Montana Real Estate Broker Exam — All Questions

Before a Montana licensee may openly advertise property belonging to another person, the licensee must have:

• a.a verbal listing authorization from the property owner
• b.a signed listing agreement valid on the advertisement date✓
• c.a written offer of cooperation from the listing broker
• d.an owner's written consent filed with the board office

Section 37-51-321(2)(a), MCA makes it unlawful for a broker or salesperson 'to openly advertise property belonging to others, whether by means of printed material, radio, television, or display or by other means, unless the broker or salesperson has a signed listing agreement from the owner of the property,' and the same sentence adds that the listing agreement 'must be valid as of the date of advertisement.' A verbal authorization does not satisfy a requirement written in terms of a signed agreement. An offer of cooperation from another broker is a different thing: 37-51-321(2)(b)(i) separately permits including other brokers' cooperating listings in materials given to prospective customers, and ARM 24.210.428(3) allows internet advertising of another firm's listings where both the listing agent and the owner have consented, but neither converts into authority to advertise property with no signed listing behind it. And nothing in the chapter routes owner consent through the board; the consent lives in the listing agreement between the owner and the broker.

Under the Board of Realty Regulation's advertising rule, every advertisement a Montana licensee places must include:

• a.the licensee's name and the licensee's board license number
• b.the supervising broker's name and the board's telephone number
• c.the licensee's name and a statement that a licensee placed it✓
• d.the brokerage's franchise name and the property's street address

ARM 24.210.428(1), adopted effective 23 August 2025 in place of the repealed internet-advertising rule, requires that any form of advertising by a licensee, directly or indirectly, include a truthful, accurate, and detailed description of the property or service advertised, the licensee's name, and a statement that the advertisement is made by the licensee or a brokerage company; in an internet advertisement a link to that information may be used. A license number is not among the required elements, and neither is the board's telephone number. The supervising broker's name is required on a salesperson's license under 37-51-308(2)(b), not in every advertisement. A street address is expressly not required — the repealed rule asked only for the city, town, or county, and the current rule asks for a detailed description rather than an address. Franchise branding has its own trap: under 37-51-321(1)(a) a broker advertising under a franchise name must incorporate the broker's own name or trade name in the franchise name or logotype.

A listing agreement negotiated by a Montana salesperson becomes valid only when it has been:

• a.reviewed, signed, and dated by the supervising broker✓
• b.acknowledged in writing by the board within ten days
• c.witnessed by a second licensee of the same brokerage
• d.recorded with the clerk and recorder of the county

ARM 24.210.607(3), the salesperson-supervision rule that replaced ARM 24.210.601 effective 21 February 2026, carries the requirement forward verbatim: 'A listing agreement negotiated by a salesperson is not valid until it is reviewed, signed, and dated by the supervising broker.' The validity of the agreement therefore turns on an act by the supervising broker, which is the point — supervision in Montana is a licensed duty, not a courtesy. The board plays no part in validating individual listing agreements; its role is licensing and discipline under 37-51-202. A second licensee's signature is not a Montana requirement and would not cure a listing the supervising broker never saw. Recording belongs to instruments affecting title to land, and a listing agreement is a contract for services between the owner and the broker rather than a conveyance.

A Montana salesperson wants to take listings for a second brokerage while remaining with the current one. Under the licensing statute this is:

• a.permitted if both supervising brokers agree in writing
• b.permitted if the second brokerage is in another county
• c.prohibited unless the salesperson holds a broker license
• d.prohibited except for a temporary association allowed by rule✓

Section 37-51-309(1), MCA states that 'a salesperson may not be associated with, be under contract to, or perform services for more than one supervising broker, except on a temporary basis as provided in 37-51-302,' and 37-51-309(5) adds that only one license issued to a salesperson is in effect at one time. The exception is narrow and procedural: ARM 24.210.607(2) lets a supervising broker temporarily transfer supervision of a salesperson to another supervising broker on written notice, a copy of which must reach the board within three business days, and a temporary transfer may not exceed 60 days in any 12-month period unless the board extends it for good cause. Mutual agreement between two brokers does not create a second permanent association; the temporary-transfer procedure is the only route. Geography is irrelevant to the rule. And upgrading to a broker license does not authorize divided allegiance — a broker who supervises salespersons needs a supervising broker endorsement under 37-51-301(2), which is a different question entirely.

A Montana licensee who is not a member of the trade association uses the term 'Realtor' in marketing. Under the license law this is:

• a.unprofessional conduct sanctionable by the board✓
• b.a private trademark matter outside the board's reach
• c.permissible because the term describes the occupation
• d.permissible if the licensee discloses non-membership

Section 37-51-321(1)(d), MCA lists as unprofessional conduct the 'use of the term "realtor" by a person not authorized to do so or using another trade name or insignia of membership in a real estate organization of which the licensee is not a member.' It is therefore a licensing offense in Montana, sanctionable under 37-1-312, and not merely a dispute between the licensee and the trademark owner — the statute makes the board a second enforcer alongside whatever private remedy exists. The term is not a generic description of the occupation: Montana's own vocabulary for the occupation is 'broker' and 'salesperson', defined at 37-51-102(4) and 37-51-102(19). And disclosure does not cure it, because the prohibition is on the use of the term by an unauthorized person rather than on any impression the use leaves; the statute offers no disclosure exception.

A Montana buyer is out of state and asks her agent to sign an addendum on her behalf. The agent may do so only with:

• a.a recorded email in which the buyer approves the terms
• b.the supervising broker's written authorization on file
• c.a written power of attorney from the buyer✓
• d.a signed acknowledgment from the opposing licensee

ARM 24.210.641(1)(h) makes it unprofessional conduct to be 'falsifying documents, placing any party's signature on a document, or altering or amending a document on behalf of any party without authority of a written power of attorney from the party.' The rule names the instrument, and only that instrument will do: authority to sign for a principal has to come from a written power of attorney, not from an email approving the substance of the deal. A supervising broker cannot supply the authority either, because the authority being exercised belongs to the client and not to the firm. Nor can the other side's licensee confer it. If the buyer approves the terms by email but no power of attorney exists, the correct course is to have the buyer sign — electronically if need be — because ARM 24.210.641(1)(l) separately requires licensees to document agreements in writing and have them signed by the parties.

A Montana licensee telephones a buyer to say the seller has accepted the buyer's offer. Under board rule the licensee may say this only if the licensee:

• a.holds a document signed by the seller showing acceptance✓
• b.has the seller's verbal confirmation of the acceptance
• c.has the listing broker's assurance of the acceptance
• d.has recorded the seller's acceptance in the transaction file

ARM 24.210.641(1)(i) makes it unprofessional conduct to be 'advising that an offer or counter offer has been accepted without the licensee having in the licensee's possession a document signed by the party evidencing the party's acceptance.' The test is possession of a signed document, which is why a verbal confirmation from the seller is not enough however credible it sounds, and why an assurance relayed by the listing broker is not enough either — neither puts a signed writing in this licensee's hands. Writing a note in the file records the licensee's belief rather than the seller's signature, so it does not satisfy a rule aimed at the document itself. The same instinct runs through the board's rules generally: ARM 24.210.641(1)(l) requires agreements and any changes between execution of the buy-sell and closing to be documented in writing and signed by the parties.

A Montana broker wants to split a commission with a broker licensed in Idaho who referred a client. The Montana broker may pay that share if the Idaho broker:

• a.holds a Montana nonresident salesperson license as well
• b.files an irrevocable consent to service with the department
• c.is named in the listing agreement signed by the seller
• d.performed no service in Montana for which a fee is paid✓

Section 37-51-306(1), MCA bars a licensed broker from employing or compensating an unlicensed person for the acts the chapter regulates, then supplies one exception: 'a licensed broker may pay a commission to a licensed broker of another state or jurisdiction if the nonresident broker has not conducted and does not conduct in this state a service for which a fee, compensation, or commission is paid.' Everything turns on where the service was performed, and the referral survives only because the out-of-state broker stayed out of the Montana side of the work. A Montana nonresident license would make the person a Montana licensee, which is a different route to the same money rather than the exception in the statute. The irrevocable written consent to service of process in 37-51-306(2) is a condition placed on nonresident licensees, not a license substitute for an unlicensed out-of-state broker. And naming someone in a listing agreement cannot confer a license the chapter requires.

A person sues in a Montana court to collect a commission on a real estate sale. To maintain the action the person must allege and prove that at the time the claim arose the person:

• a.had a written commission agreement with the seller
• b.was licensed as a broker or salesperson in Montana✓
• c.had performed services of measurable value for the client
• d.had registered the transaction with the licensing board

Section 37-51-401, MCA closes the courthouse door to unlicensed brokerage: a person acting in the capacity of a real estate broker or salesperson in Montana 'shall not be permitted to bring or maintain any action in the courts for the collection of compensation for the sale or lease or otherwise disposing of real estate without first alleging and proving that such person was a duly licensed real estate broker or real estate salesperson ... at the time the alleged cause of action or claim arose.' Licensure is thus an element of the pleading, and it is tested as of the date the claim arose rather than the date of trial. A written agreement may be needed to prove the contract's terms, and quantum-meruit style proof of valuable services may matter in other kinds of case, but neither substitutes for the licensure allegation this section demands. No statute requires transactions to be registered with the board, so that is not a precondition to suit either.

A Montana broker buys a listed property for the broker's own account and advertises it for resale. Under the license law the broker must:

• a.place the transaction in a separate corporate entity's name
• b.obtain board approval before advertising the property
• c.surrender the listing to another firm before advertising
• d.disclose the dual capacity as broker and principal in the ads✓

Section 37-51-321(1)(g), MCA makes it unprofessional conduct to be 'acting in a dual capacity of broker and undisclosed principal in a transaction, including failing to disclose in advertisements for real property the person's dual capacity as broker and principal.' The clause was written to reach exactly this fact pattern, and the cure it names is disclosure in the advertising itself. Interposing an entity does not help; it is the concealment that the statute punishes, and a corporate wrapper makes the principal less visible rather than more. There is no board pre-approval mechanism for advertising a licensee's own property. And handing the listing to another firm is not required — a licensee may deal for the licensee's own account, provided the dual capacity is disclosed. Related traps sit nearby: ARM 24.210.641(1)(ll) forbids acting as a dual agent in a transaction in which the licensee is a principal, and ARM 24.210.641(1)(pp) forbids submitting a competing offer as a principal against the licensee's own client.

A Montana licensee recommends a title company in which the licensee's spouse is a part owner. Under board rule the licensee must disclose:

• a.the family and financial relationship with that company✓
• b.the fee the title company will charge for its services
• c.the names of two competing title companies in the area
• d.the licensee's total earnings from prior referrals to it

ARM 24.210.641(1)(e) makes it unprofessional conduct to be 'engaging or recommending the services of an attorney, title company, appraiser, escrow agent, maintenance service, or other like person or entity, on behalf of a principal, third-party, or other person, without disclosing any family relationship, financial relationship, and/or financial interest that the licensee or real estate agency with which the licensee is associated may have in that person or entity being engaged or recommended.' The disclosable thing is the relationship, and a spouse's ownership stake is both a family and a financial one. The rule does not require the licensee to publish the vendor's fee schedule, to name competitors, or to tally past referral income; those may be good practice but they are not what the rule commands, and a licensee who volunteers them while staying silent about the spouse has disclosed everything except the conflict. A separate clause, ARM 24.210.641(1)(d), also requires consent from whoever is obligated to pay for the service before engaging it on their behalf.

A Montana seller tells the listing agent that a previous occupant died by suicide in the house. Under the statutory definition, that fact is:

• a.an adverse material fact requiring written disclosure
• b.excluded from the meaning of adverse material fact✓
• c.an adverse material fact only if the buyer asks about it
• d.a matter the licensee must report to the licensing board

Montana defines the term and then carves this out. Section 37-51-102(1)(a), MCA defines an 'adverse material fact' as one significant enough to affect a person's decision to buy or sell, and 37-51-102(1)(b) adds that 'the term does not include the fact that an occupant of the property has or has had a communicable disease or that the property was the site of a suicide or felony.' Because the duties in 37-51-313 to disclose adverse material facts are framed around that defined term, a stigma of this kind falls outside them by operation of the definition rather than by the licensee's judgment. The exclusion is not switched on by a buyer's question — the fact simply is not an adverse material fact under the chapter. And nothing in the chapter turns a property's history into a report to the board; the board receives complaints about licensee conduct under 37-1-308, not property histories. Physical conditions are treated differently: a fact that materially affects value or structural integrity, or presents a documented health risk to occupants, remains squarely within 37-51-102(1)(a)(i).

When must a Montana seller agent give the seller the written initial relationship disclosure?

• a.At the time the first offer is presented to the seller
• b.At the time negotiations with a buyer commence
• c.At the time the property is entered in the listing service
• d.At the time the listing agreement is executed✓

Section 37-51-314(2)(a), MCA fixes the moment: 'The initial disclosure, as provided in subsection (6), must be made to the seller at the time the listing agreement is executed.' The buyer-side mirror image is 37-51-314(3)(a), which times the buyer's initial disclosure to the execution of the buyer broker agreement. The commencement of negotiations is the trigger for a different document — the subsequent disclosure under 37-51-314(2)(b) and (2)(c), given to the seller where the licensee is a seller subagent and to the buyer or buyer agent when negotiations start. Presentation of an offer and entry into a listing service are not disclosure triggers anywhere in the section. A third timing rule is worth carrying alongside these: under 37-51-314(4)(a) a statutory broker's initial disclosure goes to the buyer at the time the statutory broker first endeavours to locate property for the buyer.

A Montana licensee representing the seller is asked to also represent the buyer on the same property. The licensee may proceed only with:

• a.the signed written consent of both the seller and the buyer✓
• b.the signed written consent of the party who first engaged
• c.the supervising broker's written designation of the licensee
• d.an oral acknowledgment from each party before negotiations

The all-capital statement that 37-51-314(6)(b), MCA requires in the initial disclosure ends: 'A BROKER OR A SALESPERSON MAY NOT ACT AS A DUAL AGENT WITHOUT THE SIGNED, WRITTEN CONSENT OF BOTH THE SELLER AND THE BUYER.' Section 37-51-314(5) adds that the licensee must disclose the potential or actual dual agency and receive consent before or at the time the dual agency arises, and ARM 24.210.641(1)(mm) makes acting as a dual agent without a written agreement from each principal unprofessional conduct. Consent from only the first client leaves the second client unrepresented in the eyes of the statute. A supervising broker's designation produces something different: under 37-51-102(12) and (13) an in-house buyer or seller agent designate acts exclusively for that one party and 'may not be considered a dual agent' under 37-51-102(10), which is the structure firms use to avoid dual agency rather than to create it. Oral acknowledgment fails on the face of a provision that says signed and written.

A Montana licensee shows property to a buyer without any written agreement and without disclosing a different relationship. Under the chapter the licensee is presumed to be:

• a.a buyer agent by virtue of assisting the buyer
• b.a seller subagent under the listing broker
• c.a statutory broker who represents neither party✓
• d.a dual agent owing duties to buyer and seller

Montana's default is the statutory broker. Section 37-51-102(23)(a), MCA defines a statutory broker as 'a broker or salesperson who assists one or more parties to a real estate transaction without acting as an agent or representative of any party,' and 37-51-102(23)(b) supplies the presumption: a broker or salesperson 'is presumed to be acting as a statutory broker unless the broker or salesperson has entered into a listing agreement with a seller or a buyer broker agreement with a buyer or has disclosed, as required in this chapter, a relationship other than that of a statutory broker.' Agency here is created by a written agreement or a disclosure, not by helpfulness, so assisting a buyer does not make the licensee a buyer agent. Subagency under 37-51-102(22) arises from an offer of subagency that is accepted, which has not happened. And dual agency requires signed written consent from both sides under 37-51-314(5) and (6)(b). A statutory broker is not without duties: 37-51-313(6) requires disclosure of known adverse material facts to each side and reasonable care, skill, and diligence in putting the transaction together.

A Montana dual agent learns that the buyer would pay more than the price offered. Without written consent the dual agent may not disclose that fact because it is:

• a.confidential information the statute expressly protects✓
• b.an adverse material fact the seller may waive in writing
• c.privileged under the attorney-client rules of evidence
• d.outside the scope of the dual agent's written authorization

Section 37-51-313(8), MCA lists four things a dual agent may not disclose without the written consent of the person to whom the information is confidential: that the buyer is willing to pay more than the offered price; that the seller is willing to accept less than the asking price; the factors motivating either party to buy or sell; and any information a party puts in writing as confidential. The protection comes from the statute itself, so it is not a matter of scope in the agency agreement, and it is not the evidentiary attorney-client privilege, which protects communications with a lawyer rather than with a licensee. Calling it an adverse material fact inverts the section: 37-51-313(7) says a dual agent must disclose adverse material facts regardless of confidentiality considerations, which is precisely why the four items in subsection (8) had to be listed separately as the things that stay confidential. Adverse material facts under 37-51-102(1) concern the property and the parties' ability to perform, not their price flexibility.

After a Montana listing agreement expires, which obligation to the former principal survives?

• a.Accounting for all money and property of the principal✓
• b.Continuing to market the property until a buyer is found
• c.Presenting any offers that arrive after the expiration date
• d.Advising the principal on the terms of a later transaction

Section 37-51-313(12), MCA says that on termination of an agency relationship a broker or salesperson 'does not have any further duties to the principal' except two: to account for all money and property of the principal under (12)(a), and to keep confidential the information made confidential at the principal's direction under (12)(b), subject to listed exceptions such as disclosure required by law, disclosure of adverse material facts, or disclosure reasonably necessary to defend the licensee's conduct. Marketing, presenting offers, and advising are all performance obligations, and 37-51-313(11)(a) ends the relationship at the earliest of completed performance, the expiration date agreed in the listing agreement or buyer broker agreement, or an authorized termination. Once that date passes the licensee owes none of them. A statutory broker's relationship runs on a different clock under 37-51-313(11)(b): it continues until the completion, termination, or abandonment of the transaction that gave rise to it.

Under the Montana license law, a copy of a written instrument must be furnished to a party who executes it:

• a.within three business days after the party executes it
• b.within ten days after the transaction has closed
• c.on the party's written request at any time before closing
• d.at the time the party executes the instrument✓

Section 37-51-321(1)(o), MCA makes it unprofessional conduct to be 'failing voluntarily to furnish a copy of a written instrument to a party executing it at the time of its execution.' Two words carry the weight: 'voluntarily', which means the licensee does not wait to be asked, and 'at the time', which leaves no grace period. A rule keyed to a written request would drop the first of those, and any of the delayed deadlines would drop the second. Three business days is a real Montana deadline attached to something else — ARM 24.210.427(4)(d) gives a broker three business days to deposit monies belonging to others into a trust account. Ten days appears in yet other contexts, such as the notice of a change of business address under 37-51-308(3). Documentation duties continue after execution: ARM 24.210.641(1)(l) requires changes to terms between the buy-sell and the closing to be documented in writing and signed by the parties.

The parties to a Montana sale verbally agree to change the closing date after the buy-sell is signed. Under board rule the licensee must:

• a.note the change in the transaction file and inform the broker
• b.obtain the supervising broker's written approval of the change
• c.document the change in writing and have the parties sign it✓
• d.submit an amended buy-sell to the board for its records

ARM 24.210.641(1)(l) makes it unprofessional conduct to be 'failing to document in writing and obtain signatures by the parties to all agreements,' and adds the specific duty that reaches this fact pattern: 'Licensees shall document in writing, and have signed by the parties, any changes to the terms and provisions of the agreement which occur between the time a buy/sell is executed and the closing of a transaction.' The rule names both steps — the writing and the signatures — so a file note is only half of it, however diligent. Internal approval by the supervising broker addresses supervision rather than the parties' contract, and a firm cannot sign an amendment on the parties' behalf without a written power of attorney under ARM 24.210.641(1)(h). The board does not maintain a registry of transaction documents; the licensee retains them, and ARM 24.210.414 requires the retention to run eight years.

A Montana salesperson receives an earnest money check from a buyer in a brokerage transaction. The salesperson must:

• a.deposit it in the brokerage trust account within three days
• b.place it with the supervising broker as soon as practicable✓
• c.hold it until the seller has accepted the buyer's offer
• d.endorse it to the closing agent named in the buy-sell

Section 37-51-321(1)(r), MCA makes it unprofessional conduct for a salesperson to fail 'to place, as soon after receipt as is practicably possible, in the custody of the salesperson's supervising broker, deposit money or other money entrusted to the salesperson in that capacity by a person,' with an exception only where the money is part of the salesperson's own personal transaction. The salesperson's duty runs to the broker, not to the bank: the three-business-day deposit obligation in ARM 24.210.427(4)(d) is the broker's, and ARM 24.210.427(1) frames trust-account maintenance as the broker's responsibility throughout. Holding the check pending acceptance keeps client money in the hands of the person least accountable for it and postpones the very transfer the statute requires. Endorsing it onward to a closing agent is not the salesperson's call either; under ARM 24.210.427(9) trust funds may go to the closing agent in anticipation of closing only on the written agreement of the buyers and sellers.

A Montana licensee holds rent money collected for an owner and cannot produce an accounting when the owner asks. Under the license law this is:

• a.unprofessional conduct for failing to account for others' money✓
• b.a civil matter between the owner and the licensee alone
• c.acceptable if the licensee later remits the correct amount
• d.excused where the owner signed a management agreement

Section 37-51-321(1)(e), MCA lists as unprofessional conduct 'failing to account for or to remit money coming into the licensee's possession when the money belongs to others.' The duty is stated in the disjunctive — failing to account is itself the offense, so paying up afterwards does not undo the failure to have been able to account in the first place. Because the statute makes it a licensing offense, it is not merely a private dispute; the board may impose any sanction in 37-1-312, and 37-1-316(1)(o) independently reaches misappropriating funds from a client or failing to comply with a board rule on the accounting and distribution of a client's funds. A management agreement authorizes the licensee to hold and apply the money; it does not convert the owner's money into the licensee's or relieve the licensee of the ledger. ARM 24.210.427(7) spells out what the record must show: a chronological record of every receipt and disbursement with dates, parties, amounts, and a running balance.

Before performing the acts of a buyer agent in Montana, a licensee must obtain:

• a.a written offer of subagency from the listing broker
• b.a signed acknowledgment of the agency disclosure form
• c.a written buyer broker agreement from the buyer✓
• d.an oral engagement confirmed in the transaction file

Section 37-51-313(10), MCA requires a licensed broker or salesperson to 'obtain an appropriate written buyer broker agreement or written listing agreement prior to performing the acts of a buyer agent or a seller agent,' and adds the sting in the tail: a licensee who acts as a buyer or seller agent without one 'is nevertheless obligated to comply with the requirements of this chapter.' Skipping the paperwork does not skip the duties. ARM 24.210.641(1)(jj) and (kk) make acting as a buyer agent without a written buyer broker agreement, or as a seller agent without a written listing agreement, unprofessional conduct. An offer of subagency creates a subagent under 37-51-102(8), which is a relationship with the other side's principal rather than an engagement by this buyer. The signed agency disclosure required by 37-51-314 records the relationship but does not create it. And an oral engagement is exactly what 37-51-102(7)'s definition of a buyer broker agreement — 'a written agreement' — excludes.

A Montana seller accepts an offer. A second, higher offer then arrives before closing. The seller agent must:

• a.decline the second offer because the property is under contract
• b.submit the second offer only if the first buyer's financing fails
• c.submit the second offer only after consulting the listing service
• d.submit the second offer unless the seller waived that in writing✓

ARM 24.210.641(1)(n) makes it unprofessional conduct for a seller's agent to fail 'to submit to the seller all offers and counter offers received by the licensee until such time as a pending transaction has been closed or the listing agreement terminates unless the seller waives these obligations in writing.' A contract in hand does not end the duty; only closing, termination of the listing, or a written waiver does. The same clause draws a line the other way that is easy to over-read: seller agents 'are not obligated to continue to actively market the property after an offer has been accepted by the seller unless directed in writing to do so by the seller' — so marketing may stop while the duty to pass on offers continues. Waiting for the first buyer's financing to fail substitutes the licensee's judgment for the seller's, which is the decision the rule reserves to the principal. A listing service's rules are private and cannot displace the board's rule. The buyer side has a mirror duty in ARM 24.210.641(1)(p).

A Montana brokerage wants to run a prize drawing to attract buyers to a new subdivision. Under board rule the drawing is permitted only if entrants:

• a.are told the odds of winning before they enter the drawing
• b.pay no consideration and enter no contract to take part✓
• c.are all licensed or accompanied by a licensed practitioner
• d.have signed a buyer broker agreement with the brokerage

ARM 24.210.641(1)(bb) makes it unprofessional conduct to be 'soliciting, selling, or offering for sale real property by conducting lotteries, raffles, or contests for the purpose of influencing a purchaser or prospective purchaser of real property,' and then draws the line the question turns on: 'Door prizes can be awarded so long as the participant is not required to pay any consideration or enter into any contract arrangement in order to participate in the door prize drawing.' Consideration and contract are the two things that convert a giveaway into the prohibited inducement, so disclosing the odds does not help — the objection is to buying a chance, not to misunderstanding it. Restricting entry to licensees would defeat the marketing purpose without addressing the rule. And requiring a buyer broker agreement to enter is the contract arrangement the rule expressly forbids. The statute reaches the same conduct: 37-51-321(1)(m) lists conducting lotteries to influence purchasers as unprofessional conduct.

To win a listing, a Montana licensee tells the owner that a buyer of the lot next door is certain to resell at a profit within a year. This is:

• a.acceptable if the licensee's market data support the estimate
• b.acceptable if the statement is labeled as an opinion of value
• c.unprofessional conduct as a guarantee of future profits✓
• d.unprofessional conduct only if the resale later loses money

Section 37-51-321(1)(h), MCA lists as unprofessional conduct 'guaranteeing, authorizing, or permitting a person to guarantee future profits that may result from the resale of real property.' The offense is complete when the guarantee is made, so the eventual outcome is beside the point — a lucky prediction is still a prohibited guarantee. Market data can support an opinion but cannot turn a guarantee into a forecast, and the clause does not carve out well-researched guarantees. Labeling the statement an opinion of value does not save it either, because what is being promised is a future gain rather than a present worth; a licensee who wants to speak about value should give a comparative market analysis for what it is. Neighboring clauses reinforce the point: 37-51-321(1)(b) reaches 'making any false promises of a character likely to influence, persuade, or induce', and 37-51-321(1)(c) reaches a continued and flagrant course of misrepresentation.

When water or mineral rights on a Montana property are severed or uncertain, the licensee should:

• a.Guarantee the buyer will receive all rights
• b.Say nothing to avoid alarming the buyer
• c.Disclose known material facts to the buyer✓
• d.Wait until after closing to mention it

A Montana licensee's disclosure duty runs to adverse material facts that are known. Under 37-51-313(3)(a), MCA a seller agent must disclose to a buyer or the buyer agent any adverse material facts concerning the property that are known to the agent, and 37-51-313(6)(a)(i) imposes the same duty on a statutory broker; 37-51-102(1)(a)(i) defines an adverse material fact to include one that materially affects the value of the property, which severed or clouded water or mineral rights plainly can. The agent is not required to inspect the property or verify the seller's statements, so the right course is to say what is known and steer the buyer to professionals who can run the ownership down. Guaranteeing that the buyer will receive all rights promises what the licensee has not verified, and 37-51-321(1)(b) reaches false promises likely to influence or induce. Saying nothing is concealment, and 37-51-313(13) directs a licensee to endeavor to ascertain all pertinent facts so as to avoid error, exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment. Waiting until after closing is the same failure with worse timing, since the information matters only while the buyer can still act on it.