amendment to be returned to the panel.
A subcommittee of the New Hampshire House Commerce and Consumer Affairs committee reviewed an amendment aimed at banning specific homeowner listing agreements that attach liens or other onerous terms to a residential sale listing. Mike Padmar, director of advocacy for AARP New Hampshire, told members the amendment "looks really good" and recommended a narrower definition to avoid ambiguity.
Why it matters: witnesses said older or vulnerable homeowners sometimes sign listing or service contracts that are confusing and can put title at risk. The amendment seeks to declare certain listing agreements unenforceable and to provide a mechanism to clear recorded title if a homeowner inadvertently signs such an agreement.
Key proposal and suggested edits: Padmar proposed replacing a longer existing definition with the concise phrase "prohibited listing agreements" and defining it as "a contract or agreement between a provider and an owner under which the owner agrees to list the owner's residential real estate for sale and that contains any of the terms or requirements set forth in section 2 below." He and other witnesses asked that the definition make clear the rule applies to residential listings and then point to the enumerated prohibited terms.
Court remedy and registry recording: the draft would make such agreements unenforceable and allow a homeowner to petition superior court to remove a recorded instrument from title if registries currently lack statutory authority to refuse recording. Witnesses said the provision provides a judicial remedy to clear title after a problematic instrument has been recorded.
Technical concerns from committee members: Representative Thaxton and other members raised questions about whether the conduct falls under existing real‑estate laws (net listings, licensing requirements for those executing the agreement) and whether the statute should specify maximum listing durations. Thaxton noted New Hampshire requires time‑share salespersons to have real‑estate licenses and suggested the committee consider whether these transactions should be regulated similarly.
Next steps: committee members agreed to return with an official rewrite; staff will draft amendment number 2088 incorporating the concise definition and other clarifications. The committee did not take a final vote on the substantive prohibition at this session and said it will reconvene to consider the formal amendment.
