New C.A.R. Forms for 2026: Key Updates REALTORS® Must Know (Fall & December 2025 Releases)

With another year winding down, the California Association of REALTORS® (“C.A.R.”) is releasing updates and revisions to its standard forms as well as issuing new forms for use in 2026. This article will highlight some of the important changes being made to existing forms and will also discuss some of the new forms being released. This article is organized in two sections, with the first section focusing on the forms and revisions released in December 2025 and the second section focusing on the forms and revisions that were released in September 2025. While the September forms have obviously been circulated and are available for use already, there are still some noteworthy changes worth discussing.

December 2025 Form Revisions and new Releases

Buyer Representation and Broker Compensation Agreement (“BRBC”)

A small—but critical— revision has been made to the BRBC. Paragraph 2A(1) has added language that limits the BRBC to the beginning and ending dates specified by the parties, or alternatively, limits the duration of the BRBC to 90 days from the beginning date that is specified by the parties, whichever date is sooner. Why add this language? Well, now that AB 2992 has been on the books since January 2025 (requiring written commission agreements on the buyer-side and limiting those agreements to three (3) months among other things), some real estate licensees have run into a major issue with the strict wording of the statute. Specifically, the statute says: “A buyer-broker representation agreement shall not last longer than three months from the date the agreement was made…. A buyer-broker representation agreement that is made in violation of this subdivision is void and unenforceable.” (Civ. Code, § 1670.50 [emphasis added].) The key words in the statue are void and unenforceable, meaning, the agreement is dead upon arrival.

This revision to the BRBC is specifically meant to address cases where a buyer and broker entered into an agreement where the parties unintentionally miscalculated the days and went over the three-month limit imposed by the statue. Under the previous iteration of the BRBC, if the broker proceeded to close a transaction and then sought to enforce the commission agreement, they would not be entitled to recover any of the funds, because, in exceeding the three-month limit, the BRBC was made void and unenforceable on its face. In other words, for the purposes of collecting a commission, there effectively was never agreement between the parties and the broker had no contractual grounds to recover.

This critical modification to the BRBC cures the above scenario under the statute by effectively limiting the ending date of Paragraph 2A(1) to 90 days where the parties miscalculate the duration of the agreement, voiding it at the outset.

Residential Purchase Agreement (“RPA”)

New language was added to the RPA addressing new reporting requirements for real estate transactions under rules and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Treasury’s (“Treasury’s”) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FINCen”). This language was originally part of a new addendum released in September 2025, that is has now been bundled with the RPA. The new language (located in Paragraphs 19(H)-(I)) notes escrow and title companies (and/or other collectors under the rules) will have to collect and report certain data about the buyers and sellers of real property to Treasury. The aim of the reporting requirement is to sniff out potential money laundering transactions.  The reporting requirement applies to real property transactions of one to four residential units, vacant land where the buyer intends to construct one to four residential units, or cooperative housing; where the buyer is an entity or trust; and where the buyer is making an “all-cash” purchase or financing the transaction through a bank or institution that does not have an existing money laundering reporting obligation. Please take note: while originally set to become active December 1, 2025, implementation of the rule has been postponed until March 1, 2026, to give the real estate industry time to put compliance measures in place.

In a smaller change, new disclosure language was added in Paragraph 11(E), advising buyers to obtain an inspection of the electrical systems. The new language incorporates language required by statute effective as of January 1, 2025. (Civ. Code, § 1102.6i.)

Seller Property Questionnaire (“SPQ”)

While most of the revisions to the SPQ are minor for the December 2025 release, there is one revision of substance worth noting given how widely used the SPQ is. Paragraph 17D has been modified to incorporate required disclosures concerning state and local laws regarding gas appliances and future replacements of those appliances. This requirement is new as of January 1, 2025. (Civ. Code, § 1102.6j.) This parallels the similar change to the RPA noted above concerning electrical system inspection disclosures.

September 2025 Form Revisions and New Forms

Multiple Listing Service Addendum (“MLSA”) Revisions

Addressing one of the more controversial developments in the REALTOR® world this year, the MLSA was revised to include language addressing the National Association of REALTORS® (“NAR”) guidance regarding Delayed Marketing Exposure listings which NAR released in March of 2025. This change stems from NAR’s updated guidance when it comes to its Clear Cooperation Policy (“CCP”). Under the new guidance, sellers now have the opportunity to utilize “delayed marketing strategies” when selling their property as opposed to the previous “one-day rule.” The one-day rule required listing brokers to upload a property to the MLS within one day of publicly marketing the property where it could then be mass marketed by other MLS members, syndicated, or uploaded to IDX feeds.

Here, the new language in the MLSA (which is substantial) defines and explains NAR’s CCP and explains the new options available under NAR’s guidance. Paragraph 5 details the options for marketing the property by the seller under the new guidance, i.e., which includes the Full Exposure option (akin to the original CCP) and the Delayed Marketing Limited Exposure option (which limits the ability of other MLS members to mass-market the property, syndicate it, or upload the MLS data to an IDX feed) for MLS’s that have opted to adopt the Delayed Marketing Limited Exposure option. Paragraph 5 also includes descriptions of the Coming Soon Marketing, Office Exclusive Marketing, and Day on Market options. Additionally, the last page of the agreement now includes a section with seller instructions to the broker concerning which marketing option the seller is instructing the broker to follow under the new guidance.

Notice to Pay Rent or Quit (“PRQ”); Notice to Cure: Or Perform Covenant or Quit (“PCQ”); and the Notice to Quit (“NTQ”) Forms

While each of these forms are different, they are all incorporating the same revisions that arise from a case that has potential to impact the viability of these C.A.R. forms moving forward. Further, while these forms were released in September 2025, the revisions (and underlying legal developments) merit flagging for those that use this form.

First, the concern flagged by the warning is a real one. It arises from: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 433, review denied (Oct. 1, 2025). In Eshagian, the Court of Appeals called into question the legal adequacy of the three-day notice in that case. An example of one of the deficiencies the Eshagian ruling noted (there were multiple), was that the three-day notice provided the date it was signed by the landlord, but not the date the three-day notice was served on the tenant. (Id. at 459.) Further, the Eshagian ruling typifies a bigger problem in landlord tenant law at the moment, that is, the legal standard for measuring the adequacy of a three-day notice in California is as clear as mud. Different courts, practitioners, and attorneys seem to be following different rules. As a result, the PRQ, PCQ, and NTQ now incorporate the changes discussed below.

Changes made to the forms to account for the uncertain legal landscape include a new conspicuous warning and instruction on the first page of each form. The warning cautions the user to first seek legal counsel from a qualified local landlord tenant eviction attorney before using it. This warning is being made given the muddy waters discussed above. Additionally, in light of the Eshagian court noting the deficiency of the service date in a three-day notice, the forms were also modified to clarify and make explicit that counting the three-days starts the day after service of three-day notice on the tenant.