West Virginia Real Estate Broker Exam — All Questions

Under the West Virginia Real Estate License Act, the Commission's audit authority extends to:

• a.only brokerages that are the subject of a pending written complaint
• b.only trust fund accounts held at a West Virginia financial institution
• c.only licensees who have been disciplined within the preceding two years
• d.brokerage offices, education providers, and any other regulated person✓

W. Va. Code §30-40-7(q) lists among the Commission's general powers that it "may perform compliance audits on real estate brokerage offices, education providers or any other person regulated by the commission." The authority is drawn by who is regulated, not by who is accused. Limiting audits to brokerages under complaint confuses the audit power with the separate examination power in §30-40-7(k), which does turn on a pending complaint and is expressly confined to the violation charged. Limiting them to trust accounts drops education providers, whom the same clause names. And limiting them to previously disciplined licensees would leave the Commission unable to audit the licensee who has never been caught, which is the point of a compliance audit.

A Commission representative arrives at a broker's office during business hours and asks to see the trust fund account records. The broker must:

• a.provide only records for transactions that have already closed and been recorded
• b.require the representative to produce a subpoena before any record is produced
• c.open the records, which the statute keeps open during regular business hours✓
• d.forward the records to the Commission's office within thirty days of the request

W. Va. Code §30-40-18(h) requires the broker to keep records of all funds deposited into the trust fund account and provides that "[a]ll records shall be open to inspection by the commission or its duly authorized representative at all times during regular business hours at the broker's place of business." Rule 174-1-10.3 repeats that the records are open to inspection at the broker's usual place of business and adds that the broker must give the Commission enough space to inspect without interference. Demanding a subpoena reads the statute backwards: the Commission has subpoena power under §30-40-7(d), but it does not need it to see records the law already declares open. Restricting production to closed transactions would hide exactly the pending deposits an audit exists to trace. And a thirty-day mail-in substitutes a schedule of the broker's choosing for the on-site access the statute grants.

A consumer complaint against a West Virginia licensee is served on the licensee. The licensee's answer is due:

• a.within ten days of the date of service
• b.within twenty days of the date of service✓
• c.within thirty days of the date of service
• d.within sixty days of the date of service

W. Va. Code §30-40-20(c) directs the Commission to give the licensee a copy of the complaint and provides that "[t]he accused party shall file an answer within 20 days of the date of service," with failure to respond treated as an admission of the allegations. The same subsection lets the Commission grant an extension, so the deadline is firm but not unforgiving. Ten days is the answer period the fair housing statute uses for a respondent served by the Human Rights Commission, not the real estate figure. Thirty days is the minimum notice before a disciplinary hearing under §30-40-21(b), a different clock later in the same process. Sixty days appears nowhere in the complaint procedure.

A West Virginia consumer wants to file a complaint about a licensee's conduct at a closing that took place four years ago. Under the license act, the complaint is:

• a.timely, because no time limit applies to complaints about closings
• b.timely, because the five-year record retention period governs the filing deadline
• c.untimely, because complaints must be filed within one year of the acts alleged
• d.untimely, because complaints must be filed within two years of the acts alleged✓

W. Va. Code §30-40-20(a) provides that "no disciplinary action may be brought against a licensee upon any complaint that is filed more than two years after the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint," with a discovery rule of the same length for fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and tolling while an ongoing criminal matter keeps material evidence from the Commission. Saying no limit applies ignores the express bar. The five-year figure is the record retention period in §30-40-19(a)(28) and rule 174-1-10.3, which tells the broker how long to keep paper, not the consumer how long to complain. One year is the deadline for a housing discrimination complaint to the Human Rights Commission under §16B-18-11, a different statute and a different agency.

After the licensee answers and the investigation is reviewed, the Commission determines that probable cause exists. Under the license act, the Commission may then:

• a.refer the matter to a circuit court for a trial on the disciplinary charge
• b.revoke the license immediately without any further proceeding
• c.hold a hearing or dispose of the matter by consent agreement✓
• d.reopen the investigation only after the licensee requests a second review

W. Va. Code §30-40-20(f) states that on a probable cause determination "the commission may hold a hearing in compliance with §30-40-21 of this code or may dispose of the matter informally through a consent agreement or otherwise." Both routes are open, which is why most disciplinary files close by agreement rather than by hearing. Immediate revocation skips the hearing rights §30-40-21 supplies and the findings of fact and conclusions of law it requires. Sending the charge to circuit court misplaces the forum: the circuit court enters the picture on judicial review under §29A-5-4, after the agency has acted, not as the trial court for licensure discipline. And nothing conditions the Commission's next step on a request from the licensee.

The Commission schedules a disciplinary hearing. The license act requires that the hearing be held:

• a.no sooner than ten days after notice of the hearing is given
• b.no sooner than twenty days after notice of the hearing is given
• c.no sooner than thirty days after notice of the hearing is given✓
• d.no sooner than ninety days after notice of the hearing is given

W. Va. Code §30-40-21(b) provides that hearings "shall be held at a time and place determined by the commission, but in no event less than 30 days after the notice of hearing is given." The floor protects the licensee's ability to prepare; the Commission is free to set a later date. Ten days is not a real estate deadline at all. Twenty days is the licensee's period to answer the complaint under §30-40-20(c), which runs much earlier in the same file. Ninety days is the length of the candidate's examination authorization in the Pearson VUE handbook and has nothing to do with hearings.

The maximum administrative fine the West Virginia Real Estate Commission may impose is:

• a.$1,000 per day per violation✓
• b.$500 per day per violation
• c.$2,500 per day per violation
• d.$5,000 per day per violation

W. Va. Code §30-40-7(l) lets the Commission impose one or more sanctions and lists among them an "administrative fine not to exceed $1,000 per day per violation," alongside probation, restitution, censure, downgrade of license, additional education, and the return of compensation collected from an injured consumer. Because the cap is per day and per violation, a continuing violation can accumulate well past $1,000 in total. The $500 and $2,500 figures appear nowhere in the article. The $5,000 figure is a criminal fine ceiling from §30-40-22 for a second individual offense or a first entity offense, imposed by a court on conviction rather than by the Commission.

After a contested hearing the Commission finds that a licensee violated the license act. In addition to the sanction imposed, the Commission may:

• a.collect treble damages on behalf of the injured consumer
• b.order the licensee to serve a jail term of up to ninety days
• c.impose a lien on the licensee's brokerage real property
• d.require the licensee to pay the costs of the proceeding✓

W. Va. Code §30-40-21(g) provides that "[i]n addition to any other sanction imposed, the commission may require a licensee to pay the costs of the proceeding," which is why the outline pairs penalties with the cost of proceedings. The treble figure comes from §30-40-22(g), where a person who takes compensation for unlicensed acts faces a penalty of up to three times that compensation "as may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction" and recoverable by the aggrieved person, not assessed by the Commission. The ninety-day jail term is the criminal penalty for a first misdemeanor violation under §30-40-22(a), which follows a prosecution rather than an agency hearing. And no provision of the article gives the Commission lien authority over a licensee's property.

The Commission revokes a West Virginia broker's license. The effect on the associate brokers and salespersons affiliated with that broker is that their licenses are:

• a.automatically revoked, requiring each licensee to requalify by examination
• b.automatically suspended, and replaced free of charge under a new broker✓
• c.unaffected, because discipline reaches only the licensee who was charged
• d.placed on inactive status for one year before any transfer is permitted

W. Va. Code §30-40-19(e) provides that "[t]he revocation of a broker's license shall automatically suspend the license of every associate broker and salesperson affiliated with the broker," and adds that the Commission shall issue a replacement license to a new broker without charge on a proper application filed during the same license term. The suspension follows from the fact that these licensees may practice only under a broker; the free replacement keeps them from paying for their broker's misconduct. Revoking their licenses outright and demanding re-examination reads a harsher result than the statute writes. Saying they are unaffected ignores the supervision structure the article is built on. And a mandatory year of inactive status appears nowhere in the article.