US Nebraska Salesperson License Exam Set Two

This question does not require a mathematical calculation. A standard owner’s title insurance policy in Nebraska is a contract of indemnity, designed to protect a property owner from financial loss due to defects in the title that existed at the time the policy was issued but were unknown to the owner. The core purpose of this insurance is to cover past, hidden risks that could jeopardize ownership. This includes issues found within the public records that a title search might have missed, or matters that are not of public record but still affect title, such as fraud or forgery in the chain of title. Therefore, a claim arising from a forged deed executed by a previous owner years before the current owner’s purchase is a classic example of a covered risk. The title company insures the state of the title as of the policy date. Conversely, standard policies contain specific exclusions. They typically do not cover issues that would be revealed by an accurate and current survey of the property, such as encroachments or boundary line disputes. They also exclude defects, liens, or encumbrances that are created, suffered, or agreed to by the insured owner. For instance, a mechanic’s lien resulting from work the new owner contracted for would not be covered. Furthermore, title insurance is retrospective; it does not cover events or liens that occur after the policy date. A special assessment levied by a municipality after the closing and issuance of the policy is a future event and thus falls outside the scope of coverage. Understanding these distinctions between covered risks and standard exclusions is fundamental.

In Nebraska, the process of verifying title to real property relies heavily on the creation of an abstract of title by a licensed and bonded abstractor. An abstract of title is a comprehensive historical summary of all publicly recorded documents and proceedings that affect the title to a specific parcel of land. The abstractor’s role is strictly to search the public records and report their findings chronologically and factually. They do not provide legal opinions, interpret the legal effect of the documents they find, or determine the enforceability of liens. When an abstractor discovers a potential defect, such as an old, unreleased deed of trust, their duty is to include a certified copy or summary of that instrument in the abstract. This finding creates what is known as a cloud on the title, which is any claim or encumbrance that could potentially impair the owner’s title and make it unmarketable. Once the abstract is completed and certified, it is delivered to an attorney for examination. The attorney reviews the entire abstract and issues a title opinion. This legal opinion interprets the findings within the abstract, identifies any clouds on the title, and states whether the title is marketable. In the case of an old, unreleased deed of trust, the attorney would likely identify it as a significant defect. Even if the statute of limitations for foreclosure might have passed, the recorded instrument remains a cloud until it is formally removed from the record. The attorney would then recommend a course of action to cure the defect, which could involve obtaining a corrective release document or, if that is not possible, initiating a quiet title action, a lawsuit to resolve the ownership issue and clear the title. Only after such curative actions are completed can the attorney typically issue a final opinion that the title is marketable, allowing the transaction to proceed and a title insurance policy to be issued without exception for that defect.

This is a conceptual question and does not require any mathematical calculations. Under Nebraska law, an express agency relationship is formed when a principal and an agent explicitly agree to the relationship, either orally or in writing. In the described scenario, the verbal instructions and agreement on a commission rate between the homeowner and the licensee did create an express agency relationship in principle. The licensee was given explicit authority to act on the principal’s behalf. However, the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, specifically Section 76-2421, contains a critical provision that functions like a statute of frauds for brokerage agreements. This statute mandates that for a real estate licensee to have a legally enforceable right to collect a commission, the brokerage agreement must be in writing. This requirement is absolute for the purposes of litigation over a commission. Therefore, while an agency relationship and its associated fiduciary duties may have been established through the verbal agreement, the licensee’s ability to sue for or otherwise compel payment of the agreed-upon commission is nullified by the absence of a signed, written listing agreement. The law prioritizes the certainty and clarity of a written contract to prevent disputes over compensation. The licensee’s performance of services, even if substantial, cannot overcome this statutory requirement for an enforceable commission claim.

The Government Survey System, or Rectangular Survey System, is a grid system designed to describe land. It is based on principal meridians running north-south and baselines running east-west. Because the Earth is a sphere, the north-south lines, known as range lines, are not truly parallel and converge as they approach the North Pole. To account for this curvature and convergence, the system incorporates correction lines. Standard parallels are correction lines that run east-west at 24-mile intervals north and south of a baseline. When surveyors create townships by running lines north from a baseline or a standard parallel, the convergence of the range lines causes the townships to become progressively narrower than the intended six miles. This accumulated error is corrected at the next standard parallel. The correction is made by placing all the deficiency or error into the sections along the northern and western boundaries of the townships within that 24-mile block. Consequently, the tier of townships located immediately south of a standard parallel will contain these fractional sections, which are typically smaller than the standard 640 acres. Conversely, when the survey reaches a standard parallel, the measurements for the next block of townships to the north are reset. The range lines are re-measured to be the full six miles apart at that latitude. Therefore, the townships and sections immediately north of a standard parallel start a new, more accurate measurement block and are more likely to be full, standard-sized sections. The tract south of the parallel bears the convergence error, while the tract north of it begins with a clean slate.

The legal determination of whether an item is real or personal property hinges on specific tests, particularly in the context of a property sale where the purchase agreement is silent on the items. The primary tests involve the method of attachment, the adaptation of the item to the real estate, the relationship of the parties, and the intention of the annexor. Items permanently affixed to the land or buildings, such as a custom irrigation system with underground pipes and bolted controls, are considered fixtures and become part of the real property. Their removal would cause damage, and they are specifically adapted for the property’s use, indicating an intent for them to be permanent. Conversely, items that are freestanding and not physically attached, even if large, may be considered personal property. However, a crucial and distinct legal principle in agricultural states like Nebraska is the doctrine of emblements, also known as fructus industriales. This doctrine applies to annual crops produced by a person’s labor. It establishes that these crops are the personal property of the person who planted and cultivated them, granting that person the right to enter the land to harvest them after the sale, unless the contract states otherwise. This right is a special legal protection for agricultural labor. Therefore, an unharvested corn crop, being an annual product of labor, falls under this doctrine and is legally retained by the seller who planted it.

The first step is to determine the amount of the deficiency. The deficiency is the difference between the outstanding loan balance and the net proceeds from the foreclosure sale. Outstanding Loan Balance: \$285,000 Net Proceeds from Trustee’s Sale: \$240,000 The calculation for the deficiency is: \[\$285,000 – \$240,000 = \$45,000\] This calculation confirms that the sale proceeds were insufficient to cover the total debt, resulting in a \$45,000 shortfall. Under the Nebraska Trust Deeds Act, a deed of trust is a common financing instrument that allows a lender to secure a loan with real property. If the borrower defaults, the Act provides the lender with the option of a non-judicial foreclosure, also known as a trustee’s sale. This process is significantly faster and more cost-effective for the lender compared to a judicial foreclosure, which involves a formal lawsuit. However, Nebraska law establishes a critical trade-off. When a lender elects to use the power of sale in a deed of trust to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure, they forfeit their right to obtain a deficiency judgment against the borrower. The proceeds from the trustee’s sale are considered the full satisfaction of the debt, regardless of any remaining balance. To retain the right to sue for a deficiency, the lender would have had to pursue the more cumbersome and expensive path of a judicial foreclosure through the court system. Therefore, by choosing the expedient non-judicial route, the lender is legally prevented from collecting the remaining debt from the borrower.

The solution is derived by analyzing the two primary objectives of the property owner and matching them to the specific legal characteristics of different trust types recognized in Nebraska. The first objective is the avoidance of probate. Both living trusts and land trusts are established inter vivos, meaning during the owner’s lifetime. Property titled in the name of either type of trust is not considered part of the owner’s probate estate upon death, thus bypassing the probate court process. In contrast, a testamentary trust is created by a will and only becomes effective after the owner’s death and upon the conclusion of the probate process. Therefore, a testamentary trust fails to meet the first objective. The second objective is the confidentiality of ownership. A land trust is specifically designed to achieve this. Title to the real estate is held by a trustee, and the public records do not disclose the identity of the beneficiary, who retains control and receives the benefits of ownership. While a living trust also holds title, the name of the trust itself often identifies the grantor (e.g., “The Arlo Smith Living Trust”), and the trust documents may need to be presented in various transactions, compromising privacy. A land trust, by placing a corporate or third-party trustee on the public deed, offers a superior level of anonymity. By satisfying both the avoidance of probate and the need for confidentiality, the land trust emerges as the most suitable instrument.

The correct action is to inform the unlicensed individual that paying a referral fee or a percentage-based finder’s fee for referring real estate business is illegal. Under both the Nebraska Real Estate License Act and the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), a licensee is prohibited from paying compensation or anything of value to an unlicensed person for the act of referring a client or for any activity that requires a real estate license. This type of payment is considered an illegal kickback. The payment of a fee contingent upon a successful closing to an unlicensed individual for a referral is a clear violation. The law is designed to protect consumers and ensure that only qualified, licensed individuals are compensated for brokerage activities. While a direct payment for the referral is illegal, the law does not typically prohibit giving a small, non-contingent gift of nominal value as a token of appreciation. This gift must not be tied to the transaction’s success or value and should be given simply as a thank you for the thought, not as payment for the referral itself. Attempting to disguise the payment under a different name, such as a marketing fee, or paying it from a different account does not change the fundamental illegality of the act. The proper channel for referral fees is strictly between licensed real estate brokers.

Lin’s one-half interest in the property passes to her sibling, Kenji, through her will. Amir retains his original one-half interest. They now hold the property as tenants in common. In the state of Nebraska, the law presumes that any conveyance of real property to two or more unmarried or married persons creates a tenancy in common, unless a clear and explicit intent to create a joint tenancy is expressed in the conveying instrument. To establish a joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, the deed must contain specific language, such as “as joint tenants with right of survivorship,” or “as joint tenants and not as tenants in common,” or other unequivocal phrasing that clearly indicates the survivorship feature. The simple phrase “as joint owners” is generally considered insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of a tenancy in common. A tenancy in common is a form of co-ownership where each owner holds a separate, undivided interest in the property. These interests can be equal or unequal, and each owner has the right to sell, lease, or will their individual interest to their heirs without the consent of the other co-owners. There is no right of survivorship. In this scenario, because the deed to Amir and Lin lacked the explicit language required to create a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, they held the property as tenants in common, each with a one-half undivided interest. Consequently, upon Lin’s death, her interest did not automatically pass to Amir. Instead, her one-half share became part of her estate and is subject to the terms of her will. Therefore, her interest is legally transferred to her designated heir, Kenji. Amir continues to own his original one-half interest, and he and Kenji become the new tenants in common. It is also important to note that Nebraska does not recognize tenancy by the entirety.

The core issue revolves around a real estate licensee’s duties when encountering “red flags” indicating a potentially significant latent defect, specifically one governed by stringent state regulations. In Nebraska, properties contaminated by the production of methamphetamine are subject to specific rules outlined in Title 178, Chapter 13 of the Nebraska Administrative Code, which is enforced by the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (NDEE). These rules dictate assessment and decontamination procedures. An agent’s observation of chemical stains and discarded containers consistent with drug manufacturing constitutes a significant red flag. Even if the seller professes ignorance, the agent has a duty to disclose material facts they know or should have known. More importantly, the agent has a professional and ethical obligation to advise their client on how to proceed in a legally compliant manner. Simply disclosing a vague “potential” for contamination is insufficient as it does not address the specific and serious health and legal risks involved. Ignoring the signs or actively concealing them would be a severe violation of license law and public trust. The most prudent and legally sound course of action is to advise the seller to pause the listing process and engage a qualified professional to assess the property in accordance with NDEE protocols. This ensures that the property’s true condition is determined, and if contamination is present, it can be properly remediated and certified before being offered for sale, protecting the seller from future liability and ensuring the safety of future occupants.

The correct action is for the licensee to disclose the information they have personally learned to all prospective buyers. Under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, a licensee has an independent duty to disclose any known adverse material facts about a property’s physical condition. An adverse material fact is information that could significantly impact a party’s decision to enter into a contract or affect the property’s value. In this scenario, the seller’s verbal statement about a past radon issue and a non-professional, unverified remediation constitutes actual knowledge for the licensee. This knowledge is a material fact, even if the seller believes the issue is resolved and omits it from the Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statement (SPCDS). The licensee’s duty to treat all parties with honesty and to disclose known adverse material facts supersedes their duty of loyalty to the seller regarding the concealment of such information. Simply relying on the seller’s completed SPCDS is insufficient when the licensee possesses contradictory or additional information. The disclosure should be in writing and should state exactly what the licensee knows: that the seller mentioned a past issue and a self-remediation effort. This allows the buyer to perform their own due diligence, such as ordering a professional radon inspection, to make an informed decision. Failure to disclose this known fact could result in disciplinary action against the licensee by the Nebraska Real Estate Commission and potential civil liability.

The governing federal law, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), establishes the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Real estate licensees engaging in telephone solicitation must comply with these rules. A key exception allows licensees to call individuals on the registry if an established business relationship, or EBR, exists. The EBR has two distinct timeframes. First, a licensee may call a consumer for up to 18 months after the consumer’s last purchase, sale, or lease, which is initiated by a transaction. Second, a licensee may call a consumer for up to 3 months after the consumer makes an inquiry or application. In the scenario presented, the individual who called 60 days ago to inquire about their home’s market value falls within the 3-month inquiry window. This inquiry creates a valid EBR, permitting the salesperson to make a solicitation call. The relationship with the past client from 19 months ago has expired, as it exceeds the 18-month limit for transactions. Similarly, the contact from the open house attendee 5 months ago is no longer valid, as the 3-month period for an inquiry has passed. Contacting a For-Sale-By-Owner whose number is on the DNC Registry is a violation, as advertising a property for sale does not constitute an invitation for solicitation calls from agents. Licensees must scrub their call lists against the national registry at least every 31 days to avoid substantial fines and potential disciplinary action from the Nebraska Real Estate Commission.

Logical Analysis Framework: 1. Identify Conflicting Data Points: \(D_{Assessor}\) = 2,100 sq ft (public record) vs. \(D_{Seller}\) = 2,450 sq ft (including unpermitted finished attic). 2. Identify Governing Regulation: Nebraska Real Estate License Act, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-885.24, which prohibits substantial misrepresentation and requires licensees to exercise reasonable skill and care. 3. Analyze Licensee’s Duty: The duty of reasonable skill and care requires verifying information, not blindly accepting client data, especially when it conflicts with public records. Using a figure that includes unpermitted space without clear disclosure constitutes a substantial misrepresentation. 4. Determine Compliant Action: The licensee must prioritize verifiable data and transparent disclosure. The most compliant action is to use the official, verifiable data as the primary metric while fully disclosing the existence and nature of the additional space. 5. Conclusion: \[(\text{Use } D_{Assessor}) + (\text{Disclose existence of } D_{Seller} \text{ and its unpermitted status}) \rightarrow \text{Compliance with § 81-885.24}\] A real estate licensee in Nebraska operates under a strict duty to exercise reasonable skill and care and to avoid any form of substantial misrepresentation. This duty is central to maintaining the integrity of the profession and protecting the public. When presented with conflicting data, such as a discrepancy between official public records and information provided by a seller, the licensee cannot simply choose the figure that is most advantageous for marketing the property. In the context of property square footage, using a figure from a public source like the county assessor’s office provides a verifiable and defensible baseline. If a seller has finished an area, such as an attic or basement, without obtaining the necessary permits, that space may not be legally considered part of the gross living area for valuation or official recording purposes. Including this unpermitted space in the total advertised square footage without explicit clarification is a serious misrepresentation. The most professional and legally sound course of action is to use the verifiable public record for the primary listing data and to separately disclose the additional finished space. This disclosure should be detailed, noting that the area may be unpermitted and clarifying the source of the information for the extra square footage. This approach ensures transparency, protects the licensee from liability, and provides potential buyers with a complete and accurate picture of the property.

The principle of substitution is a fundamental concept in real estate valuation. It posits that a prudent and informed buyer will not pay more for a property than the cost to acquire a different, but equally desirable, substitute property. This substitute could be another existing property on the market or a new property that could be constructed. The value of a property is therefore set by the cost of obtaining an equivalent substitute without undue delay. In this scenario, the appraiser is faced with valuing a unique historic property with no recent, directly comparable sales. The newly constructed townhomes represent a form of substitute. While they are not physically or stylistically similar, they offer a comparable amount of living space and basic amenities, making them a viable alternative for some buyers. The principle of substitution dictates that the sales prices of these new townhomes act as an indicator of the upper limit of value for the subject property. A buyer considering the historic home would also be aware of the option to purchase a brand new townhome for a certain price. However, the analysis does not stop there. The appraiser must then make significant adjustments to account for the vast differences between the properties. These adjustments would reflect factors such as architectural integrity, historic significance, location within a historic district, and character, which the townhomes lack. Conversely, adjustments would also be needed for the modern features, new components, and lower maintenance costs of the townhomes. The principle guides the appraiser to use the substitute property data as a benchmark, from which the value of the subject property is derived through a careful and well-supported adjustment process that quantifies the differences in desirability and utility.

This question does not require a mathematical calculation. Nebraska operates as a lien theory state regarding mortgages. In this legal framework, the act of a borrower signing a mortgage document does not transfer any portion of the property’s title to the lender. Instead, it creates a specific security interest for the lender, known as a lien, against the property’s title. The borrower, referred to as the mortgagor, retains full legal and equitable title to the property during the entire term of the loan. The lender, or mortgagee, holds only the lien as collateral for the debt. A critical consequence of this theory arises in the event of a loan default. Because the lender does not hold title, they cannot simply repossess the property or sell it unilaterally. To enforce their lien and recover the outstanding debt, the lender must initiate a formal legal action in court. This process is called judicial foreclosure. It involves filing a lawsuit, proving the default to a judge, and obtaining a court order that authorizes the public sale of the property. The proceeds from this sale are then used to satisfy the mortgage debt. This process protects the borrower’s ownership rights by ensuring due process through the court system before the property can be taken. This system is distinct from title theory, where the lender holds legal title, and intermediate theory, where title transfers upon default, both of which can allow for different, often faster, foreclosure procedures.

The calculation of Ananya’s continuing education status is as follows: Total required CE hours for the two-year renewal period: 18 hours. Minimum required hours in designated subject matter: 6 hours. Ananya’s completed NREC-approved CE hours: 24 hours. Ananya’s completed hours in designated subjects: 8 hours. First, verify compliance for the current period. Ananya’s 24 completed hours exceed the 18-hour requirement, and her 8 designated hours exceed the 6-hour minimum. She is in full compliance for the 2023-2024 renewal. Next, determine the status of the excess hours. Excess hours = Total completed hours – Total required hours = 24 – 18 = 6 hours. According to the rules set forth by the Nebraska Real Estate Commission (NREC), continuing education hours completed in excess of the requirement for a specific renewal period may not be carried forward to a future renewal period. Therefore, the 6 excess hours Ananya completed are forfeited and have no value for the next renewal cycle. Under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, all active salespersons and brokers must complete a specific number of continuing education hours to maintain their license. The requirement is currently 18 hours of approved instruction every two years. This renewal cycle concludes on December 31st of each even-numbered year. A critical component of this requirement is that at least six of the eighteen hours must be in designated subject areas specified by the Nebraska Real Estate Commission. These designated topics are chosen to ensure licensees remain current on subjects of particular importance or recent change, such as agency, contracts, or license law updates. A key regulation that licensees must understand is the prohibition on carrying over excess credit hours. If a licensee completes more than the required 18 hours in a two-year cycle, those extra hours do not count toward the next cycle’s requirement. This rule ensures that education is ongoing and relevant to the current period, preventing licensees from “banking” hours far in advance. The responsibility rests solely on the licensee to track their completed hours and ensure all courses are from NREC-approved providers.

Under Nebraska law, specifically Nebraska Revised Statute § 76-2,120, certain circumstances are defined as not being material facts relating to real estate. These include the fact that a property was occupied by someone with a disease like HIV, that a death occurred on the property regardless of the cause, or that the site was the location of a felony. Because these are not considered material facts, a real estate licensee has no affirmative duty to investigate or voluntarily disclose this information to a potential buyer. This provision protects licensees from liability for the non-disclosure of such psychologically impacting events. However, this statutory protection does not extend to acts of misrepresentation. The law does not give a licensee permission to lie or mislead a consumer. When a prospective purchaser or their agent makes a direct, specific inquiry about one of these stigmatizing factors, the licensee’s obligation changes. While they had no duty to bring the topic up, they now have a duty to respond truthfully to the direct question if they have knowledge of the facts. Providing a false answer, such as denying a known event, would constitute misrepresentation, which is a violation of license law. Therefore, the core principle is that the absence of a duty to volunteer information does not create a right to be dishonest when directly questioned. The licensee must answer truthfully.

The legal basis for establishing an easement in this scenario hinges on analyzing the two most relevant types: easement by necessity and easement by prescription. An easement by necessity is created under Nebraska law when a landowner severs a parcel of land, and the act of severance leaves one of the parcels without any legal access to a public road, i.e., landlocked. The creation of this easement is implied by law at the moment of severance, based on the public policy that land should not be rendered useless and the presumption that the original parties intended for the retained parcel to have access. The key requirements are a prior unity of title between the dominant and servient estates and the subsequent severance that creates the necessity for access. An easement by prescription, conversely, is acquired through a process similar to adverse possession. In Nebraska, this requires the claimant to prove their use of the land was open, notorious, exclusive, continuous, under a claim of right, and adverse to the owner of the land for a statutory period of ten years. In the given situation, both conditions appear to be met. The parcel was landlocked by severance from a common owner, creating the grounds for an easement by necessity. The use has also been ongoing for twelve years, which is longer than the ten-year requirement for a prescriptive easement. However, the easement by necessity provides a stronger and more fundamental legal claim. This is because the right was created by operation of law at the very moment the property was landlocked. It does not depend on proving the adverse nature of the use over a decade, which can be a complex and contentious factual determination. A court would likely find the argument for necessity more compelling as it is directly tied to the history of the title and the physical reality of the property’s isolation.

The correct action is for the licensee to disclose the known information about the previous radon test. Under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, a licensee has an affirmative duty to disclose all known adverse material facts relating to the property’s condition to a potential buyer. A radon test result exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s action level of 4.0 pCi/L is considered an adverse material fact. This duty to disclose known material facts is paramount and supersedes the licensee’s duty of obedience to their client, the seller. Even if the seller, Anika, instructs the licensee, Linus, not to disclose this information, Linus’s legal and ethical obligation is to ensure the potential buyer is informed. The age of the test does not negate the fact that it indicates a potential health and safety issue, and Linus has actual knowledge of this fact. Simply advising the buyer to get their own test, while good practice, does not relieve the licensee of the responsibility to disclose what is already known. Failure to disclose a known adverse material fact can result in disciplinary action by the Nebraska Real Estate Commission, as well as potential civil liability. The primary responsibility is disclosure to the potential purchaser. If the seller refuses to permit this disclosure, the licensee may then need to consider terminating the agency relationship.

The core issue revolves around the principle of vicarious liability and the supervisory duties of a designated broker as mandated by the Nebraska Real Estate License Act. In Nebraska, a designated broker is ultimately responsible for the actions of all affiliated licensees. The primary risk management failure is not merely the salesperson’s individual error but the brokerage’s systemic lack of oversight that allowed the error to occur. Effective risk management involves creating, implementing, and enforcing clear policies and procedures, especially concerning high-risk areas like property disclosures. The salesperson, Priya, had an independent duty to disclose any known adverse material facts regarding the property, a duty that is not absolved by the seller’s desire for non-disclosure. However, her failure to seek guidance from her broker on such a critical matter points to a significant lapse in the brokerage’s supervisory framework. A robust risk management program would include mandatory broker review of all Seller Property Condition Disclosure Statements, regular training on identifying and handling red flags, and a clear protocol for escalating client requests that could create liability. Relying on Errors & Omissions insurance is a risk transfer strategy, used after a failure occurs; it is not a substitute for proactive risk control and avoidance through proper supervision and training. The designated broker’s fundamental responsibility is to reasonably supervise their agents to prevent such breaches of duty from happening in the first place.

No calculation is required for this question. Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), both the landlord who owns a place of public accommodation and the tenant who operates a business within that space are jointly responsible for ensuring compliance. The ADA mandates the removal of architectural barriers in existing facilities where such removal is “readily achievable,” meaning it can be done without significant difficulty or expense. In the context of a commercial lease, the law does not automatically assign the financial or practical burden for these modifications to one party. Instead, the responsibility is shared. The lease agreement becomes the critical document for allocating these responsibilities. A landlord cannot contract away their legal responsibility to the public, but they can and should negotiate with the tenant to determine who will perform the work and who will bear the cost. A knowledgeable real-estate salesperson should advise their client that this is a point of negotiation. The landlord is responsible for the property itself, while the tenant is responsible for the business operating as a public accommodation. Therefore, the most prudent course of action is to address the allocation of compliance duties and costs explicitly within the terms of the lease agreement to prevent future conflicts and ensure compliance with federal law.

Step 1: Identify the relevant Nebraska statute. The Nebraska Real Estate License Act and the Nebraska Real Estate Commission (NREC) rules govern advertising by licensees. Step 2: Locate the specific rule on advertising. NREC Title 299, Chapter 2, Section 003.01F mandates that all advertising must be under the direct supervision of the designated broker and in the name the brokerage is licensed under. Step 3: Analyze the requirement for team advertising. The rule specifies that if a team name is used, the licensed name of the brokerage firm must also be included in the advertisement. Step 4: Determine the prominence requirement. The brokerage’s name must be displayed in a conspicuous and prominent manner, ensuring it is clearly visible and not overshadowed by the team name or logo. Step 5: Apply the rule to the scenario. The team “Omaha Prime Properties” is part of the brokerage “Cornhusker Realty Group.” Therefore, the yard sign, a form of advertising, must prominently feature the name “Cornhusker Realty Group.” Step 6: Conclude the essential element. The most critical and non-negotiable element required by NREC rules for the team’s yard sign is the conspicuous and prominent display of the brokerage’s licensed name. Under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, the Nebraska Real Estate Commission has established specific rules for advertising to protect the public and ensure transparency. A fundamental rule is that any licensee, whether an individual or part of a team, must conduct all advertising under the direct supervision of their designated broker. Critically, all advertisements must be published in the licensed name of the brokerage firm. While the use of team names is permitted and common, it does not remove the obligation to clearly identify the responsible brokerage. The Commission’s rules state that the brokerage’s licensed name must be included in all advertising and must be presented in a conspicuous and prominent manner. This is to prevent any public confusion about whether a team is an independent brokerage and to clearly show which licensed entity is accountable for the services being offered. Therefore, a yard sign that only features a team name, no matter how professionally designed, would be in violation of Nebraska law. The inclusion of the brokerage’s name is not merely a suggestion but a mandatory component for compliant advertising. This applies universally across all advertising mediums, from print and signs to digital and social media platforms.

This question does not require a mathematical calculation. It requires a legal and procedural analysis based on the Nebraska Trust Deeds Act. In Nebraska, a Deed of Trust is a three-party instrument used to secure a real estate loan, involving a trustor (borrower), a beneficiary (lender), and a trustee (a neutral third party). One of the key features of using a Deed of Trust is the ability for the lender to foreclose non-judicially in the event of a default. This process is significantly faster than a judicial foreclosure. The process begins when the beneficiary instructs the trustee to file a Notice of Default. Following this, a Notice of Sale is published and delivered to the trustor and other interested parties. The trustor has a right of reinstatement, which allows them to cure the default by paying the delinquent amount plus costs, but this right must be exercised at least one business day prior to the scheduled foreclosure sale. A crucial point of Nebraska law is what happens after the sale. Once the trustee’s sale is completed and the property is sold to the highest bidder, the trustor’s interest in the property is completely terminated. The purchaser receives a Trustee’s Deed, which conveys all rights formerly held by the trustor. Unlike judicial foreclosures in some jurisdictions, there is no statutory right of redemption for the trustor after a non-judicial foreclosure sale under a Deed of Trust in Nebraska. The sale is final. Therefore, any attempt by the former owner to reclaim the property after the sale, even with full payment, is legally invalid.

The legal principle guiding this scenario is that real property is considered unique. Because no two parcels of land are exactly alike, monetary compensation is often deemed an inadequate remedy for a buyer when a seller breaches a valid purchase agreement. The buyer contracted for a specific property, not just any property or its cash equivalent. Therefore, courts of equity have the power to grant specific performance, which is a court order compelling the breaching party to perform their obligations under the contract. In this case, it would mean forcing the seller to complete the sale as agreed. For a court to grant specific performance, the contract must be valid and enforceable, and the non-breaching party (the buyer) must demonstrate they are ready, willing, and able to fulfill their side of the agreement, such as having secured financing. While rescission is an option to cancel the contract and return the parties to their original positions, it would not achieve the buyer’s goal of acquiring the unique property. Similarly, seeking monetary damages might compensate for financial loss, but it fails to provide the specific, unique property the buyer contracted for. Liquidated damages are typically a remedy for the seller against a breaching buyer, using the earnest money, and are not the primary recourse for a buyer in this situation. Given the uniqueness of the property and the buyer’s readiness to proceed, a court is most likely to find that compelling the sale is the most just and equitable outcome.

Under the Nebraska Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, the procedure for handling a tenant’s noncompliance with the rental agreement depends on the nature of the breach. For a material breach other than non-payment of rent, the landlord must first deliver a written notice specifying the acts and omissions constituting the breach. This initial notice must state that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than thirty days after receipt of the notice if the breach is not remedied in fourteen days. This is commonly called a 30-day notice with a 14-day right to cure. If the tenant cures the breach within the fourteen days, the lease continues. However, the law provides a different, more expedited process if the tenant commits a substantially similar breach within six months of the first notice. In such a case of a repeat violation, the landlord is not required to provide another opportunity to cure. Instead, the landlord can terminate the rental agreement by serving a written notice specifying the breach and the date of termination, which must be not less than fourteen days after the tenant receives the notice. This 14-day unconditional notice to quit is a critical distinction for repeat offenses and allows the landlord to proceed directly toward eviction without offering another cure period.

The correct course of action is determined by the mandatory disclosure requirements of the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. This act applies to nearly all housing built before 1978. The core principle is ensuring potential buyers are informed about possible risks, regardless of the seller’s personal knowledge or the buyer’s choices regarding inspections. The law mandates that sellers must provide buyers with the EPA-approved pamphlet, “Protect Your Family From Lead In Your Home.” Additionally, the sales contract must include a specific “Lead Warning Statement” which confirms that the seller has complied with all disclosure requirements. A buyer has the right to a 10-day period to conduct a lead-based paint risk assessment, but they also have the right to waive this inspection. A buyer’s waiver of the inspection does not, under any circumstances, negate the seller’s legal obligation to provide the informational pamphlet and include the signed warning statement in the contract. The real estate licensee is responsible for ensuring the seller is aware of and complies with these non-waivable federal requirements. A seller’s lack of knowledge about lead paint in the home does not exempt them from these specific disclosure duties. The law requires disclosure of known information and provision of the pamphlet, not a certification that the property is lead-free.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a non-invasive investigation designed to identify potential environmental liabilities associated with a property. Its scope is strictly limited to a review of historical records, a physical inspection of the site and surrounding area, and interviews with individuals knowledgeable about the property’s history. Crucially, a Phase I ESA does not involve any physical sampling or laboratory analysis of soil, groundwater, or building materials. The primary objective is to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions, or RECs. A REC is defined as the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate a release, a past release, or a material threat of a future release into the environment. The identification of a REC, such as an undocumented former underground storage tank, signifies a potential risk, not a confirmed fact of contamination. It serves as a critical red flag indicating that the property’s history warrants further investigation. The Phase I report’s conclusion is therefore a statement of potential liability. It cannot and does not confirm the actual presence, nature, or extent of contamination. To obtain that information, a more invasive Phase II Environmental Site Assessment would be required, which includes the collection and chemical analysis of physical samples. A real estate licensee must understand this limitation to properly advise a client on the implications of a REC and the necessity of further due diligence to quantify the actual risk before proceeding with a transaction.

Logical Deduction Leading to the Answer: 1. Identify the core action: Salesperson Amara stated the property was zoned for commercial use based on the seller’s verbal assurance, without independent verification. 2. Analyze the statement’s nature: The zoning classification of a property is a material fact. It is a specific, verifiable piece of information that would significantly influence a reasonable person’s decision to purchase. It is not a subjective opinion or “puffing.” 3. Evaluate the salesperson’s duty: Under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, a licensee has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care and to treat all parties to a transaction with honesty. This includes not making substantial misrepresentations. Relying solely on a seller’s verbal claim for a critical, verifiable fact like zoning does not meet the standard of reasonable skill and care. The salesperson should have verified the zoning status through official municipal records. 4. Determine the type of misrepresentation: Since Amara did not intentionally deceive but failed to perform due diligence on a material fact, her action constitutes negligent misrepresentation. She made a false statement because she was careless in confirming its truth. 5. Assess the supervising broker’s role: Nebraska law, specifically under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act and its accompanying rules (e.g., Title 299), holds supervising brokers responsible for the actions of their affiliated licensees. The broker has a duty to exercise reasonable supervision. A salesperson’s failure to verify a material fact like zoning reflects a potential lapse in training or oversight, making the supervising broker also subject to disciplinary action by the Nebraska Real Estate Commission. 6. Conclusion: Both the salesperson and the supervising broker are exposed to liability. The salesperson for the direct act of negligent misrepresentation, and the broker for failure to adequately supervise. In Nebraska real estate practice, licensees are held to a professional standard that includes verifying material facts about a property. A material fact is any information that could influence a buyer’s decision to purchase or the price they are willing to pay. Zoning classification is a prime example of a material fact. Stating a property’s zoning status without confirming it with the appropriate local government authority is a breach of the duty to exercise reasonable skill and care. This type of breach is considered negligent misrepresentation, even if there was no intent to deceive the buyer. It is a false statement made by a person who had a duty to know the truth but was careless in their investigation. Under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, making any substantial misrepresentation is a violation that can lead to disciplinary action, including license suspension or revocation. Furthermore, the concept of vicarious liability and the specific duty of supervision means that the designated or supervising broker is also responsible for the conduct of the salespeople working under them. A broker must ensure their agents are properly trained and follow correct procedures, which includes the verification of critical information. Therefore, when a salesperson commits an act of negligent misrepresentation, the Nebraska Real Estate Commission can hold both the salesperson and their supervising broker accountable.

The core issue revolves around the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, specifically the rules governing compensation for referrals. Under Nebraska law, a real estate licensee is strictly prohibited from paying a commission, fee, or any valuable consideration to an unlicensed person for performing any act that requires a real estate license. The act of finding, referring, or directing a potential seller to a licensee for a fee is considered an activity requiring a license. Therefore, paying an unlicensed individual, like a former client, a structured referral fee is an illegal act. This prohibition applies regardless of the amount, whether it is disclosed, or whether it is paid directly or through a broker. However, the law does not necessarily prohibit giving a gift as a token of appreciation. The critical distinction lies in the nature and context of the gesture. A permissible action would be a modest gift of nominal value given to a past client after the fact, with no prior agreement or expectation of payment. It must be a genuine expression of gratitude, not a quid pro quo arrangement or something of substantial value that could be construed as compensation for the referral. If there was any pre-existing agreement that the person would receive something of value if the referral resulted in a closed transaction, it would be an illegal payment of a finder’s fee. The action must be unilateral on the part of the licensee and not be substantial enough to be considered a primary motivator for future referrals.

The core issue in this scenario is the licensee’s breach of fiduciary duty, specifically the duty of loyalty to the seller client. Under the Nebraska Real Estate License Act, specifically § 81-885.24(14), it is a prohibited practice for a licensee to offer real property for sale on any terms or at any price other than those authorized by the owner. By telling a prospective buyer that the seller would likely accept a price lower than the listed price without the seller’s express permission, the licensee, Kenji, directly undermined his client’s negotiating position. This action prioritizes a quick sale over the client’s best financial interests. While the guaranteed sale plan itself is a regulated activity under § 81-885.24(20), requiring specific disclosures and conditions in writing, the more immediate and definitive violation presented in the scenario is the unauthorized representation of the seller’s willingness to accept a lower price. This act constitutes a misrepresentation to the buyer and a direct violation of the licensee’s agency obligations to the seller. A licensee must always act in the best interest of their principal and cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the offering or disclose confidential information that could weaken the client’s position.