Missouri Real Estate Broker Exam — All Questions

A consumer files a written complaint with the Missouri Real Estate Commission about a licensee's conduct. What does section 339.100 require of the Commission?

• a.It may investigate, because investigation is discretionary however the matter arises
• b.It may investigate, but only if the complaint alleges a monetary loss to the consumer
• c.It shall investigate, but only after the licensee's designated broker responds in writing
• d.It shall investigate, because a written complaint makes investigation mandatory✓

Section 339.100.1 draws a deliberate line between the two ways a matter reaches the Commission: it "may, upon its own motion, and shall upon receipt of a written complaint filed by any person, investigate any real estate-related activity of a licensee." A complaint the Commission generates itself is discretionary; a written complaint from any person is not. Treating both as discretionary erases that distinction. The designated broker has no gatekeeping role — the same subsection says only that where the questioned activity involves an affiliated licensee the Commission "may forward a copy of the information received to the affiliated licensee's designated broker," which is notice, not a precondition. And the statute conditions nothing on an alleged monetary loss; conduct can be sanctionable without any consumer having lost money.

During an investigation the Missouri Real Estate Commission needs testimony from a witness who is unwilling to appear. What power does section 339.100 give the Commission?

• a.It may issue a subpoena compelling any person in this state to appear and testify✓
• b.It may compel appearance only from persons currently licensed under Chapter 339
• c.It may ask the administrative hearing commission to issue a subpoena on its behalf
• d.It may request testimony but must sue in circuit court to compel an unwilling witness

Section 339.100.1 gives the Commission the power directly: it "shall have the power to issue a subpoena and to compel any person in this state to come before the commission to offer testimony or any material specified in the subpoena," alongside a separate power to subpoena records and papers. The reach is "any person in this state," so limiting it to licensees misreads it — investigations routinely need testimony from buyers, sellers, and bank staff who hold no license. The subpoena issues from the Commission itself, not by borrowing the administrative hearing commission's authority, and the same subsection provides that these subpoenas "shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas in a criminal case," which presupposes the Commission issuing them rather than petitioning a court first.

A Missouri broker advertises that anyone who lists a home with the firm this month receives a free television. Under section 339.100.2, why is this a ground for discipline?

• a.It fails to disclose the value of the gift in the firm's advertising
• b.It offers a benefit the broker cannot deliver from the firm's own funds
• c.It advertises a service the broker is not separately licensed to provide
• d.It uses a gift as an inducement conditioned upon the listing of property✓

Section 339.100.2(13) makes it a ground for discipline to be "Using prizes, money, gifts or other valuable consideration as inducement to secure customers or clients to purchase, lease, sell or list property when the awarding of such prizes, money, gifts or other valuable consideration is conditioned upon the purchase, lease, sale or listing." The condition is what does the damage: the television is awarded only if the consumer lists. Disclosing the gift's value would not cure that, because the subdivision bans the conditioned inducement rather than an undisclosed one. Whether the broker can afford the television is irrelevant to the subdivision. And no separate license is at issue — the firm is advertising the brokerage service it is already licensed to provide.

A Missouri broker tells a prospective seller that homes in the subdivision will resell for at least fifteen percent more within two years, and puts it in writing. Which ground for discipline does this most directly implicate?

• a.Representing an amount in excess of the true and actual sale price to an interested party
• b.Guaranteeing future profits which may result from the resale of real property✓
• c.Pursuing a flagrant and continued course of misrepresentation through advertising
• d.Failing to advise the client to obtain expert advice on matters beyond the licensee's expertise

Section 339.100.2(8) names this conduct on its own: "Guaranteeing or having authorized or permitted any licensee to guarantee future profits which may result from the resale of real property." It is a ground whether or not the prediction later proves accurate, because the wrong is the guarantee. Subdivision (4) concerns representing "an amount in excess of the true and actual sale price of the real estate" to a lender, guaranteeing agency, or other interested party, which is about the price in the transaction at hand rather than a forecast of a future one. Subdivision (2)'s "flagrant and continued course of misrepresentation" requires a course of conduct rather than a single statement. The expert-advice duty comes from section 339.730.1, which governs a limited agent's duties and is not framed as a prediction of profit.

The administrative hearing commission finds that a Missouri licensee committed an act listed in section 339.100.2. What is the maximum civil penalty the Missouri Real Estate Commission may impose for each offense?

• a.Seven thousand five hundred dollars
• b.One thousand five hundred dollars
• c.Two thousand five hundred dollars✓
• d.Twenty-five thousand dollars

Section 339.100.3 provides that a finding by the administrative hearing commissioner is grounds for suspension or revocation, for probation on terms the Commission deems appropriate, "or the imposition of a civil penalty by the commission not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars for each offense." The per-offense framing matters as much as the figure, because the same subsection adds that "Each day of a continued violation shall constitute a separate offense" — so a continuing violation can carry a total far above the cap for any single day. One thousand dollars is the unrelated figure in section 339.105.1, the ceiling on the broker's own funds that may sit in an escrow account to cover service charges. Five thousand and ten thousand dollars appear nowhere in the section.

The Missouri Real Estate Commission refuses to issue a license to an applicant. Under section 339.080, what must the applicant be told?

• a.The reasons for the denial, and of the right to request a rehearing before the Commission within thirty days
• b.The reasons for the denial, and of the right to file a complaint with the administrative hearing commission✓
• c.The reasons for the denial, and of the right to reapply after a one-year waiting period
• d.The reasons for the denial, and of the right to appeal directly to the circuit court

Section 339.080.2 requires that a person denied a license or the right to be examined "be so notified by the commission in writing stating the reasons for denial or refusal to examine and informing the person so denied of his right to file a complaint with the administrative hearing commission in accordance with the applicable provisions of sections 621.015 to 621.198." The same subsection directs that notices "be sent by registered or certified mail to the last known address of the applicant." Missouri routes the challenge to the administrative hearing commission rather than back to the licensing body, so a rehearing before the Commission is not the remedy the notice must describe, and direct circuit court review skips the forum the statute names. No one-year waiting period appears in the section.

In a contested Missouri disciplinary case, which body decides whether the licensee actually committed the alleged acts, and which body then imposes the discipline?

• a.The Missouri Real Estate Commission finds the acts; the administrative hearing commission imposes discipline
• b.The administrative hearing commission finds the acts; the Missouri Real Estate Commission imposes discipline✓
• c.The Missouri Real Estate Commission both finds the acts and imposes the discipline
• d.The administrative hearing commission both finds the acts and imposes the discipline

Missouri splits the two functions between two bodies. Section 339.100.2 has the Commission "cause a complaint to be filed with the administrative hearing commission as provided by the provisions of chapter 621," and section 339.100.3 then provides that "A finding of the administrative hearing commissioner that the licensee has performed or attempted to perform one or more of the foregoing acts shall be grounds for the suspension or revocation of his license by the commission," or probation, or a civil penalty imposed by the Commission. The fact-finder is therefore the administrative hearing commission and the sanction comes from the Missouri Real Estate Commission. Combining both roles in either body describes a structure Missouri deliberately does not use, and reversing them inverts chapter 621.

A person who has never held a Missouri license knowingly acts as a real estate broker. Under section 339.170, that person is guilty of what?

• a.A class A misdemeanor
• b.A class D felony
• c.A class B misdemeanor✓
• d.An infraction carrying a fine only

Section 339.170 provides that "Any person or corporation, professional corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company or association knowingly violating any provision of sections 339.010 to 339.180 and sections 339.710 to 339.860 shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor," and extends the same classification to officers, members, managers and agents who knowingly and personally participate in or are an accessory to a violation. The section also preserves other exposure, stating that it "shall not be construed to release any person from civil liability or criminal prosecution under any other law of this state" — and section 339.180 separately lets a court enjoin unlicensed practice. The offense is neither elevated to a class A misdemeanor or a felony, nor reduced to a fine-only infraction; "knowingly" is the element that must be proved.