Massachusetts Real Estate Broker Exam — All Questions

A Massachusetts broker mails flyers telling homeowners that values are about to fall because families of another race are moving into the neighborhood. Under the license law this is:

• a.Prohibited solicitation carrying a fine of one thousand to twenty-five hundred dollars✓
• b.Permitted market commentary, provided the broker can document the recent price trend
• c.A matter for the Commission Against Discrimination alone, and not for the Board of Registration
• d.Permitted where the flyer names no individual homeowner and no specific street

M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA(k) makes it a ground for discipline to solicit the sale or listing of residential property on the ground of an alleged change of value due to the entry into the neighborhood of persons of another race, economic level, religion, or ethnic origin, or to distribute material designed to induce an owner to sell for that reason. The section then adds its own criminal penalty of not less than one thousand nor more than twenty-five hundred dollars, imprisonment of up to six months, or both. Documenting a price trend is beside the point, because the offense is the racial predicate rather than the accuracy of the forecast. The Board has its own jurisdiction independent of the Commission. And the prohibition covers distributed material generally, so omitting names and streets does not save it.

A Massachusetts salesperson wants to take a referral payment directly from a cooperating brokerage. May she?

• a.Yes, the payment is allowed once she has told her own broker of the amount
• b.Yes, direct payment between two licensed firms is expressly permitted here
• c.No, a salesperson may take pay for licensed acts only from her own broker✓
• d.No, unless she happens to be affiliated with both brokers at the same time

M.G.L. c.112 s.87RR says no salesperson shall be entitled to any fee, commission, or other valuable consideration, or solicit or accept the same, from any person except his licensed broker, and s.87VV repeats the prohibition from the other direction. Disclosure does not cure it, because the statute bars accepting the money rather than concealing it. The idea that firm-to-firm payment is allowed confuses the cooperating brokers, who may of course split a fee between themselves, with the individual salesperson, who is paid through her own broker. And the last choice describes something else the same statutes forbid outright: s.87RR provides that no salesperson shall be affiliated with more than one broker at the same time.

A Massachusetts salesperson breaks a rule the license law lays down. What is the supervising broker's exposure?

• a.The broker is exposed only where he personally directed the salesperson's act
• b.The broker is responsible together with the salesperson for that violation✓
• c.The broker is exposed only if the salesperson is an employee and not a contractor
• d.The broker has no exposure once he certifies the salesperson's training records

M.G.L. c.112 s.87RR provides that the salesperson shall be under such supervision of the broker as to ensure compliance with the section, and that the broker 'shall be responsible with the salesman' for any violation of s.87AAA committed by the salesperson. Joint responsibility is the point, so limiting it to acts the broker personally directed would read the supervisory duty out of the statute. Employment form makes no difference either: the same sentence says a salesperson may be affiliated as an employee or as an independent contractor and may be paid on a commission-only basis, and still places him under the broker's supervision. Certifying training is not a defense the section recognizes, and no such certification appears in it.

An unlicensed person brokers a Massachusetts sale and then sues the seller for the commission he was promised. What is the outcome?

• a.The suit fails, because only a licensed broker can recover for such services✓
• b.The suit succeeds if he applies for a license before judgment is entered
• c.The suit succeeds, because the seller's written promise is a binding contract
• d.The suit fails, but the Board can order the seller to pay a reasonable fee

M.G.L. c.112 s.87RR closes with a bar on recovery: no person shall recover in any suit in the courts of the commonwealth for compensation for services as a broker performed within the commonwealth unless he was a duly licensed broker at the time such services were performed. That timing is what defeats the second and third answers. The promise may be perfectly clear and still unenforceable, because the statute withholds the remedy rather than questioning the agreement, and a license obtained later cannot reach back to the moment the services were rendered. The Board has no power to order payment in any event; its jurisdiction under s.87AAA and s.87BBB runs to licenses, not to contract claims between private parties.

When does Massachusetts law treat a buyer as conclusively having consented to a designated agency relationship?

• a.When the buyer signs the disclosure no later than the offer or the sale agreement✓
• b.When the buyer signs the disclosure at any time before the closing on the property takes place
• c.When the buyer is told orally of designated agency at the first personal meeting
• d.When the listing broker files a copy of the signed disclosure with the Board

M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA3/4(d) creates a conclusive presumption of consent where the party has signed a disclosure form substantially containing the descriptions in the section 'no later than the date that the buyer makes or submits an offer to purchase the property or that a purchase and sale agreement is executed, whichever is first.' The deadline is the earlier of those two events, so a signature obtained any time before closing comes too late to earn the presumption. An oral conversation cannot trigger a presumption the statute ties to a signed form, though the same subsection does excuse written notice to open-house visitors provided the relationship is conspicuously disclosed. And nothing in the section calls for filing anything with the Board.

A Massachusetts broker listing a property quietly buys it himself through a trust he controls, telling the seller nothing. Which ground for discipline fits?

• a.Failing to give the buyer and the seller a copy of the purchase and sale agreement
• b.Accepting a net listing letting him keep any surplus over a stated sale price
• c.Commingling money belonging to his principal with money of his own
• d.Acting as broker and undisclosed principal in the very same transaction✓

M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA(b) names exactly this: acting in the dual capacity of broker and undisclosed principal in the same transaction. The vice is that the broker sits on both sides while the seller believes she has an agent working only for her. The other three choices are also grounds under the same section, which is what makes them tempting, but none describes what happened. One of them concerns the delivery of transaction paperwork, a failure of administration rather than of loyalty. Another concerns a form of listing in which the broker's pay is tied to whatever the price exceeds a set figure, and nothing of that kind is described here. The third concerns the handling of a principal's money, which is not what went wrong when the broker turned out to be the buyer.

Since August 1, 2025, who pays a Massachusetts rental broker's fee?

• a.Always the tenant, as the party who will actually occupy the rental unit
• b.Whichever party the broker names in the advertisement for the rental unit
• c.Only the landlord or tenant who engaged the broker under a contract✓
• d.Both parties in equal shares, unless the lease says otherwise

M.G.L. c.112 s.87DDD1/2, as amended by St.2025 c.9 s.43 effective August 1, 2025, now says a licensee may solely contract with a prospective tenant to find rental property, or solely contract with a landlord to find a tenant, and that 'any fee shall only be paid by the party, lessor or tenant who originally engaged and entered into a contract with the licensed broker or salesperson.' Charging the tenant by default is the practice the amendment was passed to end. The advertisement cannot decide it either, since the statute keys the fee to the contract rather than to what the broker publishes. And splitting it between both sides contradicts the word solely, which contemplates one engaging party.

A Massachusetts licensee may act as a dual agent in a residential sale only where:

• a.The broker charges a single commission and divides it evenly between both parties
• b.Neither party objects once the arrangement is announced to them at the closing table
• c.Both the buyer and the seller give informed written consent on the Board's form✓
• d.The buyer and the seller each have a lawyer throughout the transaction

M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA3/4(b) permits a licensee to represent both prospective purchasers and sellers 'only with the informed written consent' of both, obtained in the form prescribed by the Board and signed and dated. Three things are doing work there: consent, in writing, on the Board's form. How the commission is set or divided has nothing to do with it, since the conflict lies in the representation rather than in the money. Silence is not consent, and by the closing the transaction is over, so an unopposed announcement then would come far too late. Counsel on both sides is good practice and no substitute for the statutory form; the section makes no allowance for represented parties.

Beyond the initial written consent, what further step does the Massachusetts dual agency statute require?

• a.Notice of the dual agency once the listed property is first shown✓
• b.Written notice to every visitor who attends an open house at the property
• c.A fresh written consent each time the parties exchange a counteroffer
• d.Approval of the arrangement by the Board before the sale agreement signs

M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA3/4(b) allows consent to be taken when the agency relationship is created, but adds that 'notice of a dual agency relationship shall also be given to the prospective purchaser and to the seller after a listed property is first shown to the purchaser.' The reason is practical: consent given in the abstract is easy to forget by the time a real property and a real conflict appear. Nothing in the section repeats the exercise at each counteroffer. The open-house answer states the opposite of the statute, which expressly does not require written notice to every visitor so long as the relationship is conspicuously disclosed. And the Board prescribes the consent form but does not approve individual transactions.

A Massachusetts broker appoints designated agents for the buyer and for the seller in the same deal. What follows?

• a.The broker becomes a facilitator and owes neither party any agency duty
• b.The broker is presumed a dual agent who exclusively represents neither party✓
• c.What the buyer's agent learns is imputed to the seller's designated agent
• d.The appointing broker is released from liability for a designated agent's breach

M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA3/4(c) says that when a broker has appointed designated agents for both a buyer and a seller, the broker 'shall be presumed to be a dual agent, who does not exclusively represent either the buyer or seller.' The presumption follows from the fact that the firm now stands on both sides of the same deal. A facilitator under subsection (f) is someone who represents nobody, which is not what a broker who has appointed agents for both sides has done. The imputation answer inverts the statute, which provides that information known to a designated agent is not imputed to the appointing broker or to other affiliated licensees. And the same subsection says appointment does not limit the appointing broker's liability.

A Massachusetts listing broker wants to offer subagency to another firm. What has to happen first?

• a.The seller must be told about vicarious liability and must consent in writing✓
• b.The Board of Registration must register the arrangement before it can take effect
• c.The buyer must waive in writing any claim arising out of the subagent's conduct
• d.The subagent firm must carry errors and omissions cover in the seller's name

M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA3/4(e) provides that no licensee shall enter into or offer a subagency agreement to another licensee when marketing a property for sale without informing the seller about vicarious liability and obtaining the seller's written consent. The disclosure is specific: the seller is being told that she may answer for the conduct of a firm she never hired. Registration with the Board appears nowhere in the section, which places the duty on the listing broker and the remedy in the seller's hands. The buyer is not the party at risk of vicarious liability and so is not the one whose waiver the statute wants. And no insurance requirement of any kind is imposed here.

Which failure is named in the Massachusetts license law itself as a ground to suspend or revoke?

• a.Failing to give the buyer and the seller a copy of the sale agreement✓
• b.Failing to record the executed sale agreement at the county registry of deeds
• c.Failing to keep the signed offer to purchase on file for six full years
• d.Failing to send the Board a copy of every listing agreement that is signed

M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA(i) lists, among the findings that let the Board suspend, revoke, or refuse to renew, that the licensee 'failed to give to both the buyer and seller a copy of the purchase and sale agreement.' The rule is simple and easy to breach in a busy office, which is presumably why it earned its own clause. Purchase and sale agreements are not recorded in the ordinary course; the deed is what reaches the registry, so the first alternative describes something that does not happen. The retention period offered is not one this section sets. And there is no statutory duty to copy the Board on listing agreements, which the Board sees only if it calls for records in an investigation.

A Massachusetts broker is holding a buyer's deposit. Which conduct is a statutory ground to suspend or revoke his license?

• a.Placing the deposit in a bank outside the town where the property sits
• b.Holding the deposit until closing rather than releasing it to the seller
• c.Mixing the deposit with his own money, or failing to account for it✓
• d.Depositing the money before the seller has signed the offer to purchase

Two clauses of M.G.L. c.112 s.87AAA cover this ground. Clause (d) reaches a licensee who has failed, within a reasonable time, to account for or remit money belonging to others that came into his possession as a broker, and clause (h) reaches one who has commingled the money or other property of his principal with his own. The bond required of every broker by s.87TT points the same way, since it is conditioned on the broker's faithful accounting for all funds entrusted to him. The other choices describe ordinary conduct: the statute fixes no geography for the bank, holding a deposit through to closing is the normal course, and taking a deposit while the offer is pending is routine.

At the signing of the first written contract to purchase, what must a Massachusetts licensee do about home inspection?

• a.Recommend at least three licensed inspectors drawn from the Board's own list
• b.Take the buyer's written waiver if the buyer decides to decline an inspection
• c.Arrange the inspection and deliver the report before the agreement signs
• d.Hand the buyer the state consumer brochure and name no particular inspector✓

M.G.L. c.112 s.87YY1/2 requires the licensee, at the time of the signing of the first written contract to purchase, to hand over a brochure published by the office of consumer affairs and business regulation about the home inspection process, and forbids recommending a specific home inspection company or inspector. A complete list of licensed inspectors prepared by the Board may be supplied on request, which is the opposite of narrowing it to three. The prohibition lifts only where a written agreement or written agency disclosure shows the broker is acting exclusively as the buyer's broker. No waiver is contemplated by the section, and the licensee is not the one who arranges or delivers the inspection.