Nevada Real Estate Broker Exam — All Questions

A new environmental ordinance leaves a landowner with no economically viable use of a parcel, although the government takes no title to it. The owner's strongest constitutional claim is:

• a.The ordinance is void because zoning cannot restrict use
• b.A regulatory taking entitling the owner to payment✓
• c.Escheat has occurred and the state now owns the parcel
• d.Spot zoning, since only this parcel lost its value

Regulation that goes so far it denies an owner all economically viable use is treated as a regulatory taking, and just compensation is owed even though the government never took title. Arguing that zoning simply cannot restrict use fails, because regulating land is a valid exercise of the police power and owners have no right to the most profitable use. Escheat moves property to the state only when an owner dies with no will and no heirs, which has nothing to do with an ordinance. Spot zoning describes singling out one parcel for a different classification, not a general environmental rule applied to a class of land.

Reviewing a title report, a broker finds an old recorded covenant, written decades ago, that bars resale of the lot to members of a specified race. Its legal effect today is:

• a.It binds the buyer because it was recorded before purchase
• b.It is void, so a court will never enforce it or enjoin it✓
• c.It stays valid until the homeowners association removes it
• d.It is enforceable by the association but not by an owner

A private restriction that discriminates on a protected basis is void and unenforceable under the federal Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, so no court will order compliance or enjoin a violation, and the association has no power the courts would back. Recording rescues nothing, because an illegal restriction gains no force from sitting in the public record. No association vote is required to strip it of effect, although many states let an owner have the language formally struck. Valid CC&Rs, by contrast, are enforced privately by injunction brought by an owner or the association. A broker must never repeat or give effect to such language.

A grantor signs and notarizes a deed naming a nephew as grantee, locks it in a safe deposit box, and tells no one. The grantor later dies. What is the deed's effect?

• a.Title passed when the grantor signed the deed
• b.Title passed because the deed was acknowledged
• c.No title passed, because delivery never occurred✓
• d.Title passes when the estate later records it

A deed operates only when the grantor delivers it with the present intent to pass title and the grantee accepts, and both must happen while the grantor is alive. Signing accomplishes nothing while the instrument stays under the grantor's control in a box no one knows about. Acknowledgment before a notary serves recording, not validity, so notarizing it changes nothing here. An estate representative cannot supply the delivery the grantor failed to make, and recording an undelivered deed does not revive it. The nephew takes only through the will or the intestacy statute, which is why closings hand over the executed deed rather than merely signing it.

A deed is signed by a competent grantor and handed to a grantee who accepts it, but the grantor's signature was never notarized. As between those two parties, the deed is:

• a.Void, since notarizing is a validity requirement
• b.Valid, though it cannot be recorded as it stands✓
• c.Valid only if the grantee later pays a recording fee
• d.Voidable at the option of the grantor's creditors

Acknowledgment is a recording requirement, not an element of a valid deed. Delivered and accepted, the deed transfers title between grantor and grantee even with no notary, but the recorder will reject it, leaving the grantee exposed to later purchasers and lienholders who record first. Calling it void confuses the two ideas: validity turns on a competent grantor, an identifiable grantee, words of conveyance, an adequate legal description, the grantor's signature, and delivery and acceptance. Paying a fee cannot cure a missing acknowledgment, because the recorder cannot accept the instrument at all. Creditors of the grantor gain no power to undo a completed conveyance.

In a deed, which clause opens with the words 'to have and to hold' and defines the extent of the estate the grantee is receiving?

• a.The granting clause containing the words of conveyance
• b.The habendum clause, following the granting clause✓
• c.The acknowledgment taken before a notary public officer
• d.The legal description identifying the land conveyed

The habendum clause follows the granting clause, begins with the traditional phrase 'to have and to hold,' and spells out the estate conveyed, for example a fee simple absolute or a life estate. The granting clause holds the words of conveyance that actually transfer the interest and names the grantee. The acknowledgment is the notary's certificate that the signature is genuine, which the recorder requires but the transfer does not. The legal description identifies the land by metes and bounds, lot and block, or government survey, and it fixes what is conveyed rather than how much of an estate. Reading both clauses tells a broker exactly what the buyer is getting.

A relocation company that has owned a home for three months conveys it, warranting title only against defects that arose during its own ownership. The deed it delivers is a:

• a.Bargain and sale deed implying ownership without covenants
• b.General warranty deed covering the entire chain of title
• c.Quitclaim deed conveying only the interest actually held
• d.Special (limited) warranty deed covering the grantor's period✓

Warranting only against defects created or suffered while the grantor held title describes the special or limited warranty deed, the customary instrument for corporate, relocation, and fiduciary sellers who cannot vouch for what earlier owners did. A general warranty deed reaches back through the whole history of the property and offers the broadest protection, which is more than this seller is giving. A quitclaim carries no warranties at all and passes only whatever interest the signer happens to hold. A bargain and sale deed implies that the grantor owns the property but adds few or no covenants. A buyer taking narrower covenants should lean on an owner's title policy.

A title search shows that a seller's former spouse may still hold a possible interest in the property. What is the usual instrument used to release that interest and clear the record?

• a.A quitclaim deed from the former spouse✓
• b.A general warranty deed from the former spouse
• c.A trustee's deed issued after a foreclosure
• d.A correction deed fixing the legal description

A quitclaim releases whatever interest the signer may hold, with no warranties attached, which makes it the standard tool for removing a cloud such as a possible marital interest, a stale easement claim, or a name discrepancy. Demanding a general warranty deed asks the former spouse to guarantee title he or she may never have owned, and it is normally refused. A trustee's deed is what the trustee under a deed of trust issues to the purchaser at a foreclosure sale. A correction deed reforms a mistake in an earlier deed between the same parties and cannot release an outsider's claim.

A court-appointed personal representative sells a decedent's home during probate, and the buyer's broker asks what instrument will convey title. The answer is:

• a.A trustee's deed given after a nonjudicial foreclosure
• b.A sheriff's deed issued following a judicial sale
• c.A general warranty deed with full title covenants
• d.An executor's or personal representative's deed✓

Estate property is conveyed by an executor's deed when a will names the executor, or by a personal representative's or administrator's deed when the court makes the appointment; these deeds recite the court authority and give only limited covenants. A trustee's deed comes from the trustee under a deed of trust after a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. A sheriff's deed, called a referee's deed in some states, follows a judicial sale ordered by a court. A general warranty deed is not used, because a fiduciary will not personally guarantee title against the acts of the decedent or of owners further back in the chain.

After closing under a general warranty deed, a buyer discovers a recorded utility easement that the deed never disclosed. Which covenant did the grantor breach?

• a.Quiet enjoyment, a promise against eviction by better title
• b.Seisin, a promise that the grantor owns the estate conveyed
• c.Against encumbrances, a promise of no undisclosed burdens✓
• d.Further assurance, a promise to sign curative papers

The covenant against encumbrances promises that no liens, easements, or similar burdens exist beyond those the deed discloses, so a recorded easement left unmentioned breaches it at the moment of delivery. Seisin promises the grantor actually owns the estate being conveyed, which is not the trouble when ownership is sound but burdened. Quiet enjoyment shields the grantee from later eviction by someone holding superior title, and an easement holder's use is not an eviction. Further assurance obliges the grantor to sign additional documents needed to perfect title. A general warranty deed carries all of these along with the right to convey and warranty forever.

A neighbor has openly farmed and fenced a strip of an absentee owner's land, excluding others and never asking permission. To take title by adverse possession the neighbor must prove:

• a.Payment of the owner's property taxes for every year
• b.Open, notorious, continuous, hostile, and exclusive possession✓
• c.A written agreement signed by the record title owner
• d.A recorded deed describing the disputed strip of land

Adverse possession requires possession that is open and notorious, continuous, hostile in the sense of being without permission, and exclusive, held for the statutory period set by state law. Some states add payment of taxes or color of title, but those elements are not universal, so a broker should never assume them from another state's rule. A written agreement from the record owner would destroy the claim outright, since permission defeats hostility. Recording a deed creates no possession and cannot manufacture the required years of use. Adverse possession is one form of involuntary alienation, alongside descent, escheat, foreclosure, eminent domain, and accretion.

An owner dies leaving no will, and after a diligent search no heirs can be located. A broker asked to list the property should understand that title:

• a.Passes by devise to the beneficiaries named in a will
• b.Descends to the decedent's nearest surviving creditors
• c.Vests permanently in the administrator the court appoints
• d.Escheats to the state, an involuntary transfer of title✓

Escheat is the state's claim to property when an owner dies intestate and no heirs can be found, and it is a classic involuntary transfer rather than a voluntary one by deed or will. Devise is a gift of real property by will, so it cannot operate where there is no will and no named beneficiary. Descent carries property to heirs under the intestacy statute, but creditors are paid as claimants out of the estate and never inherit the land itself. An administrator has authority to manage and convey estate property during probate, not to own it permanently. Each state sets its own escheat procedure and waiting period.

A search reveals an old mortgage of record that was paid off but never released, and the lender no longer exists. Which step clears that cloud so title is marketable?

• a.Ordering an abstract of title with an attorney's opinion
• b.Buying an owner's title policy that insures over it
• c.Filing a quiet title action asking a court to clear it✓
• d.Recording a correction deed signed by the current seller

A quiet title action asks a court to determine ownership and extinguish a stale or unreleasable claim, which is the practical cure when the mortgagee has vanished and no release can be obtained. An abstract of title with an attorney's opinion summarizes and evaluates the recorded chain; it reports the cloud rather than removing it, and it offers no indemnity. An owner's policy may insure over a known risk, but insurance pays for loss and leaves the defect on the record for the next buyer to confront. A correction deed fixes a drafting error between the original parties and cannot release a third party's lien.

A seller deeds a parcel to one buyer and later deeds the same parcel to a second buyer, who records first. Which framework decides who owns the land?

• a.A federal recording statute applied in all fifty states
• b.The state's recording act, race, notice, or race-notice✓
• c.The order in which the two deeds were signed and dated
• d.The county recorder's discretion over competing claims

Priority between competing grantees is governed by the recording act of the state where the land lies, and the schemes differ: a pure race state protects whoever records first, a notice state protects a later purchaser who took without notice of the earlier deed, and a race-notice state protects one who took without notice and recorded first. No federal statute governs land recording. Signing dates do not decide the contest, which is precisely why a public recording system exists. Recorders act ministerially and have no power to resolve claims. Because the gap between closing and recording is the danger zone, a broker should press for prompt recording.

A buyer pays for a lender's title policy at closing and asks the broker whether it also protects the buyer's equity in the home. The correct answer is that the policy:

• a.Protects both parties equally up to the full purchase price
• b.Protects the buyer once the mortgage has been fully repaid
• c.Protects the buyer against defects arising after closing
• d.Protects only the lender, declining with the balance✓

A lender's, or mortgagee's, policy insures only the lender's security interest, and its coverage shrinks as the principal is paid down, ending altogether when the loan is satisfied. It never covers the buyer's equity, which is why a separate owner's policy is offered at closing for a one-time premium and lasts as long as the insured holds an interest. Repaying the mortgage does not convert the lender's coverage into the buyer's; it extinguishes it. And no title policy insures defects that first arise after its date. Brokers should explain this plainly before a buyer waives owner's coverage to save money.

Six months after closing, a contractor the buyer hired records a mechanic's lien against the home. The buyer files a claim under the owner's title policy. The insurer will most likely:

• a.Deny, because the defect arose after the policy was issued✓
• b.Pay, because owner's policies cover all future liens
• c.Pay, because the standard exceptions were removed
• d.Deny, because only a lender may file a title claim

Title insurance looks backward: it covers defects that already existed when the policy was issued but were not discovered or excepted, not events that happen later. A lien for work the buyer ordered after closing is a new problem the buyer must resolve directly. Buying extended coverage removes standard exceptions and broadens what is insured as of the policy date, but it does not push coverage forward in time. Owners plainly may claim under their own policies; the lender's policy is the one limited to the lender. Extended coverage typically depends on a current survey, which reveals encroachments and boundary issues a records search alone cannot.

A buyer tours a house and finds an occupant who is not the seller living there under an unrecorded lease. What kind of notice does that occupancy give the buyer?

• a.Actual notice, given by the seller's written disclosure
• b.Constructive notice, given by the public record
• c.No notice at all, since the lease was not recorded
• d.Inquiry notice, requiring the buyer to ask about it✓

Someone in possession who is not the seller puts a buyer on inquiry notice: the buyer is charged with whatever a reasonable investigation of that occupancy would have turned up, including an unrecorded lease or an option to purchase. Actual notice is what a party genuinely knows, typically from a disclosure or a conversation, and no one has told this buyer anything. Constructive notice comes from the public record, which by definition cannot reveal an unrecorded lease. Treating an unrecorded interest as invisible is the classic error, because possession is itself notice. A broker should always ask who occupies a property and on what terms.

A buyer holds a final Nevada court judgment against a licensee for fraud in a transaction requiring a license, has executed on it and recovered nothing, and now petitions the Real Estate Education, Research and Recovery Fund. Under NRS 645.844, the Fund may pay at most:

• a.$25,000 per judgment, with $100,000 as the Fund's total liability for any one licensee✓
• b.$10,000 per judgment, with $50,000 as the Fund's total liability for any one licensee
• c.$50,000 per judgment, with $250,000 as the Fund's total liability for any one licensee
• d.$75,000 per judgment, with $150,000 as the Fund's total liability for any one licensee

NRS 645.844(1) sets both numbers in one sentence: the petitioner may recover "the amount of the unpaid actual damages included in the judgment, but not more than $25,000 per judgment," and "[t]he liability of the Fund does not exceed $100,000 for any person licensed pursuant to this chapter," whether that licensee is a natural person or an entity. Two ceilings therefore apply at once, and a claimant with a larger judgment simply does not collect the excess from the Fund. Each of the other pairings moves one or both figures. Note also what the statute demands before payment: a judgment on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation or deceit; a writ of execution returned unsatisfied; reasonable searches for the debtor's assets; and a petition filed no more than one year after all proceedings, including appeals, have ended. A licensee cannot recover from the Fund for a transaction in which he or she acted as a licensee, and the section does not apply to owner-developers.

The Real Estate Commission finds that a Nevada broker committed three separate violations of NRS Chapter 645 in one disciplinary proceeding. Under NRS 645.630, the largest administrative fine the Commission may impose is:

• a.$5,000, because NRS 645.630 caps the fine at $5,000 for each violation committed
• b.$30,000, because NRS 645.630 caps the fine at $10,000 for each violation committed✓
• c.$10,000, because NRS 645.630 caps the fine at $10,000 for the entire proceeding
• d.$50,000, because NRS 645.630 caps the fine at $50,000 for the entire proceeding

NRS 645.630(1) authorizes the Commission to "require a licensee, property manager or owner-developer to pay an administrative fine of not more than $10,000 for each violation he or she commits." The ceiling is per violation, not per hearing, so three violations expose the broker to as much as $30,000. The three other answers each misread the unit the statute uses: two treat the ceiling as a single figure for the whole proceeding, and one substitutes a $5,000 per-violation ceiling that the section does not contain. The fine is also not the Commission's only tool - the same subsection lets it suspend, revoke, deny renewal of or place conditions on the license, permit or registration, or combine those actions with a fine. Under NRS 645.630(2), an order imposing discipline and the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting it are public records.

Among the courses a Nevada broker applicant must document is a Nevada-specific broker management course. Under NAC 645.437 and the education chart in the Pearson VUE Nevada candidate handbook, that course is:

• a.30 hours, or 2 college credits, of broker management
• b.60 hours, or 4 college credits, of broker management
• c.45 hours, or 3 college credits, of broker management✓
• d.90 hours, or 6 college credits, of broker management

NAC 645.437(2) itemizes what an approved broker management course must contain, and the parts add to 45 hours: 6 hours on office policy, procedure, risk management, errors and omissions, controlled business arrangements, compensation and independent-contractor status; 3 on business plans; 3 on brokerage forms; 6 on financing programs and closing costs; 6 on state and local laws; 6 on federal laws; 6 on agent-client relationships; 3 on valuation and economics; and 6 on emerging trends. NRS 645.343(2)(e) states the same requirement in academic units - "[t]hree semester units or an equivalent number of quarter units in broker management" - and the Division's chart reprinted in the candidate handbook reads "45 hours or 3 college credits Broker Management course." The other totals do not match either measure. Two further points sit alongside this one and are tested in their own right: NRS 645.343(3) requires 64 semester units of college-level course work overall, and NRS 645.343(4) allows 16 semester units of credit for each 2 years of licensed experience in the preceding 10 years, up to 8 years - but that experience credit may not be applied against the broker management requirement or against the 18 classroom hours of Nevada real estate law.

A Nevada broker opens a second office in another city. Under NRS 645.530 and NAC 645.175, the broker must:

• a.display a photocopy of the main office license in the branch and file a notice of the branch with the Division
• b.keep the original broker license at the branch and display a certified copy of it at the main office
• c.obtain an additional broker license for the branch and display that license conspicuously in the branch✓
• d.register the branch with the county recorder and display the recorded registration in the branch

NRS 645.530(2)(a) is explicit: a broker shall display his or her license conspicuously in the broker's place of business, and "[i]f a real estate broker maintains more than one place of business within the State, an additional license must be issued to the broker for each branch office so maintained by the broker, and the additional license must be displayed conspicuously in each branch office." A photocopy, a certified copy or a county registration is not the additional license the statute requires. NAC 645.175 adds the operating rules: the broker to whom the license is issued is responsible for every branch, a branch license may issue only in the name under which the broker is licensed at the main office, a branch supervisor may not manage more than one branch, and a branch need not establish its own trust account - but if it does, one of the required signatures on that account must be the branch supervisor's. Under NAC 645.177, every branch must be supervised by a broker or a broker-salesperson who has had 2 years of active experience within the preceding 4 years, and while supervising the branch a broker-salesperson carries all the duties and penalties of a broker.

An out-of-state broker holds a Nevada cooperative certificate for a single transaction. Under NAC 645.185, the buyer's earnest money in that transaction:

• a.may be held by the out-of-state broker in a trust account in his or her own state
• b.may be handled only by the cooperating Nevada broker, in accordance with NRS 645.310✓
• c.may be held by either broker, provided both are signatories on the account used
• d.must be deposited with the Division and held by it until the transaction closes

NAC 645.185(7) states that "[a]ny money received in a cooperative transaction may be handled only by the cooperating Nevada broker in accordance with NRS 645.310." That follows from subsection 6, which puts the Nevada broker "in charge of the transaction from beginning to end" and requires the out-of-state broker to work through the Nevada broker or a licensee associated with that broker. The Division does not act as a depository, and neither a home-state trust account nor a joint account displaces the Nevada broker's exclusive control of the money. The rest of NAC 645.185 is worth holding with it: the certificate is valid for the earlier of 12 months or the completion or termination of the single transaction named in the application, it is not transferable, only a natural person who is a broker may hold one, and it may be used only to represent someone who is not a Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate - never as authority to sell Nevada property on an owner's behalf. Accepting a certificate also appoints the Nevada broker as the out-of-state broker's agent for service in any Division proceeding about the transaction.

A Nevada licensee represents the seller in a transaction, and the buyer is not represented by anyone. Under NRS 645.252(3), the licensee must provide the Division's duties-owed form to:

• a.the seller only, because the buyer has not engaged the licensee as an agent
• b.the seller and the unrepresented buyer, because both are parties to the transaction✓
• c.the unrepresented buyer only, because the seller already signed a brokerage agreement
• d.neither party, because the form is required only when a licensee acts for both sides

NRS 645.252(3) requires the licensee to provide the appropriate form prepared by the Division under NRS 645.193 to "(a) Each party for whom the licensee is acting as an agent in the real estate transaction; and (b) Each unrepresented party to the real estate transaction, if any." The unrepresented buyer is squarely within paragraph (b), so serving the seller alone is not enough; serving only the buyer skips the client the form was written for; and the notion that the form appears only in dual-representation transactions inverts the statute. NRS 645.193 tells you why more than one form exists: the Division prepares a form for a licensee acting for only one party, a second for a licensee acting for more than one party, and a third for a broker who assigns different affiliated licensees to separate parties. Choosing the right one of the three is part of using them correctly.

A Nevada licensee is asked to act for both the buyer and the seller in one transaction. Under NRS 645.252(1)(d), the written consent obtained from each party must state that the licensee will not disclose confidential information about a party for:

• a.6 months after the revocation or termination of the brokerage agreement
• b.3 years after the revocation or termination of the brokerage agreement
• c.1 year after the revocation or termination of the brokerage agreement✓
• d.as long as the licensee holds a Nevada real estate license

NRS 645.252(1)(d)(3) requires the written consent to contain "[a] statement that the licensee will not disclose any confidential information for 1 year after the revocation or termination of any brokerage agreement entered into with a party to the transaction, unless he or she is required to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction or is given written permission to do so by that party." One year is the figure, and the same period appears independently in NRS 645.254(2) as a duty owed to a represented client. The other periods are invented; the statute neither shortens the obligation to six months nor extends it to three years or to the life of the license. The consent must also describe the transaction, state that the licensee is acting for two or more parties with adverse interests and therefore has a conflict of interest, state that a party is not required to consent, and state that the consent is given without coercion and with an understanding of its terms.

Once a Nevada licensee has disclosed that he or she is acting for more than one party to a transaction, NRS 645.252(1)(d) permits the licensee to continue acting as agent:

• a.immediately, because making the disclosure is itself what the statute requires
• b.only after the Real Estate Division approves the dual representation in writing
• c.only after obtaining the written consent of each party for whom the licensee is acting✓
• d.only after each party signs a waiver of the statutory duties the licensee owes

The statute does not stop at disclosure. NRS 645.252(1)(d) provides that if a licensee discloses that he or she is acting for more than one party, "he or she must obtain the written consent of each party to the transaction for whom the licensee is acting before he or she may continue to act in his or her capacity as an agent." Disclosure alone therefore does not authorize the licensee to carry on. The Division does not approve individual transactions, so no written blessing from it is available or required. And the waiver answer is wrong twice over: NRS 645.255 makes the duties set out in NRS 645.252 and 645.254 unwaivable but for one narrow statutory exception, and nothing in that exception turns dual representation on or off. Where the same broker assigns different affiliated licensees to the two parties, NRS 645.253(1) removes the consent requirement - a distinct situation from one licensee serving both sides.

NAC 645.637 fixes the outside deadline for a Nevada licensee's written disclosure of the agency relationship, or of the licensee's own status as a principal. That deadline is:

• a.no later than five days after the client or unrepresented party signs any written document
• b.no later than the opening of escrow on the transaction being negotiated
• c.no later than the date the licensee's brokerage agreement is delivered to the client
• d.no later than the date and time the client or unrepresented party signs any written document✓

NAC 645.637 requires the licensee, in each real estate transaction involving the licensee as agent or principal, to disclose the relationship or status clearly and in writing to the client and to any party not represented by a licensee, and it fixes the timing: "as soon as practicable, but not later than the date and time on which any written document is signed by the client or any party not represented by a licensee, or both." A signature is the cut-off, which is why a five-day grace period and an escrow-opening deadline both come too late - by then a party may already have committed on paper without knowing who represents whom. Delivery of the brokerage agreement is not the trigger either; an unrepresented party never receives one. The regulation adds a second step that is easy to overlook: the prior disclosure "must then be confirmed in a separate provision" and be maintained by the broker in the transaction file.

A Nevada broker assigns one affiliated licensee to the buyer and a different affiliated licensee to the seller in the same transaction. Under NRS 645.253(1), those two licensees:

• a.need not obtain the consent to act required by NRS 645.252(1)(d), but may not disclose a client's confidential information except to the broker✓
• b.must each obtain from their own party the consent to act required by NRS 645.252(1)(d), and may then share a client's confidential information with each other
• c.must both withdraw from the transaction, because one brokerage may not be assigned to both sides of it
• d.must obtain the Division's written approval, which then substitutes for the consent to act of each party

NRS 645.253(1) provides that where a broker assigns different affiliated licensees to separate parties to a transaction, "the licensees are not required to obtain the written consent required pursuant to paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of NRS 645.252," and that "[e]ach licensee shall not disclose, except to the real estate broker, confidential information relating to a client in violation of NRS 645.254." Both halves matter: the consent requirement drops away, and the confidentiality duty does not - the only permitted upward channel is the broker. So the answer that keeps the consent requirement and also lets the licensees swap confidences gets both halves wrong. Nevada does not forbid a single brokerage from serving both sides, so withdrawal is not required, and the Division approves no such arrangement. Subsection 2 applies the same rule to affiliated licensees who hold property management permits and are assigned to separate parties to a property management agreement.

A Nevada licensee wants to approach an owner directly, and knows the owner has already granted another broker an exclusive right to sell the property. Under NRS 645.635(2), the licensee may do so only if:

• a.the licensee has given the other broker written notice of the intended contact
• b.the licensee has obtained permission in writing from the other broker✓
• c.the owner tells the licensee that the existing listing is about to expire
• d.the licensee confines the contact to matters arising after the closing

NRS 645.635(2) makes it grounds for discipline to negotiate a sale, exchange or lease of real estate, or to communicate after such negotiations but before closing, "directly with a client if the person knows that the client has a brokerage agreement in force in connection with the property granting an exclusive agency, including, without limitation, an exclusive right to sell to another broker, unless permission in writing has been obtained from the other broker." Written permission from the listing broker is the only route the statute leaves open. Notice is not permission; the owner's own account of when the listing expires does not release the licensee while the agreement is in force; and the statute reaches communications up to closing, so a promise to confine the contact to post-closing matters does not fit the facts of a live listing. NAC 645.610(1)(d) applies the same principle to marketing: a licensee may not advertise or sign a property exclusively listed by another broker without that broker's prior written consent, which the listing broker may not give or withhold without the owner's knowledge.

Which duty of a Nevada licensee may a client actually waive, and by what means?

• a.The duty to account for the client's money, by signing a waiver the broker drafts
• b.The duty to disclose material facts, by initialing a clause in the brokerage agreement
• c.The duty of reasonable skill and care, by signing a release at the close of escrow
• d.The duty to present all offers, by signing a waiver on a form prescribed by the Division✓

NRS 645.254(4) requires a licensee who has entered into a brokerage agreement to "present all offers made to or by the client as soon as is practicable, unless the client chooses to waive the duty of the licensee to present all offers and signs a waiver of the duty on a form prescribed by the Division." That is the single waivable duty, and the form has to be the Division's. NRS 645.255 closes off the rest: "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in subsection 4 of NRS 645.254, no duty of a licensee set forth in NRS 645.252 or 645.254 or a property manager set forth in NRS 645.6057 may be waived." So the duties to account for the client's money (NRS 645.254(7)), to disclose material facts (NRS 645.254(5) and NRS 645.252(1)(a)) and to exercise reasonable skill and care (NRS 645.252(2), 645.254(1)) survive any clause, initial or release a party might sign.

Unless the parties have otherwise agreed in writing, NRS 645.252(4) says a Nevada licensee owes no duty to:

• a.disclose material facts about the property that the licensee actually knows
• b.exercise reasonable skill and care toward all parties to the transaction
• c.conduct an independent investigation of the condition of the property being sold✓
• d.disclose each source from which the licensee will be compensated in the transaction

NRS 645.252(4) says that unless otherwise agreed upon in writing, a licensee owes no duty to independently verify the accuracy of a statement made by a certified inspector or other appropriate licensed expert, to conduct an independent inspection of a party's financial condition, or to "[c]onduct an investigation of the condition of the property which is the subject of the real estate transaction." The other three choices are duties the same section imposes: paragraph (1)(a) requires disclosure of material and relevant facts the licensee knows or should know about the property, subsection 2 requires reasonable skill and care toward all parties, and paragraph (1)(b) requires disclosure of each source from which the licensee will receive compensation. The line between them is the point: Nevada does not turn the licensee into an inspector, but it does not let the licensee sit on what he or she already knows. NRS 645.259(2) makes the same distinction for public-record disclosures, and expressly preserves the paragraph (1)(a) duty.

In an action under NRS 645.257 against a Nevada licensee for failing to perform a statutory duty, the standard of care applied to the licensee is:

• a.the care a reasonably prudent attorney would use, measured by the knowledge a Nevada law license requires
• b.the care a reasonably prudent licensee would use, measured by the knowledge NRS 645.343 and 645.345 require✓
• c.strict liability for any loss the client suffers, measured by the client's actual damages in the transaction
• d.whatever standard the parties wrote into the brokerage agreement, measured by that agreement alone

NRS 645.257(3)(a) provides that "[t]he standard of care owed by a licensee is the degree of care that a reasonably prudent real estate licensee would exercise and is measured by the degree of knowledge required to be obtained by a real estate licensee pursuant to NRS 645.343 and 645.345" - that is, by the education the license itself demands, not by a lawyer's training, not by strict liability, and not by whatever the parties happened to write. Subsection 1 gives a person damaged as the proximate result of a failure to perform a duty under NRS 645.252, 645.253, 645.254 or 645.6057 an action for actual damages. Subsection 2 adds a protection worth remembering: a client's own knowledge of material facts about the property is not imputed to the licensee. For a property manager, subsection 3(b) sets the parallel standard by reference to the permit requirements of NRS 645.6052.

Under NRS 645.259(1), a Nevada licensee may be held liable for a misrepresentation made by his or her own client only where the licensee:

• a.knew the client made it and failed to tell the person it was made to that it was false✓
• b.prepared the document in which the client's statement appeared, whether or not the licensee knew
• c.received a commission in the transaction in which the client's statement was made
• d.failed to obtain the client's statement in writing before passing it to the other party

NRS 645.259(1) provides that a licensee may not be held liable for a misrepresentation made by his or her client unless the licensee "(a) Knew the client made the misrepresentation; and (b) Failed to inform the person to whom the client made the misrepresentation that the statement was false." Both elements are needed, and both are about knowledge and silence - not about who typed the document, who was paid, or whether the statement was reduced to writing. Subsection 2 gives a second shelter: the licensee is generally not liable for the seller's failure to make a disclosure required by NRS 113.130 or 113.135 where the information would have been a readily available public record. That shelter is expressly limited, though - the same subsection says the licensee "is not relieved of the duties imposed by paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of NRS 645.252," the duty to disclose known material facts.

Nevada issues three add-on credentials to people who already hold a license under NRS Chapter 645 or who work in association management. Which pairing of credential to the noun the statute actually uses is correct?

• a.Business broker - certificate; property management - certificate; community manager - permit
• b.Business broker - permit; property management - certificate; community manager - permit
• c.Business broker - certificate; property management - permit; community manager - certificate
• d.Business broker - permit; property management - permit; community manager - certificate✓

Nevada uses two different nouns and uses them consistently. NRS 645.863 is headed "Permit to engage in business as business broker" and lets a licensee apply to the Division for that permit. NRS 645.6052 is headed "Permit to engage in property management" and does the same for property managers. Community association management sits outside Chapter 645 altogether: NRS 116A.400(1) provides that "a person shall not act as a community manager unless the person holds a certificate." So business broker and property manager are permits and the community manager credential is a certificate. Reaching for "permit" on the community manager is the natural error precisely because Nevada does issue permits in this field - just not for that role. The three other pairings each swap at least one noun. Each of the two permits carries its own instruction requirement under its own section, and the certificate is governed by Chapter 116A rather than by Chapter 645.

A Nevada salesperson wants to manage rental property for owners. Under NRS 645.6052, before the Division will issue the permit she must show that she has completed:

• a.at least 12 classroom hours of instruction in property management
• b.at least 45 classroom hours of instruction in property management
• c.at least 60 classroom hours of instruction in property management
• d.at least 24 classroom hours of instruction in property management✓

NRS 645.6052(2)(a) requires an applicant for a property management permit to furnish proof "that the applicant has successfully completed at least 24 classroom hours of instruction in property management," plus any other requirements the Commission sets. The permit expires and renews with the holder's license, and NRS 645.6052(4)(a) makes renewal conditional on at least 3 of the licensee's continuing education hours being in an approved property management course, seminar or conference. Twelve, 45 and 60 hours are not the figure; the larger totals belong to the college-level course work a broker applicant documents under NRS 645.343, which is a different requirement attached to a different credential. Note also NRS 645.6054: a partnership, corporation or limited-liability company may not engage in property management unless the person it designates has been issued the permit, and a sole-proprietor broker must designate someone licensed under the broker.

NAC 645.600 allows a Nevada broker to use a broker-salesperson to help administer the brokerage's supervision system. The limit the regulation places on that arrangement is that the broker:

• a.must first obtain the Division's written approval of the delegation of those duties
• b.may delegate the review of advertising only, and not the review of transactions, documents or trust accounts
• c.must reduce the delegation to an independent-contractor agreement with that licensee
• d.does not relinquish overall responsibility for supervising the acts of the associated licensees✓

NAC 645.600(4) requires the broker to establish a system for monitoring compliance with the brokerage's policies and then adds: "The real estate broker may use a real estate broker-salesperson to assist in administering the provisions of this section so long as the real estate broker does not relinquish overall responsibility for the supervision of the acts of the licensees associated with the real estate broker." Responsibility is what cannot be handed over; the tasks can be. No Division approval is involved, no subject-matter limit confines the delegation to advertising, and the independent-contractor agreement in subsection 5 is an optional arrangement with an associated licensee, not a condition of delegating supervisory administration. Subsection 1 states the underlying duty - the broker must teach associated licensees the fundamentals and ethics of the practice and supervise their activities, the employees and the operation of the business - and subsection 2 spells out what supervision covers: transactions, documents affecting the parties' rights, filing and storage of documents, money received on the broker's behalf, advertising, and the licensees' familiarity with federal and state law including the prohibitions on discrimination.

A Nevada broker who is the only broker in her office plans to be away from the business for six weeks. Under NAC 645.665 she must:

• a.inactivate her license, or notify the Division in advance and designate an office manager✓
• b.post notice of the absence at the office and leave a licensee in charge of the trust account
• c.transfer the office's listings to a cooperating broker and notify each client in writing
• d.do nothing, because the regulation reaches only absences of 90 days or more

NAC 645.665 provides that a broker "shall not be absent from his or her business for 30 days or more if the broker is the only broker in his or her office unless the broker inactivates his or her license or otherwise notifies the Division in advance," that failure to observe the requirement is a ground for suspension, and that a broker who will be absent for 30 days or more must designate an office manager in accordance with NAC 645.178 or make other arrangements approved by the Division in advance. Six weeks is well past the 30-day trigger, so the do-nothing answer fails on the threshold as well as on the substance. Posting a notice and handing the trust account to a licensee addresses neither the Division notice nor the management gap - and NAC 645.655(6) separately forbids a salesperson from being the only required signatory on a trust account. Moving the listings to another broker is not what the regulation asks for. Under NAC 645.178, the manager may be a broker-salesperson with at least 2 years of active licensed experience in the immediately preceding 4 years, who must notify the Division that he or she is acting in that capacity.

A Nevada salesperson closes a sale and asks the escrow officer to wire her share of the commission straight to her. Under NRS 645.280(2), she:

• a.may accept it directly, provided her broker consents to the arrangement in writing
• b.may accept it directly, provided the amount matches her written commission split
• c.may accept it directly, because escrow is a neutral third party rather than a principal
• d.may not accept compensation from anyone other than the broker under whom she is licensed✓

NRS 645.280(2) provides that "[a] real estate broker-salesperson or salesperson shall not be associated with or accept compensation from any person other than the broker or owner-developer under whom he or she is licensed at the time of the real estate transaction." The rule is about the source of the payment, so neither the broker's written consent, nor an accurate split, nor escrow's neutrality changes the answer. NRS 645.630(1)(c) makes accepting a commission from anyone but the associated broker or owner-developer an independent ground for discipline, and NRS 645.280(3) closes the circle from the other direction: a broker-salesperson or salesperson may not pay a commission to anyone except through that broker or owner-developer. A licensee may be associated with only one broker or owner-developer at a time (NRS 645.520(3)).

Under NRS 645.280(1), a Nevada broker may lawfully pay part of a commission arising from a real estate transaction to:

• a.an unlicensed neighbor who introduced the buyer
• b.an unlicensed assistant who prepared the listing
• c.a licensed real estate broker of another state✓
• d.an unlicensed relative who arranged the showings

NRS 645.280(1) makes it unlawful for a licensed broker, broker-salesperson or salesperson to give or pay, directly or indirectly, any part of a commission, compensation or finder's fee arising from a real estate transaction "to any person who is not a licensed real estate broker, broker-salesperson or salesperson, in consideration of services performed or to be performed by the unlicensed person," and then carves out one exception in the next sentence: "A licensed real estate broker may pay a commission to a licensed broker of another state." Introducing a buyer, preparing a listing and arranging showings are all services performed in the transaction, so paying an unlicensed person for any of them is exactly what the subsection forbids - the relationship to the licensee makes no difference. NRS 645.633(1)(c) repeats the prohibition as a ground for discipline, again excepting payments to a broker licensed in his or her state of residence.

A Nevada broker-salesperson posts one of the brokerage's listings on social media. Under NRS 645.315 and NAC 645.610, the post must carry:

• a.the licensee's license number and the seller's written consent to the posting
• b.the name of the brokerage and the Division's advertising approval number
• c.the licensee's license number and the property's assessor parcel number
• d.the licensee's license number and the name of the brokerage, identified with prominence✓

NRS 645.315(1) requires a licensee advertising services for which a license is required to include his or her license number and to disclose the name of the brokerage with which the licensee is associated. NAC 645.610(1)(c) adds that the brokerage's name "must be clearly identified with prominence in any advertisement," and directs the Division to weigh the style, size and color of the type and the placement of the name in deciding whether it is prominent; paragraph (1)(e) requires the license number to appear "in a conspicuous way." NAC 645.610(4) defines advertisement broadly enough to reach the post: unsolicited printed media, brochures and flyers, broadcast media, unsolicited email and social media, the internet, billboards and signs, plus business cards, stationery and forms used in a transaction. The Division issues no advertising approval numbers to Chapter 645 licensees, a seller's consent is not what the advertising rules require, and no parcel number is called for. NRS 645.315(2) adds that a broker-salesperson or salesperson may never advertise solely under his or her own name; the advertising must be under the direct supervision of and in the name of the brokerage.

A Nevada salesperson advertises for lease a rental house she owns herself. Under NAC 645.610(1)(b), the advertisement:

• a.may carry her name only if it says "for lease by owner-agent" or substantially similar words✓
• b.may carry her name only if the brokerage's name is left out of the advertisement entirely
• c.may say "for lease by owner" without more, because she is the owner rather than a listing agent
• d.may carry her name only if she first places her salesperson license on inactive status

NAC 645.610(1)(b) forbids a licensee from using his or her name or telephone number in any advertisement containing the words "for sale by owner," "for lease by owner" or similar words, then supplies the exception: a licensee with an ownership interest in the advertised property may use his or her name or telephone number if the advertisement says "for sale by owner-broker" or "for lease by owner-broker" where the licensee is a broker, or "for sale by owner-agent" or "for lease by owner-agent" where the licensee is an agent, or substantially similar words. A salesperson is in the agent category. A bare "for lease by owner" is the very phrasing the rule prohibits, because it hides the license from the public. Omitting the brokerage name would breach NAC 645.610(1)(c), and no rule asks a licensee to inactivate a license in order to advertise her own property. NAC 645.640 requires a parallel written disclosure whenever a licensee acquires, leases or disposes of property for herself, her family, her firm or an entity she has an interest in - including in the advertising.

Under NRS 645.2515, a broker's price opinion prepared by a Nevada licensee for an existing or potential lienholder:

• a.may be used in lieu of an appraisal if the lienholder accepts it in writing beforehand
• b.may not be used in lieu of an appraisal for deciding whether to approve a mortgage loan✓
• c.may not be prepared at all, because lienholders are outside the permitted list of recipients
• d.may be used in lieu of an appraisal if the licensee also holds a property management permit

NRS 645.2515(2)(d) puts an existing or potential lienholder on the list of persons a licensee may prepare a broker's price opinion for - so the answer that bars lienholders altogether is wrong - but attaches the limit in the same paragraph: such an opinion "may not be used in lieu of an appraisal for the purpose of determining whether to approve a mortgage loan." That limit is statutory and cannot be waived by the lender's written acceptance, and a property management permit has nothing to do with it. Subsection 1 lets a licensee prepare a price opinion and charge a fee only while the license is active and in good standing and only if the opinion meets subsection 3, which requires the intended purpose, a description of the property and interest, the basis used including market data and any capitalisation computation, assumptions and limiting conditions, the date of issuance, a disclosure of every preparing licensee's existing or contemplated interest, and each preparer's license number, name and signature.

A Nevada salesperson receives a buyer's earnest-money check on a contract that all parties have signed. Under NAC 645.657, she must pay it over to her broker or to the escrow designated in the contract:

• a.within 3 business days after receiving the fully executed contract
• b.within 5 calendar days after receiving the fully executed contract
• c.within 1 business day after receiving the fully executed contract✓
• d.before the end of the next banking day after receiving the fully executed contract

NAC 645.657 provides that a licensee who receives a deposit on a transaction in which he or she is engaged on behalf of a broker or owner-developer "shall pay over the deposit to that broker or owner-developer, or to the escrow business or company designated in the contract, within 1 business day after receiving a fully executed contract." The three-day and five-day answers stretch the rule. The next-banking-day answer names a real Nevada deadline attached to the wrong person: NRS 645.630(1)(k) sets the broker's own deadline for banking earnest money after an agreement is accepted, and it is measured in banking days rather than business days. The salesperson's clock runs to the broker; the broker's clock runs to the bank. NRS 645.310(2) states the same principle generally: a salesperson or broker-salesperson who receives money on a broker's behalf shall pay it over to the broker promptly.

The booklet Nevada licensees know as the Residential Disclosure Guide is, under NRS 645.194, prepared by:

• a.the seller, who completes it about the property before the property is listed for sale
• b.the county assessor, who issues it together with the property's current tax record
• c.the Real Estate Division, and licensees must distribute it to prospective buyers and sellers✓
• d.the listing broker, who drafts it from the brokerage's own transaction files

NRS 645.194(1) requires the Division to prepare "a booklet that provides relevant information concerning the disclosures that are required by federal, state and local laws and regulations by a buyer and a seller in a transaction involving the sale of residential property." Subsection 2 requires the Division to make copies available to licensees, "which the licensee must distribute to prospective buyers and sellers in the sale of residential property in accordance with the regulations adopted by the Commission," and subsection 3 gives the Commission approval over the booklet's format and content. So the guide is a state-authored consumer summary that the licensee hands out - it is not a seller's statement about a particular house, not an assessor's product, and not something a brokerage writes for itself. The Seller's Real Property Disclosure under NRS 113.130 is a different document with a different author, a different audience and a different subject. "Residential property" here carries the meaning given in NRS 113.100.

Under NRS 113.130, the completed Seller's Real Property Disclosure form must be served on the purchaser or the purchaser's agent:

• a.at least 5 days before the residential property is conveyed to the purchaser
• b.within 10 days after the purchase agreement is signed by both of the parties
• c.at least 10 days before the residential property is conveyed to the purchaser✓
• d.at any point before the close of escrow, so long as escrow has not yet closed

NRS 113.130(1)(a) requires that "[a]t least 10 days before residential property is conveyed to a purchaser," the seller complete a disclosure form and the seller or the seller's agent serve the purchaser or the purchaser's agent with the completed form. The clock runs backwards from conveyance, not forward from the signing of the contract, which is why both the five-day figure and the post-signing window are wrong, and why an open-ended "any time before closing" is wrong as well. The section lists the sales it does not reach - foreclosure under Chapter 107, transfers between co-owners, spouses or relatives within the third degree of consanguinity, the first sale of a residence built by a licensed contractor, and certain temporary-title and fiduciary transfers - and subsection 3 forbids waiver: the purchaser may not waive the subsection 1 requirements and the seller may not make waiver a condition of sale.

A Nevada seller asks his listing agent to fill out the Seller's Real Property Disclosure for him, since the agent has seen the house more recently. Under NRS 113.130:

• a.the agent may complete the form if the seller signs it and the purchaser initials the change
• b.the agent may not complete the form for the seller, and the purchaser cannot waive the requirement✓
• c.the agent may complete the form, because the agent is the seller's authorized representative
• d.the agent may complete the form if the brokerage keeps the draft in the transaction file

NRS 113.130(1)(a) assigns the completing of the form to the seller and then says so in terms: "A seller's agent shall not complete a disclosure form regarding the residential property on behalf of the seller." No signature, initial or file note cures that, and being the seller's authorized representative is exactly the status the sentence is written to exclude. Subsection 3 adds that the purchaser may not waive the requirement and the seller may not require waiver as a condition of sale. The division of responsibility runs through the section: NRS 113.130(1)(c) protects the seller's agent from damages where the seller conceals a defect on the form or fails to report a newly discovered or worsened defect - but that protection expressly does not affect the agent's own duty under NRS 645.252(1)(a) to disclose material facts the agent knows. NRS 113.140 completes the picture: the form warrants nothing, the seller need not disclose defects he does not know about, and the buyer still owes himself reasonable care.

A Nevada seller never serves the disclosure form required by NRS 113.130. Under NRS 113.150(1), the purchaser may:

• a.rescind the purchase agreement without penalty within 4 working days after the closing
• b.recover treble damages only, rescission not being available for a failure to serve the form
• c.rescind the purchase agreement without penalty at any time before conveyance of the property✓
• d.compel the seller to complete the form, but may not rescind on that ground alone

NRS 113.150(1) provides that if a seller or the seller's agent fails to serve a completed disclosure form as NRS 113.130 requires, "the purchaser may, at any time before the conveyance of the property to the purchaser, rescind the agreement to purchase the property without any penalties." The remedy is rescission before conveyance, so answers that push it past closing or that deny rescission altogether misstate it. The four-working-day figure belongs to a different situation: NRS 113.150(2) and (3) cover a defect the seller does disclose before conveyance, and rescission on that ground is effective only if made in writing, notarized and served within 4 working days after the purchaser is informed of the defect. Treble damages exist too, under NRS 113.150(4), but they apply where the seller conveys without complying and a known defect surfaces - an action to be brought within 1 year after discovery or 2 years after conveyance, whichever is later - and they are an additional remedy rather than the only one.

A buyer of a Nevada condominium receives the association's resale package on a Monday. Under NRS 116.4109, the buyer may cancel the purchase contract by written notice until:

• a.midnight of the third business day following the date the resale package was received
• b.midnight of the fifth calendar day following the date the resale package was received✓
• c.midnight of the tenth calendar day following the date the purchase contract was signed
• d.the close of escrow, because the resale package carries no separate cancellation period

NRS 116.4109(2) gives the purchaser the right to "cancel the contract of purchase until midnight of the fifth calendar day following the date of receipt of the resale package," and requires the contract itself to say so. The clock runs from receipt of the package, not from the signing of the contract, and it is measured in calendar days. Cancellation is without penalty and all payments made before cancellation must be refunded promptly, but a purchaser who has already accepted a conveyance of the unit loses both the cancellation right and any claim for damages or rescission based solely on the package not having been furnished. The rest of the section fixes the association's own obligations: within 10 calendar days after a written request from the unit's owner or the owner's authorized agent, the association must furnish the declaration, bylaws, rules, information statement, current budget and year-to-date financial statement, plus a certificate carrying the assessment and unpaid-obligation information. If the association misses those 10 days the purchaser is not liable for the delinquent assessment, and a resale package stays effective for 90 calendar days.

A Nevada licensee is buying a rental house for a limited-liability company she has an ownership interest in. Under NAC 645.640, the written disclosure she must make first has to state that she is acting for that entity and that:

• a.she holds a Nevada real estate license, whether that license is active or inactive✓
• b.she holds an active Nevada real estate license, no disclosure being needed if it is inactive
• c.she will not claim a commission on the purchase from any party to the transaction
• d.she has notified the Division of the purchase on a form the Division supplies

NAC 645.640(1) bars a licensee from acquiring, leasing or disposing of any time share, real property or interest in either for himself or herself, a member of the immediate family, the firm or a member of it, or any entity in which the licensee has an interest as owner, unless the licensee first discloses in writing both that he or she is doing so for that person, firm or entity and that he or she "is a licensed real estate broker, licensed real estate broker-salesperson or licensed real estate salesperson, whether his or her license is active or inactive." The phrase "active or inactive" is the point of the rule - a licensee cannot step out of the disclosure by deactivating. Nothing in the regulation turns on a commission or on a filing with the Division. Subsection 2 extends the same disclosure into any advertisement of the property or of the licensee's wish to enter such a transaction, and NRS 645.252(1)(c) requires disclosure to each party as soon as practicable that the licensee is a principal to the transaction or has an interest in one.

NRS 40.770 makes certain facts about a Nevada property not material to a sale, lease or rental. Which of the following is NOT sheltered by that statute?

• a.That the property was the site of a homicide unrelated to any condition of the property
• b.That a registered sex offender resides or is expected to reside in the community
• c.That a facility for transitional living for released offenders is located near the property
• d.That the property was used to manufacture methamphetamine and has not been remediated✓

NRS 40.770(1)(b) shelters the fact that a property was the site of a felony, but it writes one crime out of the shelter on its face - "a crime that involves the manufacturing of any material, compound, mixture or preparation which contains any quantity of methamphetamine." Subsection 6 then restores the shelter for that crime only if all methamphetamine materials and substances have been removed or remediated by a certified or licensed entity, or the board of health has deemed the property safe for habitation. An unremediated methamphetamine property therefore falls outside the statute. The other three are squarely inside it: subsection 1(a) covers a homicide, suicide or any other death except one resulting from a condition of the property; subsection 2 covers a sex offender residing or expected to reside in the community and expressly removes any duty to disclose it; and subsection 3 covers a nearby licensed facility for transitional living for released offenders. Subsection 1(c) adds occupancy by a person exposed to or suffering from a disease not known to be transmitted through occupancy. None of this touches the separate duty to disclose known material defects in the property's physical condition.

Assembly Bill 258 of Nevada's 2025 session changed the definition of "brokerage agreement" in NRS 645.005 and, as a consequence, amended NRS 645.320. What did the act do?

• a.It added "an oral or" to the definition, so a brokerage agreement may now be oral, and it added a "be in writing" requirement to NRS 645.320 for exclusive agency agreements only
• b.It struck "an oral or" from the definition, so a brokerage agreement must now be written, and it deleted the "be in writing" requirement from NRS 645.320 as redundant✓
• c.It limited the definition to residential transactions, and it moved the "be in writing" requirement of NRS 645.320 into the definition of an exclusive right to sell
• d.It extended the definition to property management agreements, and it replaced the "be in writing" requirement of NRS 645.320 with a Division-prescribed form

Before 2025, NRS 645.005 defined a brokerage agreement as "an oral or written contract" between a client and a broker. Section 2 of A.B. 258 struck the bracketed words "[an oral or]," leaving "a written contract between a client and a broker in which the broker agrees to accept valuable consideration from the client or another person for assisting, soliciting or negotiating the sale, purchase, option, rental or lease of real property, or the sale, exchange, option or purchase of a business." The bill's digest states the effect: the change removes the provisions under which an oral contract could be a brokerage agreement, "thereby requiring a brokerage agreement to be in writing." Section 4 then struck the old subsection 1 of NRS 645.320, "Be in writing," and renumbered the rest, because - again in the digest's words - that requirement is "made redundant by section 2." So the writing requirement did not disappear; it moved into the definition and now reaches every brokerage agreement rather than only exclusive ones. Section 6 fixes the reach: the amendatory provisions apply to any brokerage agreement entered into on or after 1 October 2025. Sections 1, 3 and 5 made matching deletions of the now-superfluous word "written" in NRS 624.031, NRS 645.300 and NRS 645.633. The definition still excludes a property management agreement, which is governed by NRS 645.6056.

NRS 645.320 governs a Nevada brokerage agreement that includes a provision for exclusive agency representation. Which clause would put such an agreement in breach of that section?

• a.A clause fixing, in the agreement's own terms, a definite, specified and complete date on which the exclusive agency representation terminates
• b.A clause requiring the signatures of both the client and the broker before the agreement becomes enforceable
• c.A clause permitting the client to buy the property through another broker after the agreement has terminated
• d.A clause requiring the client to notify the broker of an intention to cancel the exclusive features after the agreement has terminated✓

NRS 645.320(2) forbids an exclusive agency brokerage agreement from containing "[a]ny provision which requires the client who signs the brokerage agreement to notify the real estate broker of the client's intention to cancel the exclusive features of the brokerage agreement after the termination of the brokerage agreement." That is the trap the section exists to close: an agreement that quietly continues its exclusivity unless the client writes in to end it. The other three clauses are either required or unobjectionable. Subsection 1 requires the terms to set out "a definite, specified and complete termination," and subsection 3 requires the signatures of both the client or an authorized representative and the broker or an authorized representative "in order to be enforceable" - so an agreement containing those two clauses is complying rather than breaching. Nothing in the section restricts what the client may do once the agreement has ended. Note that the section was renumbered by A.B. 258 in 2025: a study guide printed before then shows four subsections rather than three, so the numbering in an older source will not line up. NRS 645.633(1)(f) separately makes it a ground for discipline to omit a fixed date of expiration from any brokerage agreement or to fail to leave a copy with the client.