West Virginia Real Estate Broker Exam — All Questions

Under the West Virginia Real Estate License Act, the practice of real estate brokerage does not include:

• a.managing a rental property and collecting rent for an owner
• b.auctioning a leasehold interest in real estate for compensation
• c.procuring a prospect calculated to result in a real estate transaction
• d.the activities normally performed by an appraiser or home inspector✓

W. Va. Code §30-40-5(b) provides that the practice of brokerage "does not include the activities normally performed by an appraiser, mortgage company, lawyer, engineer, contractor, surveyor, home inspector, or other professional who may perform an ancillary service in conjunction with a real estate transaction." Each of those callings is credentialed elsewhere, and a broker's license neither authorizes nor covers their work. The other three answers are inside the definition of broker in §30-40-4, which reaches a person who for compensation "[l]ists, sells, purchases, exchanges, options, rents, manages, leases, or auctions any interest in real estate" or who "[d]irects or assists in the procuring of a prospect calculated or intended to result in a real estate transaction." Property management is named twice over, since §30-40-4 also defines property management as collecting rent and handling daily operations for an owner.

An unlicensed person sues a West Virginia seller in circuit court for a commission on a sale he arranged. Under the license act, the suit fails because the plaintiff cannot:

• a.prove that he held a valid broker's license at all times✓
• b.produce a written listing agreement signed by the seller
• c.show that the Commission approved the commission rate in advance
• d.demonstrate that he was a member of a multiple listing service

W. Va. Code §30-40-25 bars any action in a West Virginia court "for the recovery of compensation for the performance of any act or service for which a broker's license is required, without alleging and proving that he or she was the holder of a valid broker's license at all times during the performance or rendering of any act or service." The license is a pleading and proof element, not a defense the seller must raise. The same section carves out one route that remains open: an associate broker or salesperson may sue his own affiliated broker for compensation earned while affiliated. A missing listing agreement can defeat a claim on other grounds but is not what §30-40-25 turns on. The Commission does not approve commission rates. And multiple listing service membership is private and confers no right to sue.

A West Virginia salesperson closes a transaction and the buyer offers to pay her directly for her work. Accepting that payment would be:

• a.permissible if the salesperson reports it to her broker within ten days
• b.a ground for discipline, because only her broker may pay a salesperson✓
• c.permissible if the amount is disclosed on the closing statement
• d.a ground for discipline only if the broker objects to the arrangement

W. Va. Code §30-40-19(a)(16) makes it a ground for discipline when a licensee, "[i]n the case of an associate broker or salesperson," accepts compensation for any act specified in the article "from any person other than his or her broker." Rule 174-1-15.2 runs parallel on the collection side: no salesperson or associate broker may collect money in a real estate transaction, whether commission, deposit, payment, or rental, except in the name of and with the consent of the responsible broker. The point is that the brokerage, not the individual licensee, is the contracting party. Reporting the payment afterward, disclosing it at closing, or securing the broker's tolerance does not change who the payer is, and none of those steps appears in the subdivision.

A West Virginia seller proposes that the broker keep everything above $200,000 as her fee. Entering that agreement would be:

• a.permitted, because the parties may set compensation by contract
• b.a ground for discipline, because it is a net listing✓
• c.permitted if the arrangement is disclosed in writing to the buyer
• d.a ground for discipline only if the property sells above $200,000

W. Va. Code §30-40-19(a)(40) makes it a ground for discipline to obtain, negotiate, or attempt to obtain or negotiate "a contract whereby the broker is entitled to a commission only to the extent that the sales price exceeds a given amount, commonly referred to as a net listing." The words "attempt to obtain or negotiate" matter: the violation is complete when the broker pursues the arrangement, so it does not wait on a sale or on the price the property finally brings. Freedom of contract is the general rule for compensation, which is why the license act carves this one structure out of it: a net listing sets the broker's interest against the seller's in getting the highest price. Disclosure to the buyer addresses a different concern and does not cure the conflict with the seller.

A West Virginia licensee wants to offer buyers a closing-cost rebate. Under the Commission's rules, the licensee must disclose in writing the terms of the rebate and:

• a.the licensee's net commission after the rebate is paid
• b.the fair market value of the rebate being offered✓
• c.a comparison with rebates offered by competing brokerages
• d.the identity of the lender funding the buyer's loan

Rule 174-1-18.1 permits a licensee to offer rebates, inducements, or other discounts if the licensee discloses to the client or customer, clearly, conspicuously, and in writing, both "the terms of any rebate, inducement or other discount offered" and "the fair market value of any rebate, inducement or other discount offered," and offers them only with the responsible broker's written permission, under direct supervision, and in the broker's name. Rule 174-1-18.2 then forbids any undisclosed compensation, consideration, rebate, inducement, or discount. The licensee's own net commission is not what the rule makes disclosable. The lender's identity belongs to a different disclosure, the one rule 174-1-18 does not govern. And nothing requires a licensee to publish what competitors offer.

Before a West Virginia broker pays part of her compensation to the broker representing the other party to the transaction, she must:

• a.give written notice to all parties to the transaction✓
• b.obtain the Commission's written approval of the split
• c.record the co-brokerage agreement with the county clerk
• d.wait until the deed has been recorded and the file closed

Rule 174-1-10.5 requires that "[a] broker shall provide written notice to all parties prior to paying a portion of his or her compensation to a broker representing another party to the transaction." The notice must come first, which is what makes it useful to a client deciding what the arrangement means for the advice being given. The sharing itself is lawful: W. Va. Code §30-40-19(a)(14) forbids paying or receiving compensation from anyone other than the licensee's principal but expressly preserves "the sharing of compensation or other valuable consideration between licensed brokers." The Commission does not approve compensation splits, county clerks record instruments affecting title rather than fee arrangements, and delaying the notice until after closing defeats its purpose.

Under the Commission's advertising rule, an advertisement for a specific West Virginia property must include the company name, a phone number, the physical address of a licensed office location, and:

• a.the responsible broker's name and the term "Broker"✓
• b.the license number of the listing salesperson
• c.the name of every team member working the listing
• d.the expiration date of the listing agreement

Rule 174-1-17.1 requires each advertisement to include "the company name, the name of the responsible broker and the term 'Broker,' the physical address of a licensed office location, and a phone number." The one relaxation is for yard signs, which need not carry the office address. The rule identifies the brokerage that stands behind the advertisement, which is why the responsible broker's name and title are the required element rather than the individual licensee's number. West Virginia does not require license numbers in advertising. Team advertising is expressly excused from naming every member, provided at least one associate broker or salesperson is named with the correct title and any unlicensed member is marked "Non-Licensed." A listing's expiration date is a contract term, not an advertising disclosure.

A West Virginia team advertises a listing with the team name in large type. Under the Commission's advertising rule, the company name, the responsible broker's name, and the term "Broker" must appear in type:

• a.at least as large as the team name
• b.at least one inch in height
• c.no less than one quarter the size of the team name
• d.no less than half the size of the team name✓

Rule 174-1-17.1 provides that "[t]he company name, the name of the responsible broker, and the term 'Broker' shall be displayed no less than half the size of the names of the associate broker(s), salesperson(s), or team name in the advertisement." The requirement is proportional rather than absolute, so the brokerage identification scales with however prominently the team promotes itself. Equal size overstates the rule. The one-inch figure belongs to a different rule, 174-1-13.1, which governs the physical sign at the office entrance and requires lettering not less than one inch in height. A quarter-size floor would let the brokerage identification shrink to half of what the rule permits.

A West Virginia brokerage advertises listings on a social media page. Under the Commission's advertising rule, the required advertising information must be:

• a.included in the text of every individual post
• b.available on request from the responsible broker
• c.accessible with no more than two mouse clicks✓
• d.filed with the Commission before the page goes live

Rule 174-1-17.4 provides that the information required by sections 17.1 and 17.2 "must appear on the home page or the screen that is first seen by the viewer," and that "[t]his information must be accessible with no more than two mouse clicks when advertising on social media." The two-click allowance recognizes that a social platform controls its own layout while still keeping the brokerage identification within easy reach of the consumer. Requiring the full block in every post is stricter than the rule and is what the two-click provision exists to avoid. Making it available on request puts the burden on the consumer to ask. And the Commission does not preclear advertising pages.

A West Virginia salesperson buys online advertising for one of his listings under his own name and photograph only. Under the Commission's advertising rule, that advertisement is:

• a.proper, because the salesperson paid for the advertising personally
• b.improper, because all advertising must be in the name of the responsible broker✓
• c.proper, because the listing is already published in the multiple listing service
• d.improper only if the salesperson also omits his own license status

Rule 174-1-17.2 states that no salesperson, associate broker, or team "shall advertise any property under his, her, or their own name without the name of the responsible broker," and that all such advertising "must be under the direct supervision of and in the name of the responsible broker." Who paid for the advertisement does not change that; the licensed activity belongs to the brokerage. Publication in a multiple listing service is a private arrangement among members and does not satisfy the Commission's rule for the licensee's own advertising. Omitting license status is a separate defect under rule 174-1-17.1, so curing it would still leave the missing broker name, which is the violation the rule addresses first.

A West Virginia licensee places a "for sale" sign on a property he hopes to list, before any agreement with the owner. Under the license act, that conduct is:

• a.acceptable if the sign is removed within ten days
• b.a ground for discipline only if a buyer is misled by the sign
• c.acceptable if the owner has orally agreed to consider listing
• d.a ground for discipline, absent an agency relationship or consent✓

W. Va. Code §30-40-19(a)(10) makes it a ground for discipline to advertise or display "a 'for sale', 'for rent', or other such sign on any property without an agency relationship being established or without the owner's knowledge and written consent." The violation is complete when the sign goes up, so removing it later and the absence of any misled buyer are both beside the point. Oral agreement does not satisfy a provision that names written consent. The neighboring subdivision, §30-40-19(a)(11), covers the related abuse of advertising a property "on terms other than those authorized by the owner," which shows the same theme: the owner controls how the property is held out to the market.