Virginia Real Estate Broker Exam — All Questions

Which act by a Virginia licensee violates the Virginia Fair Housing Law?

• a.Presenting every written offer received to the seller
• b.Asking every buyer client for mortgage pre-approval
• c.Charging a percentage commission on the sale price
• d.Steering buyers toward areas by protected class✓

Subdivision A 4 of Section 36-96.3 makes it unlawful to "represent to any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, elderliness, familial status, source of funds, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, or disability that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available," and subdivision A 1 covers otherwise making a dwelling unavailable on those grounds; steering does both. Asking for pre-approval is a financial qualification step, and it becomes a fair housing problem only when applied selectively because of who a buyer is. A percentage commission implicates no protected characteristic at all. Presenting every offer is a duty owed to the client under subdivision A 2 c of Section 54.1-2131, and it is the opposite of selective treatment. 18VAC135-20-260 8 makes a final finding of a fair housing violation independent grounds for Board discipline.

The Virginia Fair Housing Law protects against discrimination on the basis of "elderliness." How is that term defined?

• a.A person who has attained the age of 62 years
• b.A person who has retired from full-time employment
• c.A person who receives Social Security retirement
• d.A person who has attained the age of 55 years✓

Section 36-96.1:1 defines "elderliness" as "an individual who has attained his fifty-fifth birthday." Age 62 appears in a different place, clause (ii) of subsection A of Section 36-96.7, which is one route by which housing qualifies as housing for older persons and therefore escapes the familial status protection. Retirement and receipt of a retirement benefit are not in the definition at all; the test is a birthday, not employment or income status. Elderliness is one of the classes Virginia protects beyond the federal Fair Housing Act, along with source of funds, sexual orientation, gender identity and military status, and it appears in the prohibitions in Section 36-96.3, in the void-covenant provision in Section 36-96.6 and in the exemption in subsection C of Section 36-96.2 that limits a religious organization's preference.

When may a Virginia landlord lawfully refuse a rental applicant because of the applicant's source of funds?

• a.Never, since source of funds is a protected class
• b.When the owner owns no more than four rental units✓
• c.Whenever the applicant cannot pay a security deposit
• d.Whenever the funds come from a government program

Subsection I of Section 36-96.2 says nothing in the chapter prohibits an owner or managing agent from denying or limiting a rental "because of such person's source of funds, provided that such owner does not own more than four rental dwelling units in the Commonwealth at the time of the alleged discriminatory housing practice," and closes the obvious loophole by withdrawing the exemption from an owner holding more than a 10 percent interest in more than four units. So the protection is real but not absolute, which is why the flat "never" answer is wrong. The source of the money is irrelevant to the exemption, and Section 36-96.1:1 defines source of funds broadly as any lawful source "including any assistance, benefit, or subsidy program, whether such program is administered by a governmental or nongovernmental entity." Ability to pay a deposit is an ordinary financial screen rather than a source-of-funds question. Subsection J adds a separate allowance where the source is not approved within 15 days of the request for tenancy approval.

A Virginia advertisement for a rental uses symbols associated with one religion but adds a general nondiscrimination disclaimer. How does Section 36-96.3 treat it?

• a.The disclaimer cures it, so the advertisement is lawful
• b.The symbols are prima facie evidence of illegal preference✓
• c.It is lawful because symbols are not words of preference
• d.It is unlawful only if a complainant proves actual intent

Subdivision A 3 of Section 36-96.3 says "the use of words or symbols associated with a particular religion, national origin, sex, or race shall be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference under this chapter that shall not be overcome by a general disclaimer." The statute names the disclaimer and rejects it in the same breath, so the first answer fails on the face of the text. Symbols are named alongside words, so the medium does not save the advertisement either. And prima facie evidence is precisely a rule that relieves the complainant of proving intent at the outset; requiring proof of actual intent would reverse the burden the subdivision creates. The same subdivision adds one carve-out worth knowing: "reference alone to places of worship, including churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques, in any such notice, statement, or advertisement shall not be prima facie evidence of an illegal preference."

A recorded Virginia subdivision declaration contains a covenant restricting ownership by race. What is its effect today?

• a.It binds any owner who accepted the deed containing it
• b.It is void and contrary to the public policy of Virginia✓
• c.It is valid until a court enters an order striking it
• d.It is valid until the association votes to amend it

Subsection A of Section 36-96.6 declares that any restrictive covenant purporting to restrict occupancy or ownership on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, elderliness, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, military status or disability, "whether heretofore or hereafter included in an instrument affecting the title to real or leasehold property, are declared to be void and contrary to the public policy of the Commonwealth." Acceptance of the deed changes nothing, because a void covenant binds nobody. No court order or association vote is needed to strip it of effect, though subsection B lets a person decline to accept a document containing such a covenant without breaching the contract to purchase. Subsection C bars anyone from soliciting or accepting compensation for removing one, with liability of three times the compensation or $500, whichever is greater, plus fees. Subdivision A 6 of Section 36-96.3 separately makes it unlawful to honor or attempt to honor such a covenant.

Within what period must a complaint under the Virginia Fair Housing Law be filed with the Board?

• a.Within 180 days after the practice occurred or ended
• b.Within two years after the practice occurred or ended
• c.Within one year after the practice occurred or ended✓
• d.Within three years after the practice occurred or ended

Subsection A of Section 36-96.9 requires that a complaint "shall be filed with the Board in writing within one year after the alleged discriminatory housing practice occurred or terminated." Two years is the separate deadline in subsection A of Section 36-96.18 for an aggrieved person to commence a civil action in state or federal court, which may be brought whether or not an administrative complaint was ever filed. One hundred and eighty days is also a real number in this chapter, but subsection B uses it for something else: a civil action may be filed no later than 180 days after the conclusion of the administrative process, or within the two-year window, whichever is later. Three years appears nowhere. Under Section 36-96.20, a reasonable cause determination against a licensee sends the Board first to conference and conciliation and then, if that fails, to an administrative hearing on the license itself.