US Ohio Broker License Exam

Under the Ohio Revised Code governing intestate succession, when a person dies without a will and is survived by a spouse and one or more children from a previous relationship, the distribution of assets is specifically defined. In this scenario, the decedent, Alistair, is survived by his spouse, Beatrice, and a child from a prior marriage, Cameron. According to Ohio law, the surviving spouse does not automatically inherit the entire estate. Instead, the real property becomes part of the decedent’s probate estate. Upon Alistair’s death, legal title to the real estate immediately vests in his heirs at law, who are Beatrice and Cameron. They hold the title as tenants in common. However, this vesting is not absolute. The title is subject to the administration of the estate through the probate court. The court will appoint an administrator who is responsible for identifying assets, paying the decedent’s debts, taxes, and the costs of administration. The administrator has the legal authority, and sometimes the obligation, to sell the real property if the estate’s liquid assets are insufficient to cover these liabilities. Therefore, the heirs’ ownership is conditional and can be divested by the administrator’s actions during the probate process. Only after all estate obligations are settled can a Certificate of Transfer be issued by the court and recorded, solidifying the heirs’ clear title according to their statutory shares.

Step 1: Identify the governing statute for the transaction. The scenario describes a land installment contract, which is governed by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 5313. Step 2: Analyze the facts against the statutory thresholds in ORC 5313.07. This statute distinguishes the vendor’s remedies based on the contract’s duration and the amount paid by the vendee. Step 3: Calculate the percentage of the purchase price paid by the vendee. The total price is $220,000 and the amount paid is $55,000. The calculation is \[\frac{\$55,000}{\$220,000} = 0.25\]. This equals 25%. Step 4: Compare the contract’s duration and the percentage paid to the statutory limits. The contract has been in effect for six years, which is greater than the five-year threshold. The vendee has paid 25% of the purchase price, which is greater than the 20% threshold. Step 5: Determine the required legal remedy. According to ORC 5313.07, if a land installment contract has been in effect for five years or more, OR the vendee has paid 20% or more of the purchase price, the vendor’s only remedy for the vendee’s default is to use foreclosure. The vendor cannot use the simpler remedy of forfeiture. The relationship is treated legally as a mortgage, and the property must be sold through a judicial sale. Under Ohio law, a land installment contract is a unique financing arrangement where the seller, or vendor, retains legal title to the property while the buyer, or vendee, makes payments and holds equitable title. The rights and remedies of the parties are strictly defined in Chapter 5313 of the Ohio Revised Code to protect both the vendor and the vendee. A critical aspect of this law concerns the procedure for handling a vendee’s default. The law creates a distinction between forfeiture and foreclosure. Forfeiture allows the vendor to terminate the contract, evict the vendee, and keep all payments made. However, this remedy is only available for newer contracts where the vendee has not built up significant equity. The statute sets clear thresholds. If the contract has been in force for five years or more, or if the vendee has paid at least twenty percent of the total purchase price, the vendor loses the right to forfeiture. In such cases, the law mandates that the vendor must treat the situation as if it were a standard mortgage default. The only legal recourse is to initiate a judicial foreclosure proceeding. This process is more complex and time-consuming, culminating in a sheriff’s sale of the property to satisfy the debt, and it ensures that any equity the vendee has built is protected.

No calculation is required for this question. A real estate broker has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, which includes advising clients on the necessity of performing due diligence, especially for properties with potential development constraints. When a property contains features like vernal pools or specific types of vegetation known to be habitats for protected species, it triggers significant state and federal environmental regulations. In Ohio, wetlands are regulated at both the federal level by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and at the state level by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. A formal wetland delineation, performed by a qualified environmental consultant, is the essential first step to determine the precise boundaries of jurisdictional wetlands. Attempting to develop, dredge, or fill these areas without proper permits can result in severe penalties and project stoppage. Similarly, the presence of potential habitat for species like the Indiana Bat, which is federally protected under the Endangered Species Act, necessitates a habitat assessment. This is typically conducted by a biologist to determine if the species is present or if the habitat is critical. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife are the primary agencies overseeing endangered species protection. Therefore, the most prudent and legally required initial action is to obtain expert analysis through a comprehensive environmental assessment. This assessment identifies the specific regulatory constraints, allowing the developer to make informed decisions about project feasibility, design, and potential mitigation strategies before investing substantial resources or engaging with regulatory agencies. A broker’s failure to advise this course of action could be considered a breach of their professional duties.

Total Required CE = (Core Law Hours + Civil Rights Hours + Canons of Ethics Hours) + Broker Responsibility Hours Total Required CE = (3 + 3 + 3) + 3 Total Required CE = 9 + 3 = 12 hours. Under the Ohio Revised Code, all real estate licensees are generally required to complete 30 hours of continuing education every three years to maintain an active license. However, the law provides for certain exemptions and modifications. One significant modification applies to licensees who are 70 years of age or older. If a licensee’s 70th birthday occurs at any point before the end of their three-year compliance period, they qualify for a reduced requirement for that period. Instead of the full 30 hours, they are only obligated to complete the nine hours of mandatory core curriculum. These core courses consist of three hours in Ohio Real Estate Law, three hours in Civil Rights, and three hours in Canons of Ethics. This reduction in total hours does not, however, eliminate requirements specific to a particular license type. For individuals holding a broker’s license, there is an additional, non-negotiable requirement. All brokers must complete a three-hour Broker Responsibility course during each compliance period. This course is mandatory for all brokers, including those who qualify for the age exemption. Therefore, an age-exempt broker’s total minimum requirement is the sum of the nine core hours and the three-hour Broker Responsibility course.

The core issue revolves around the concept of disparate impact and the expansion of protected classes under local Ohio fair housing ordinances. While federal law and the Ohio Civil Rights Act (specifically R.C. 4112.02(H)) establish foundational protected classes, many municipalities in Ohio, such as Cleveland, have enacted local ordinances that provide additional protections. A key example is the inclusion of “source of income” as a protected class. This means a landlord or seller cannot discriminate against an individual based on their lawful source of funds, which could include housing assistance vouchers, disability benefits, alimony, or other non-wage income. In the given scenario, the agent’s proposal to target advertisements based on high credit scores and executive-level employment, while not explicitly stating an intent to discriminate, creates a significant risk of disparate impact. This marketing strategy would systematically and disproportionately exclude individuals whose lawful income is derived from sources other than high-paying jobs. For instance, a highly qualified prospective buyer receiving substantial disability benefits or trust fund income might be completely excluded from ever seeing the advertisement. This algorithmic filtering effectively functions as a screening mechanism against those with non-traditional income sources, potentially constituting illegal discrimination based on source of income under applicable local laws. A supervising broker’s primary responsibility is to identify and mitigate such fair housing risks, ensuring that all marketing practices are inclusive and do not indirectly discriminate against any protected group. The broker must be aware of not just state and federal laws, but also the more stringent requirements that may exist at the municipal level where the brokerage operates.

The core issue is the principal broker’s failure in their duty of supervision regarding mandatory disclosures. The agent, Mateo, violated Ohio law by not providing the Consumer Guide to Agency Relationships at the first substantive contact. The broker, Priya, implemented a system to review transaction files, but this review occurs after a purchase agreement is executed. This is too late to catch a violation concerning the timing of the initial agency disclosure. Under Ohio Revised Code Section 4735, a principal broker is responsible for supervising the licensed agents affiliated with their brokerage. This duty is not passive; it requires the implementation of active policies and procedures to ensure compliance with license law. While reviewing completed transaction files is a necessary part of this duty, it is insufficient on its own. The broker must also have a system to monitor and verify compliance at critical early stages of the agent-client relationship. This includes ensuring that disclosures like the Consumer Guide and the brokerage’s agency policy are provided at the legally mandated time, which is the first substantive contact. Priya’s reliance solely on post-contract file audits and general training created a compliance gap. An adequate supervisory plan would include proactive measures such as periodic reviews of agent communication logs, spot-checks of initial client meeting procedures, or requiring agents to log the delivery of initial disclosures before a transaction file is even created. The failure to implement such a proactive, preventative review process constitutes a failure to maintain adequate supervision.

The calculation of the total annual property tax liability involves several distinct steps based on Ohio law. First, the property’s market value must be converted to its assessed value. In Ohio, real property is assessed at 35% of its market value. \[\$420,000 \text{ (Market Value)} \times 0.35 \text{ (Assessment Rate)} = \$147,000 \text{ (Assessed Value)}\] Next, any applicable exemptions are subtracted from the assessed value to determine the taxable value. The Ohio Homestead Exemption provides a credit equal to the taxes that would be charged on \( \$25,000 \) of the market value of a homestead for qualifying senior citizens or disabled individuals. This is functionally equivalent to reducing the assessed value by \( \$25,000 \) before taxes are calculated. \[\$147,000 \text{ (Assessed Value)} – \$25,000 \text{ (Homestead Exemption)} = \$122,000 \text{ (Taxable Value)}\] The general property tax is then calculated using this taxable value. The tax rate is expressed in mills, where one mill is equal to \( \$1 \) of tax for every \( \$1,000 \) of assessed value. Therefore, an 85 mill rate is equivalent to \( \$85 \) per \( \$1,000 \) of value, or a rate of 0.085. \[\$122,000 \text{ (Taxable Value)} \times \frac{85}{1000} = \$10,370 \text{ (General Property Tax)}\] Finally, special assessments are calculated and added to the general property tax. Unlike ad valorem taxes, special assessments are levied for specific local improvements and are often a flat fee, not based on property value. This amount is added directly to the general tax bill. \[\$10,370 \text{ (General Property Tax)} + \$600 \text{ (Special Assessment)} = \$10,970 \text{ (Total Tax Liability)}\] Understanding this sequence and the distinction between ad valorem taxes and special assessments is crucial for accurately determining a property’s total tax burden in Ohio.

The legal conclusion is reached by applying Ohio’s statutory dower rights as defined in the Ohio Revised Code. First, we establish that the property was acquired by one spouse, Anya, during her marriage to Ben. Under Ohio law, specifically ORC § 2103.02, a spouse has a dower interest in all real property that their partner owned at any time during the marriage. This interest is an inchoate right, meaning it is a potential or contingent right that is not yet vested. It exists as a protection for the non-title-holding spouse. Second, Anya conveyed the property without Ben’s signature on the deed. A conveyance of real estate by a married person without the spouse’s release of dower does not extinguish the dower interest. The transfer of title to the development company is effective for Anya’s interest, but the property remains subject to Ben’s inchoate dower right. This right acts as a significant cloud or encumbrance on the title. If Anya were to predecease Ben, his inchoate dower would become consummate, granting him a life estate in one-third of the real property. Therefore, the development company holds a title that is encumbered by this potential future claim. Ohio is one of the few states that retains the legal concept of dower. This statutory right grants a surviving spouse a life estate interest in one-third of the real property that their deceased spouse owned at any point during the marriage. While both spouses are alive, this interest is referred to as “inchoate dower.” It is a potential right that encumbers the property’s title, meaning a title insurance company will typically require the non-title-holding spouse to sign the deed to release their dower interest and ensure the purchaser receives a clear, marketable title. If the title-holding spouse sells the property without this release, the new owner takes the property subject to the inchoate dower. Should the selling spouse die before the non-signing spouse, the non-signing spouse’s dower right becomes “consummate,” and they can legally claim their one-third life estate from the current property owner. This is distinct from community property or rights of survivorship associated with specific tenancy types. It is a standalone statutory right that attaches to the property itself.

No calculation is required for this question. In Ohio, leasehold estates define the rights and obligations of a tenant. An estate for years is a lease for a definite, fixed period of time, such as one year. It has a specific start date and a specific end date, and it terminates automatically at the end of the term without any requirement for notice from either the landlord or the tenant. When a tenant with an estate for years remains in possession of the property after the lease term expires, this is known as holding over. The tenant’s status at this point depends on the landlord’s actions. If the landlord does not consent to the tenant holding over and does not accept rent, the tenant becomes a tenant at sufferance. This is the lowest form of estate, and the tenant is essentially a trespasser who can be evicted. However, if the landlord accepts a rent payment from the holdover tenant, the legal situation changes. The acceptance of rent implies the landlord’s consent to a new tenancy. Under Ohio law, this action typically creates a periodic tenancy. The period of this new tenancy is usually determined by the rental payment interval of the original lease. For instance, if rent was paid monthly under the original lease, a month-to-month periodic tenancy is created. This new tenancy continues indefinitely from period to period until one of the parties gives proper statutory notice to terminate it. A tenancy at will is an estate with an indefinite duration that can be terminated by either party at any time with proper notice, but the establishment of regular rent payments points more specifically to a periodic tenancy.

The core issue revolves around the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, commonly known as Title X. This law applies to most residential housing built before 1978. The law mandates that before a purchaser becomes obligated under a contract, the seller and the agent must provide specific disclosures. These include an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet, a lead warning statement, and a disclosure of any known lead-based paint or related hazards, which must be signed by all parties. The law also requires providing the buyer with a 10-day period to conduct a risk assessment, though the buyer can waive this inspection right. In this scenario, the failure to provide the pamphlet and the signed disclosure form before the contract was ratified is a direct violation of Title X. The buyer’s waiver of the 10-day inspection period is a separate action and does not negate the seller’s and broker’s absolute duty to provide the required disclosures. Because these mandatory disclosures were not made prior to the execution of the purchase agreement, the contract is considered voidable at the sole discretion of the buyer. The broker’s professional and legal responsibility is to immediately notify all parties of this critical oversight. This action is necessary to correct the compliance failure, even though it gives the buyer the legal grounds to rescind their offer and terminate the contract without penalty. The broker and the seller could face significant fines and legal action for this failure to comply.

The situation described involves an in-company transaction, which is a form of dual agency under Ohio law. According to Ohio Revised Code Section 4735.71, a licensee acting as a dual agent owes specific, and sometimes conflicting, duties to both the buyer and the seller. One of the most critical and non-negotiable duties is the duty of confidentiality. This duty requires the licensee to keep certain information private unless disclosure is required by law or authorized by the client. Specifically, the price a buyer is willing to pay is considered confidential information. In this scenario, the buyer’s disclosure to their agent, Chloe, that they are willing to pay a significantly higher price is confidential. As the supervising broker, Anika’s primary legal and ethical responsibility is to ensure her agents comply with license law. Her duty of supervision is non-delegable. When presented with this situation, her immediate and most critical action must be to prevent a breach of fiduciary duty. She must directly instruct Chloe that this information is confidential and cannot be shared with anyone, including the seller’s agent, Liam, even though he works for the same brokerage. Sharing this information would violate the duty of confidentiality owed to the buyer and would create an unfair negotiating position for the seller. Anika must enforce the legal boundaries of dual agency to protect the clients, her agents, and the brokerage from liability and disciplinary action from the Ohio Real Estate Commission. Her role is not merely to advise on negotiation strategy but to actively enforce compliance with the law.

The core ethical principle at issue is found in the National Association of REALTORS® Code of Ethics, specifically Article 16 and its accompanying Standard of Practice 16-16. Article 16 governs the relationships REALTORS® have with other REALTORS® and mandates that they do not engage in practices inconsistent with the exclusive representation agreements that other REALTORS® have with their clients. Standard of Practice 16-16 directly addresses the scenario. It states that a REALTOR®, acting on behalf of a buyer, shall not use the terms of a purchase offer to attempt to modify the listing broker’s offer of compensation. Furthermore, it prohibits making the submission of an executed offer contingent on the listing broker’s agreement to modify their compensation. The purchase offer is a negotiation between the buyer and the seller regarding the property’s price and terms. The commission is a separate agreement between the seller and their listing broker. Attempting to use the buyer’s offer as leverage to renegotiate the listing broker’s commission is a violation of this standard. While a REALTOR® has a primary duty to their client under Article 1, this duty does not compel them to follow instructions that are unethical or violate the Code. The REALTOR® must explain to their buyer client that this type of contingency is improper and cannot be included in the offer, thereby upholding professional standards and respecting the contractual agreements of other practitioners.

The calculation determines the final deadline for filing an appeal after a decision from the County Board of Revision (BOR). Date of BOR decision mailing: January 25th. Statutory appeal period: 30 days. Days remaining in January (a 31-day month) after January 25th: \(31 – 25 = 6\) days. Days required from the next month (February) to reach the 30-day total: \(30 – 6 = 24\) days. Therefore, the filing deadline is the 24th day of February. In Ohio, the property tax valuation appeal process follows a specific hierarchical structure. The initial complaint regarding a property’s valuation is filed by a property owner with the County Board of Revision (BOR). The BOR, consisting of the county auditor, treasurer, and president of the board of county commissioners, adjudicates the complaint. If the property owner is not satisfied with the BOR’s decision, they have the right to appeal further. However, this appeal cannot be a re-hearing at the BOR level. The owner must escalate the appeal to a higher authority. The Ohio Revised Code provides two distinct and mutually exclusive paths for this next level of appeal. The appellant can file a notice of appeal with either the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), which is an administrative body, or with the Court of Common Pleas in the county where the property is located, which is a judicial body. An appellant must choose one path; they cannot pursue both simultaneously. A critical component of this process is the strict deadline. The notice of appeal, regardless of which path is chosen, must be filed within 30 days after the date the BOR mails its decision to the party. A broker advising a client must be acutely aware of this deadline and the available appeal venues to provide competent counsel.

The Ohio Administrative Code, specifically section 1301:5-1-21, establishes strict requirements for real estate advertising to prevent public confusion and ensure transparency. A core tenet of this rule is that the name of the brokerage must be displayed in a clear and conspicuous manner in all advertising. Furthermore, the brokerage’s name must be of equal or greater prominence than the name of the individual salesperson or real estate team. In any situation where a team’s branding overshadows or minimizes the brokerage’s identity, it is considered misleading advertising. The principal broker holds the ultimate responsibility for the supervision of all affiliated licensees and their activities, including their marketing and advertising practices. This duty of supervision is a fundamental aspect of Ohio license law. Therefore, when a principal broker identifies advertising materials that do not comply with these prominence and clarity requirements, they have an affirmative obligation to take corrective action. They must ensure that all advertising is immediately revised to bring it into full compliance with state regulations, thereby protecting the public and upholding the integrity of the brokerage’s license. This involves mandating changes to logos, websites, social media, and any other materials to properly and prominently feature the brokerage name.

The legal analysis proceeds as follows: 1. The scenario involves an eviction action (forcible entry and detainer) in Ohio based solely on non-payment of rent. 2. The controlling statute for a tenant’s right to avoid eviction by payment is Ohio Revised Code Section 1923.061(B). 3. This statute specifies that a tenant may avoid eviction by tendering (offering to pay) three distinct components before a judgment is entered: (1) all rent in arrears, (2) all reasonable late fees if provided for in the written lease, and (3) all court costs the landlord has incurred in filing the action. 4. In the given scenario, the tenant, Kenji, has offered to pay only the past-due rent. He has not offered to pay the contractually obligated late fees or the court costs already incurred by the property management company. 5. Therefore, Kenji’s offer constitutes a partial payment and does not meet the full legal requirement to “cure” the default under ORC 1923.061(B). 6. For the property manager, accepting a partial payment after filing for eviction is legally perilous. A court could interpret the acceptance of any funds as a waiver of the landlord’s right to proceed with the eviction, effectively nullifying the original notice to vacate and forcing the landlord to start the process over if the tenant defaults again. 7. The most legally sound course of action to preserve the landlord’s right to evict is to refuse the insufficient tender and clearly communicate to the tenant that the eviction will only be dismissed upon receipt of the full amount required by statute—rent, late fees, and court costs—prior to the court’s judgment. Under Ohio landlord-tenant law, the process for evicting a tenant for non-payment of rent is strictly regulated. After a landlord provides a proper Notice to Leave the Premises, commonly known as a 3-day notice, and the tenant fails to vacate, the landlord may file a forcible entry and detainer action in court. A critical provision for tenants in this situation is the right to cure, or the right to pay and stay. This right is codified in the Ohio Revised Code. To successfully exercise this right and have the eviction case dismissed, the tenant must offer to pay the entire amount owed before the court enters a judgment against them. This amount is not limited to just the base rent that is past due. It explicitly includes all past-due rent, any reasonable late fees that are outlined in the signed lease agreement, and the court costs that the landlord has paid to initiate the eviction lawsuit. An offer from the tenant that does not include all three of these components is not a legally sufficient tender to stop the eviction. A landlord or property manager who accepts a partial payment risks having their legal standing in the eviction case compromised, as a court might see it as a waiver of the notice. Therefore, the correct procedure is to insist on payment in full as defined by the statute.

The Ohio Administrative Code, specifically section 1301:5-1-21, sets forth strict requirements for all advertising conducted by real estate licensees to prevent public confusion and ensure transparency. A core principle of this regulation is that the licensed brokerage’s name must be displayed in a clear and conspicuous manner in all advertisements. When an individual agent or a real estate team advertises, the name of the brokerage must be featured with at least equal or greater prominence than the name of the salesperson or the team. The intent behind this rule is to ensure that the public clearly understands which licensed entity is ultimately responsible for the real estate services being offered. In the scenario presented, “The Columbus Elite Group” is the team name, and “Buckeye Realty Partners” is the licensed brokerage. By displaying the team name in a large, stylized font while relegating the brokerage name to a smaller, less prominent font, the advertisement violates this “equal or greater prominence” rule. The visual hierarchy misleadingly suggests that the team is the primary entity, which is precisely what the regulation aims to prevent. This requirement applies universally across all advertising media, including websites, social media, print materials, and signage.

The core issue is the fiduciary duty of confidentiality, which, along with the duty of accounting, survives the termination of an agency relationship under Ohio law. Broker Anika previously had a fiduciary relationship with Mr. Chen. During this relationship, she obtained confidential information: his financial distress and his absolute minimum selling price. Even though the listing agreement has expired and she no longer represents him, her duty to keep this specific information confidential is perpetual. Her new fiduciary duty of loyalty and disclosure to her current client, Innovate Corp, does not negate or override her pre-existing and enduring duty of confidentiality to her former client, Mr. Chen. Disclosing Mr. Chen’s bottom-line price or financial situation to Innovate Corp would be a direct breach of this surviving duty. It would give her new client an unfair advantage at the direct expense of her former client, using information that was only accessible to her because of the trust placed in her during the previous agency relationship. Therefore, Anika is legally and ethically bound to refuse to share the confidential information. She must inform her current client that she cannot provide such details due to a prior professional relationship, without revealing the nature of the information itself.

The Ohio Landlord-Tenant Act, specifically Ohio Revised Code 5321.04, imposes a duty on landlords to make all necessary repairs to keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. This includes addressing significant issues like severe mold. However, for a tenant to legally exercise their remedies when a landlord fails in this duty, the tenant must follow a strict statutory procedure outlined in ORC 5321.07. The first critical step is for the tenant to provide the landlord or their agent with written notice of the specific conditions that need repair. Verbal communication, while practical, does not satisfy this legal requirement to trigger the tenant’s statutory remedies. After providing written notice, the landlord has a reasonable time, or thirty days, whichever is sooner, to rectify the issue. If the landlord fails to act, a tenant who is current in their rent payments can then pursue one of three options: deposit all future rent with the clerk of the appropriate municipal or county court, apply to the court for an order to compel the repairs, or terminate the rental agreement. By failing to provide written notice and subsequently withholding rent without depositing it with the court, the tenant has breached the lease agreement. This non-payment of rent, regardless of the landlord’s failure to maintain the property, provides the landlord with a clear legal basis to file an eviction action against the tenant. The tenant’s failure to adhere to the prescribed legal process undermines their position and creates significant legal risk for them.

In Ohio, a tenancy by the entirety is a special form of co-ownership available exclusively to married couples. It is characterized by the right of survivorship and provides significant protection against the individual creditors of one spouse. Under this tenancy, the married couple is viewed as a single legal entity owning the property. Consequently, a creditor holding a judgment against only one spouse cannot attach a lien to or force the sale of the property held by the entirety. However, this form of ownership and its protections are contingent upon the continuation of the marriage. The tenancy by the entirety is automatically terminated by a final decree of divorce or dissolution. Upon termination of the marriage, the ownership status of the property converts by operation of law to a tenancy in common. As tenants in common, each former spouse holds a separate, undivided one-half interest in the property. This interest is alienable and subject to the claims of their individual creditors. Therefore, once the divorce is finalized and the tenancy by the entirety is severed, the creditor’s judgment lien against the individual former spouse can attach to their newly created one-half interest as a tenant in common. The creditor may then pursue legal remedies, such as a partition action, to force the sale of that specific interest to satisfy the debt.

No calculation is required for this question. Under Ohio Revised Code Section 4735.18 and the Ohio Administrative Code, real estate licensees are held to a strict standard regarding conflicts of interest. The fundamental principle is that a licensee must avoid acting for more than one party in a transaction without the prior knowledge and written consent of all parties. This extends beyond simple dual agency to any situation where a licensee’s personal or financial interests could potentially compromise their fiduciary duty to a client. When a licensee intends to purchase property listed by their own brokerage, or has a significant personal or familial interest in a party to the transaction, a clear conflict exists. The law mandates that this conflict must be disclosed in writing to all relevant parties. The disclosure must be timely, meaning it should be provided at the earliest possible opportunity, and certainly before an offer is made or accepted. This allows the client to make a fully informed decision about how to proceed. In the given scenario, the broker has two distinct conflicts: a direct financial interest in the purchasing entity and an indirect financial interest through his spouse’s ownership of the title company. Both of these facts are material and could influence the seller’s decisions. Therefore, a complete written disclosure of both interests to the seller is required before the purchasing entity submits its offer. Simply informing the listing agent or delaying disclosure of one of the conflicts would not satisfy the legal and ethical obligations. The duty to disclose is personal to the licensee with the conflict.

Step 1: Identify the protected class at issue. The scenario involves a couple with young children (the Riveras) and a retired individual (Dr. Reed). The presence of children under the age of 18 establishes familial status as the relevant protected class under the Federal Fair Housing Act. Step 2: Identify the licensee’s specific actions. Broker Kenji directs the Riveras exclusively to a neighborhood he deems “for families” and Dr. Reed exclusively to a neighborhood he deems “peaceful and mature.” He is making decisions for his clients about which neighborhoods are suitable for them based on their familial status. Step 3: Compare the action to prohibited practices. The practice of guiding, encouraging, or discouraging homebuyers toward or away from specific communities or neighborhoods based on their protected class is known as steering. By pre-selecting neighborhoods for his clients based on his assumptions about where families or single retirees should live, Kenji is limiting their housing choices. Step 4: Conclude the legal status of the action. Kenji’s actions constitute illegal steering under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The law prohibits limiting a person’s housing choices based on a protected characteristic. A licensee’s intent, even if perceived as helpful or providing good service, is irrelevant if the outcome is discriminatory. The proper and legal approach is to provide clients with all housing options that meet their objective criteria, such as price range, size, and desired features, and allow them to make their own informed decisions about neighborhood suitability. The broker’s role is to provide information about properties, not to curate neighborhood choices based on the demographic composition of the household or the community. This practice perpetuates segregation and denies equal housing opportunity.

The legal determination of whether an item is real or personal property hinges on the test for fixtures. In Ohio, courts typically apply a series of tests, often remembered by the acronym MARIA: Method of annexation, Adaptability of the item to the land’s use, Relationship of the parties, Intention of the annexor, and Agreement between the parties. In this scenario, the printing press was installed by a commercial tenant, Anya, for the specific purpose of operating her business. This establishes a landlord-tenant relationship in a commercial context. While the method of annexation (bolting to a reinforced slab) suggests permanence, the other factors are more controlling. The item is adapted specifically for Anya’s unique business, not for the general use of the commercial space. Most importantly, the law presumes that the intention of a commercial tenant installing such an item is for it to be temporary for the duration of the lease and to aid in their trade. Items installed by a commercial tenant for business purposes are legally classified as trade fixtures. A trade fixture is considered the tenant’s personal property and can be removed by the tenant at any time before the lease expires. The tenant is, however, responsible for repairing any damage caused by the removal of the fixture. Since the lease is silent, the common law principles regarding trade fixtures apply, giving Anya the right to remove her press.

The calculation demonstrates the basis for the valuation dispute. The county auditor determines the property’s true value, and the assessed value for tax purposes is 35% of that amount. If the auditor’s true value is \$1,500,000, the assessed value is calculated as: \[ \$1,500,000 \times 0.35 = \$525,000 \] If the property owner believes the true value is actually \$1,200,000, they would argue for an assessed value of: \[ \$1,200,000 \times 0.35 = \$420,000 \] This difference in assessed value forms the basis of the appeal. In Ohio, a property owner who disagrees with the county auditor’s valuation of their real property must follow a specific statutory procedure to challenge it. The initial and mandatory first step in the formal appeal process is to file a “Complaint Against the Valuation of Real Property,” also known as DTE Form 1. This complaint is not filed with the auditor who made the valuation, but rather with the County Board of Revision (BOR). The BOR is an independent body typically composed of the county auditor, county treasurer, and the president of the board of county commissioners, or their representatives. The complaint must be filed within a specific timeframe. According to the Ohio Revised Code, the filing period begins on or after the first day of January and ends on or before the thirty-first day of March of the year following the tax year for which the valuation is being challenged. For example, to challenge the valuation for the 2023 tax year, the complaint must be filed between January 1, 2024, and March 31, 2024. Filing directly with the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals or a court is improper for an initial complaint and would be dismissed, as the County Board of Revision has original jurisdiction.

The core of this issue rests on the unique legal structure of a cooperative in Ohio. Unlike a condominium where an individual owns real property, a cooperative resident owns personal property in the form of shares in a corporation. This corporation holds the title to the entire real estate asset, including the land and buildings. The shareholder, in turn, receives a proprietary lease, which is a long-term lease granting them the right to occupy a specific unit. The cooperative is governed by a board of directors, which is granted authority through the corporation’s bylaws and other governing documents. A primary function of this board is to protect the financial and social well being of the cooperative as a whole. To this end, the board has the power to approve or deny the transfer of shares to a prospective purchaser. This vetting power is a fundamental aspect of the cooperative business model, allowing the board to assess a candidate’s financial stability and potential to be a good neighbor. This authority is often referred to as the board’s exercise of its business judgment. However, this power is not absolute. The board’s discretion is explicitly limited by federal and state anti-discrimination laws. In Ohio, this includes the federal Fair Housing Act and Ohio’s own fair housing statutes, which prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, familial status, ancestry, or military status. While a board can reject a candidate for legitimate financial reasons and is often not required to provide a reason for its denial, a decision motivated by illegal discrimination is unlawful. Therefore, the board’s power is a balance between its fiduciary duty to the corporation and its legal obligation to not discriminate against protected classes.

The correct legal remedy for the vendor is to initiate a judicial foreclosure action. Ohio Revised Code Chapter 5313 provides specific protections for purchasers, known as vendees, under land installment contracts for residential properties. The statute dictates that if a land contract has been in effect for five years or more, or if the vendee has paid twenty percent or more of the total purchase price, the vendor’s remedy in the event of a default is foreclosure. The vendor cannot simply evict the vendee or declare a forfeiture of the contract. Instead, the vendor must file a foreclosure complaint in the court of common pleas in the county where the property is located. This process treats the land contract as if it were a mortgage, and the vendee is afforded the same rights as a mortgagor in a foreclosure proceeding, including the right to redeem the property. In the given scenario, the contract has been active for six years, which exceeds the five-year threshold. Additionally, the vendee has paid 25% of the purchase price, which is greater than the twenty percent threshold. Because both statutory conditions are met, the vendor is legally obligated to use foreclosure to enforce the contract and recover the property, rather than the less formal and more expedient remedy of forfeiture.

The core issue revolves around the legal and practical limitations of a No Further Action (NFA) letter issued by the Ohio Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulations (BUSTR). The NFA letter, issued 15 years ago, was based on the corrective action standards and the commercial land use classification in effect at that time. The proposed change in land use to a daycare center represents a shift to a more sensitive use category, which typically has far more stringent cleanup standards for soil and groundwater contamination. An NFA letter under Ohio Administrative Code 1301:7-9 provides a covenant not to sue from the state for the specific, identified release that was remediated. However, this protection is not absolute or perpetual. It is contingent upon the facts and standards under which it was issued. A significant change in land use, particularly to a sensitive population use like a daycare, can reopen the site for regulatory review. The risk assessment that supported the original NFA for a commercial property is likely insufficient to ensure the site is safe for children. Therefore, relying on the old NFA is imprudent. The broker’s primary duty is to advise the client of the potential risks and the need for contemporary due diligence. A new Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is the standard first step, and given the known history, it would almost certainly recommend a Phase II ESA to conduct new soil and groundwater sampling to evaluate the site against current, more stringent standards for sensitive land use.

Conclusion: The supplier’s lien is unenforceable against the property because the mandatory Notice of Furnishing was not served and the owner made full payment to the principal contractor prior to the lien affidavit being filed. Under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1311, the mechanic’s lien process is highly structured to balance the rights of property owners, contractors, and suppliers. For a subcontractor or supplier to preserve their right to file a mechanic’s lien on a private commercial or residential project, they must follow a strict procedure. The process begins when the property owner records a Notice of Commencement (NOC) with the county recorder’s office. This notice provides key information about the project. Subsequently, any subcontractor or supplier who does not have a direct contract with the property owner must serve a Notice of Furnishing (NOF) upon the owner and the principal contractor. This must be done within 21 days of the first day the subcontractor or supplier provides labor or materials to the project. The NOF informs the owner of who is working on their property, preserving the sender’s lien rights. Failure to serve a timely NOF has significant consequences. It does not completely eliminate lien rights, but it limits them. Specifically, if the supplier fails to serve the NOF, their lien will only be effective for unpaid amounts after the owner has received the lien affidavit. If the owner has already paid the principal contractor in full before the lien affidavit is filed, the supplier’s late lien cannot attach to the property. The owner is protected from having to pay twice.

The core legal and ethical principle at stake is the broker’s absolute duty to safeguard trust funds in accordance with Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4735. A tenant’s security deposit, when held by a brokerage, is considered trust money. These funds do not belong to the property owner until and unless specific conditions in the lease are met, such as covering damages or unpaid rent upon lease termination. The broker’s primary obligation is to the law, which supersedes any instruction from a client or principal, even the property owner. An instruction from an owner to use trust funds for a purpose not authorized by the lease agreement, such as covering the owner’s unrelated personal or business expenses, is an unlawful instruction. Following such a directive would constitute conversion of funds, which is a serious violation of Ohio license law and the broker’s fiduciary duties of accounting and loyalty. The broker must refuse the directive and protect the integrity of the trust account. The property management agreement cannot contain a clause that requires the broker to violate the law, and even if it did, such a clause would be unenforceable. Obtaining the tenant’s consent does not rectify the situation, as the fundamental purpose of the security deposit is being altered improperly and it still represents a breach of standard trust account protocols. The broker’s only correct course of action is to maintain the funds in the trust account until they can be legally disbursed as stipulated in the lease.

The legal outcome is determined by the application of Ohio’s equitable right of redemption. In Ohio, foreclosure is a judicial process, meaning it proceeds through the court system. A key right afforded to the property owner, or mortgagor, is the equitable right of redemption. This right allows the owner to reclaim their property and stop the foreclosure process by paying the full amount of the mortgage debt, plus all accrued interest and the costs of the foreclosure action. The critical factor is the timing of when this right expires. According to the Ohio Revised Code, specifically Section 2329.33, the mortgagor’s right to redeem the property is terminated upon the court’s confirmation of the sheriff’s sale. The sheriff’s sale itself is not the final, conclusive event. After the auction, the court must review the proceedings to ensure they were conducted fairly and in accordance with the law. Only after this review does the court issue an order or decree confirming the sale. In the described scenario, the property owner tendered the full payment required for redemption after the auction took place but before the court issued its confirmation order. Because the payment was made before the legal cut-off point, the owner successfully exercised their equitable right of redemption. Consequently, the sale to the third-party investor is rendered void, and the owner retains title to the property, with the foreclosed mortgage lien being satisfied and released.

This is a conceptual question with no mathematical calculation. Under Ohio law and general land use principles, the authority of a planning commission to regulate subdivisions stems from the state’s police power, which is delegated to local governments to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The subdivision approval process is typically multi-staged, often involving a preliminary plat and a final plat. Preliminary plat approval signifies that the general layout and design concept of a subdivision is acceptable and meets the regulations in effect at that time. However, it does not typically grant the developer vested rights that would immunize the project from subsequent, reasonable changes in regulations, especially those enacted to address significant public welfare concerns like storm water management and flood prevention. The final plat is the official document that, once approved and recorded, legally creates the new lots. For final plat approval, the development must conform to all laws and regulations in effect at the time of the final review, not the time of the preliminary submission. Therefore, if a new, valid ordinance concerning a critical infrastructure requirement like storm water management is passed after preliminary approval but before final approval, the planning commission generally has the legal authority to enforce the new, more stringent standard. The commission’s rejection of the final plat for non-compliance with the new ordinance would be considered a legitimate exercise of its regulatory authority to ensure the development meets current safety and infrastructure standards before it is permanently established.