Idaho Real Estate Broker Exam — All Questions

Under Idaho Code 54-2084(1), agency representation of a buyer or seller in Idaho arises:

• a.Orally, provided the licensee notes it in the transaction file
• b.By implication, from the way the licensee has acted
• c.Only by a separate written document the parties agree to✓
• d.Automatically, once a purchase and sale agreement is drafted

Idaho Code 54-2084(1) is categorical: "a buyer or seller is not represented by a brokerage in a regulated real estate transaction unless the buyer or seller and the brokerage agree, in a separate written document, to such representation. No type of agency representation may be assumed by a brokerage, buyer or seller or created orally or by implication." That single sentence disposes of the oral option and the implied one by name. Definition 54-2083(16) repeats it: a representation agreement "can only be made in writing, and cannot be made orally or by assumption or implication." Preparing a purchase and sale agreement creates nothing either — 54-2085(6) provides that neither the Commission brochure nor the representation confirmation creates a brokerage relationship, and 54-2089 adds that even a written agreement to pay compensation does not create one.

Idaho Code 54-2050 requires every seller representation agreement to contain:

• a.Conspicuous and definite beginning and expiration dates✓
• b.A metes-and-bounds legal description of the property
• c.The commission rate customary in the local market
• d.Notice the seller must give before canceling the listing

Idaho Code 54-2050(1)(a) requires "conspicuous and definite beginning and expiration dates" in each seller representation agreement, exclusive or not, alongside a sufficient description of the property, price and terms, all fees or commissions, and the owner's signature and its date. A metes-and-bounds description is expressly not required: 54-2050(1)(b) says nothing in the section requires a legal or metes-and-bounds description and that an agreement is not invalid for lacking one. A customary market rate is not a required element and is not a legal concept in Idaho — fees are negotiated in each engagement. And the notice-to-cancel option is not merely unnecessary but prohibited: 54-2050(3) bars any provision requiring the signing party to notify the broker of an intention to cancel after the definite expiration date, unless the agreement is completely nonexclusive and carries no financial obligation.

An Idaho brokerage represents both the buyer and the seller in the same transaction. Idaho law treats the brokerage as:

• a.A universal agent acting for both parties at once
• b.A limited dual agent, with written consent of both clients✓
• c.A nonagent that owes neither party any duty at all
• d.A subagent of the multiple listing service that published it

Idaho Code 54-2088(1) provides that "a brokerage may represent both the buyer and the seller in the same transaction only as a limited dual agent and only with the express written consent of all other clients involved in the transaction," and 54-2088(3) prescribes the exact consent language. The word limited carries the substance: under 54-2088(4)(b) a limited dual agent has no duty of undivided loyalty to either client. Universal agency means authority to act for a principal across essentially all matters, which is far broader than one transaction and impossible to hold for two opposed parties. Nonagency is a different relationship entirely, defined in 54-2083(13) and carrying the mandatory customer duties of 54-2086, so it is wrong to say no duties are owed. And a multiple listing service is a private cooperative listing platform; Idaho recognizes only the four relationships listed in 54-2084(2), and subagency is not among them.

An Idaho brokerage acting as a limited dual agent assigns separate sales associates to the buyer and the seller. Idaho Code 54-2088(2) provides that:

• a.The assignment ends the brokerage's limited dual agency
• b.The designated broker must serve as one of the assigned agents
• c.Each assigned agent becomes a limited dual agent as well
• d.The designated broker may not serve as an assigned agent✓

Idaho Code 54-2088(2) permits assigned agency at the brokerage's option and with the express written consent of the clients, and closes with a flat prohibition: "the designated broker shall not act as an assigned agent of the brokerage." Definition 54-2083(3) repeats the sentence. The reason appears in 54-2088(5)(a): the designated broker continues as limited dual agent of each client with the duty to supervise the assigned agents, to refrain from advocating for one client over another, and to refrain from disclosing another client's confidential information — a supervisory role that cannot coexist with advocating solely for one side. The assigned agents are not themselves dual agents; each represents one client solely under the duties in 54-2087. And the assignment does not end the dual agency; 54-2088(5)(b) merely blocks imputed knowledge from reaching an assigned agent.

An Idaho licensee shows homes to a buyer who has signed no representation agreement. The licensee is:

• a.A buyer's agent by default, owing the full agency duties
• b.The seller's subagent, whatever the written agreements say
• c.A limited dual agent as soon as an offer is prepared
• d.A nonagent who must still disclose adverse material facts✓

With no written agreement there is no representation under Idaho Code 54-2084(1), so the buyer is a customer under 54-2083(7) and the brokerage is a nonagent under 54-2083(13). The duties do not disappear: 54-2086(1) requires ministerial acts performed with "honesty, good faith, reasonable skill and care," proper accounting for money, and disclosure to the buyer/customer of "all adverse material facts actually known or which reasonably should have been known by the licensee," and 54-2086(3) makes those duties non-waivable. Treating the buyer as a represented client by default would impose the 54-2087 duties nobody agreed to. Subagency is not one of the four relationships in 54-2084(2). And limited dual agency requires express written consent under 54-2088(1), which writing an offer does not supply.

Under Idaho Code 54-2094, the duties a brokerage owes a represented client in Idaho are:

• a.Fiduciary in nature, and enforceable by equitable remedies
• b.Not fiduciary, unless greater duties are agreed in writing✓
• c.Identical in every respect to the common law of agency
• d.Whatever the local association's code of ethics prescribes

Idaho Code 54-2094 says the act "is intended to abrogate the common law of agency as it applies to regulated real estate transactions" and that "unless greater duties are specifically agreed to in writing between the brokerage and a represented client, the duties and obligations owed to a represented client in a regulated real estate transaction are not fiduciary in nature and are not subject to equitable remedies for breach of fiduciary duty." This is the trap for a candidate who studied national agency law: the statutory duties in 54-2087 are real and non-waivable, but they are statutory rather than fiduciary. Calling them fiduciary inverts the section. Saying Idaho simply follows the common law inverts it too, since the act was written to displace that law. And a private association's ethics code binds its members by contract; it cannot set the duties a statute defines.

An Idaho listing expires without a sale. Under Idaho Code 54-2092, the brokerage still owes the former client:

• a.A continuing duty to market the property until it sells
• b.A refund of the advertising costs the client had paid
• c.No duty of any kind, once the agreement's term has run
• d.An accounting for money received, and confidentiality✓

Idaho Code 54-2092 provides that "except as otherwise agreed in writing, a brokerage owes no further duty or obligation to a client after termination of the agreed representation except" accounting for all money and property received during the representation and maintaining the confidentiality of all confidential client information. Two duties survive, and they are named. Marketing does not survive: 54-2091(1) ends the relationship at the earliest of performance, agreement of the parties, or expiration of the agreement. No refund duty appears anywhere in the act; what the client owes or is owed is a matter of the written agreement's terms. And saying nothing survives ignores the express exceptions — indeed 54-2087(6)(a) keeps the confidentiality duty running beyond termination for as long as the information stays confidential and does not become generally known from another source.

An Idaho limited dual agent learns the seller would take less than the listing price. Without the seller's written permission, the agent may:

• a.Tell the buyer, since a dual agent represents both sides
• b.Tell the buyer, but only in answer to a direct question
• c.Not tell the buyer, even though the buyer is also a client✓
• d.Not tell the buyer, unless the buyer's offer is already higher

Idaho Code 54-2088(4)(a) lists four things a limited dual agent "shall not disclose" without the express written consent of the client to whom the information pertains: that a buyer will pay more than the listing price; that a seller will accept less than the listing price; the factors motivating either to buy or sell; and that either will agree to price or financing terms other than those offered. That the buyer is also a client is precisely the situation the subsection governs, so representing both sides is no license to disclose. Answering a direct question is no exception either — the consent form in 54-2088(3) warns both clients that the brokerage "cannot legally disclose" this category of information. The size of the buyer's offer is irrelevant to the prohibition. The clean route is the written permission the statute names.

Idaho Code 54-2085(1) requires a licensee to give a prospective buyer or seller the Commission's agency disclosure brochure:

• a.At the first substantial business contact✓
• b.Before the buyer's written offer is signed and dated
• c.Within ten days after the seller accepts an offer
• d.At closing, together with the settlement statement

Idaho Code 54-2085(1) reads: "a licensee shall give to a prospective buyer or seller at the first substantial business contact the agency disclosure brochure adopted or approved by the Idaho real estate commission," and requires each brokerage to keep a signed and dated record of receipt. The brochure exists so a consumer can choose a relationship before anything is at stake, which is why the trigger is the first substantial contact rather than any document. Signing the offer is later, and by then the consumer has negotiated without knowing whom the licensee served. Ten days after acceptance and delivery at closing are later still. Do not confuse this clock with the second one in 54-2085(3), which requires the relationship to be determined and the necessary agreements executed no later than the preparation of a purchase and sale agreement. Failure on either clock is a violation under 54-2085(5).

Idaho Code 54-2085(3) sets a second deadline. A brokerage's relationship with each party must be determined and all necessary agreements executed:

• a.No later than the first showing of the listed property
• b.Within three business days after an offer is accepted
• c.Before the listing appears in the multiple listing service
• d.No later than the preparation of a purchase and sale agreement✓

Idaho Code 54-2085(3) provides that a brokerage's relationship with a buyer or seller "as an agent, nonagent, limited dual agent, or limited dual agent with assigned agents must be determined and all necessary agreements executed no later than the preparation of a purchase and sale agreement," and that the brokerage must disclose its relationship to both buyer and seller no later than the preparation or presentation of that agreement. Idaho runs two separate clocks and the exam tests both: the brochure at first substantial business contact under 54-2085(1), and the relationship settled by the time the agreement is drafted under 54-2085(3). The first showing and the MLS publication are earlier events the statute does not use, and three business days after acceptance is later than the statute allows. The written confirmation in 54-2085(4) then rides on the agreement itself.