US Oregon Salesperson License Exam Set Two

For a real estate broker’s first license renewal in the state of Oregon, the continuing education requirements are specific and distinct from all subsequent renewals. The licensee must complete a total of 30 hours of education. This total is comprised of two mandatory components: the 3-hour Law and Rule Required Course, commonly known as LARRC, and the 27-hour Broker Advanced Practices course, or BAP. The BAP course is specifically designed to build upon the pre-license education with practical, application-based knowledge essential for a new broker’s career. It is a single, integrated course, not a collection of miscellaneous elective credits. Therefore, completing 27 hours of general or elective coursework, even if the topics are relevant to real estate, does not satisfy this specific requirement for the initial renewal cycle. The licensee in this situation has correctly completed the 3-hour LARRC but has failed to complete the mandatory 27-hour BAP course. The 27 hours of contract law and marketing courses she took, while valuable, do not substitute for the state-mandated BAP curriculum. Consequently, she has not fulfilled the necessary educational prerequisites to renew her license for the first time.

The conclusion is reached by applying the principle of highest and best use, specifically prioritizing the test of legal permissibility under Oregon’s land use laws. The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 215 strictly governs uses on EFU land to preserve it for agriculture. A commercial art gallery open to the public is not a farm use. It is highly unlikely to be a permitted outright use, a conditional use, or a permissible home occupation. Therefore, the first test of highest and best use—legal permissibility—is not met by the client’s plan. The broker’s analysis must conclude that the property’s value and potential are dictated by its legally permitted agricultural use, not a speculative and likely prohibited commercial one. The principle of highest and best use is a fundamental concept in property analysis and valuation. It refers to the most profitable, legally permissible, and physically possible use of a property. This analysis involves a sequential, four-part test. The first and most critical test is legal permissibility. A proposed use must conform to all applicable laws, including zoning ordinances, building codes, and environmental regulations. In Oregon, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoning is one of the most restrictive classifications, designed to protect the state’s agricultural land base. Uses are generally limited to farm operations and dwellings in conjunction with farming. While some non-farm uses may be allowed under strict conditions, a commercial enterprise like a public art gallery is generally not consistent with the intent of EFU zoning. Only after a use is determined to be legally permissible should the analyst consider the other three tests: physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity. Because the client’s intended commercial use fails the initial legal test, any analysis based on that use is fundamentally flawed. The broker’s professional responsibility is to analyze the property based on its legally permitted uses, which in this case would be agricultural, and to advise the client accordingly about these significant legal constraints.

The Oregon Real Estate Agency (OREA) has specific time-sensitive requirements for individuals seeking to obtain a real estate broker license. A critical regulation pertains to the validity period of the licensing examination results. According to Oregon Administrative Rule 863-014-0020, an applicant must submit a complete license application to the Agency within one year (12 months) of the date they successfully pass the broker licensing examination. This is a firm deadline. If an individual fails to apply for their license within this one-year window, their examination results are considered void. Consequently, the individual forfeits their eligibility based on that exam pass. To proceed with licensure, they are required to retake and pass the entire examination again, which includes both the national and state-specific portions. The validity of the 150-hour pre-license education is a separate matter; the primary issue in this timeline is the expiration of the exam pass itself. The rules do not provide for an extension or a late application with a penalty fee. The only remedy for an expired exam result is to successfully re-test.

The logical analysis concludes that the property manager’s actions constitute illegal discrimination based on source of income under Oregon law. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 659A.421 explicitly prohibits discrimination in real estate transactions on the basis of a purchaser’s or renter’s source of income. The law defines “source of income” to include all lawful sources of income, such as wages, salaries, child support, and any form of federal, state, or local public assistance or housing assistance, including Section 8 vouchers. In this scenario, the applicant, Anika, has a total income that meets the landlord’s established financial requirement of three times the monthly rent. The property manager’s decision to deny her application is based not on the amount of her income, but on its origin—specifically, the portion derived from public assistance. This constitutes a direct violation of Oregon’s fair housing laws. A landlord or their agent must consider all lawful income sources when determining if an applicant meets financial qualifications. A preference for employment income over other lawful sources is discriminatory. The real estate licensee has an independent duty to uphold fair housing laws and cannot follow a client’s discriminatory instructions. The primary and most direct violation in this case is source of income discrimination, as it was the explicit reason given for the denial.

The core professional and legal responsibility for a real estate licensee in Oregon is to ensure all representations, including property size, are truthful and not misleading, as mandated by Oregon Administrative Rules. When presented with multiple, conflicting sources of information for square footage, a licensee cannot simply choose the most favorable number or combine figures without proper qualification. The county tax record is often an estimate and may not be current. An appraisal report, while generally more reliable as it involves a physical measurement, is prepared for a specific purpose and date. A seller’s statement about additions is unverified. Simply adding a finished basement’s area to the Gross Living Area (GLA) is a misrepresentation, as GLA typically includes only finished, heated, above-grade living space, and basements are accounted for separately. The most prudent and compliant course of action is to provide the most accurate, professionally derived figure available and to clearly state its source. By advertising the square footage from the appraisal and citing the appraisal as the source, the licensee is providing verifiable information. Additionally, mentioning the finished basement area separately, and attributing that information to the seller, provides full disclosure to potential buyers without conflating different types of space or making an unsubstantiated claim. This practice of citing sources protects the licensee from liability for misrepresentation and upholds the duty of reasonable care and diligence owed to all parties in a transaction.

The core issue revolves around the disclosure of known material facts under Oregon law. A material fact is any information that could substantially affect a buyer’s decision to purchase a property or the price they are willing to pay. In this scenario, the property has a known radon test result of 3.8 pCi/L from five years ago. While this is below the EPA’s action level of 4.0 pCi/L, it is very close to this threshold. Furthermore, the property is located in an area designated by the Oregon Health Authority as having high radon potential. An Oregon real estate licensee has an affirmative duty to disclose all known material facts to all parties in a transaction. The proximity of the test result to the action level, combined with the age of the test and the location in a high-risk zone, collectively constitute a material fact. A reasonable buyer would likely consider this information important. Withholding this specific information or summarizing it in a potentially misleading way, such as simply stating it was “below the action level,” would not meet the standard of full and honest disclosure required by Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 863-015-0135). Therefore, the licensee’s proper course of action is to be completely transparent. This involves disclosing the exact numerical result of the previous test (3.8 pCi/L) and the date the test was performed. Because radon levels can fluctuate and the test is five years old, it is also a critical part of the licensee’s duty of care to advise the potential buyer to conduct their own independent and current radon test as part of their due diligence process. This approach ensures the buyer is fully informed, mitigates liability for the seller and the licensee, and upholds the professional standards mandated by the Oregon Real Estate Agency.

The Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA), administered by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), establishes specific rules to protect natural resources during timber harvesting and other forest operations. A central component of the FPA is the requirement to establish Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) along streams to protect water quality, fish, and wildlife habitat. The specific requirements for an RMA depend on the stream’s classification. In this case, the stream is a medium-sized, Type F stream, which means it is documented as fish-bearing. For such a stream, the FPA mandates a 70-foot-wide RMA on each side. Within this 70-foot area, the rules are layered. There is a 20-foot “no-harvest” buffer directly adjacent to the stream where no trees may be cut. In the remaining 50 feet of the RMA, selective harvesting is permissible, but the landowner must leave a specific number of live conifer and hardwood trees of certain sizes standing to provide shade, bank stability, and a future source of large wood for the stream. The landowner is required to file a Notification of Operations with the ODF before any harvesting activity begins, detailing how they will comply with all FPA rules, including the specific RMA protections. This system allows for managed timber harvesting while ensuring the protection of critical riparian functions.

The calculation to determine the prorated property tax credit for the seller is as follows: First, determine the daily property tax rate. The annual tax is \(\$4,875\) and we are using a 365-day year. \[ \text{Daily Tax Rate} = \frac{\$4,875}{365} \approx \$13.35616 \] Next, identify the period for which the buyer is responsible. Oregon’s property tax fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. The closing is on April 10. The buyer is responsible for the taxes from the day of closing through the end of the fiscal year. Number of days the buyer is responsible: April: 30 days – 10 days + 1 day (for the day of closing) = 21 days May: 31 days June: 30 days Total days for the buyer: \(21 + 31 + 30 = 82\) days. Finally, calculate the total amount the buyer must reimburse the seller. This amount is a credit to the seller and a debit to the buyer on the closing disclosure. \[ \text{Prorated Amount} = \text{Daily Tax Rate} \times \text{Number of Buyer’s Days} \] \[ \text{Prorated Amount} = \$13.35616 \times 82 = \$1,095.20512 \] Rounding to the nearest cent, the amount is \(\$1,095.21\). Property tax proration is the process of dividing property tax expenses between the buyer and seller at closing. In Oregon, the property tax fiscal year is a critical piece of information, running from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the next. This is different from a standard calendar year. When prorating, it is essential to establish which party is responsible for which days of the fiscal year. The calculation begins by finding the per diem, or daily, tax cost. This is achieved by dividing the total annual tax by the number of days in the year, typically 365. The next step is to count the number of days in the proration period. In this scenario, the seller has prepaid the entire fiscal year’s taxes. Therefore, the buyer must reimburse the seller for the portion of the year they will own the property. Standard practice in Oregon is that the buyer is responsible for the day of closing. The period of the buyer’s responsibility extends from the closing date to the end of the fiscal year, June 30. Multiplying the daily tax rate by the number of days the buyer is responsible for yields the final prorated amount, which is credited to the seller and debited to the buyer at closing.

The core of this issue lies in the hierarchy and application of a real estate licensee’s fiduciary duties to their principal under Oregon law. The primary duties in question are loyalty and disclosure. The duty of loyalty requires the agent to act solely in the best interests of their principal, free from self-interest or conflicts of interest. The duty of disclosure obligates the agent to inform their principal of all material information the agent obtains related to the transaction. In this scenario, the agent has a personal relationship with one of the contractors, which constitutes a potential conflict of interest. Furthermore, the agent has received two different estimates for a necessary repair. Both of these pieces of information are material to the principal’s decision-making process regarding how to price the property and how to negotiate with potential buyers. The agent’s foremost responsibility is to their principal. Therefore, the agent must first disclose the full situation to their principal, which includes acknowledging the personal relationship with the first contractor and providing both the high and low repair estimates. This action fulfills the duties of both loyalty (by revealing the conflict) and disclosure (by providing all material facts). This allows the principal to provide informed instructions on how the agent should proceed when interacting with third parties, such as the buyer’s agent. Withholding any of this information from the principal would be a clear breach of these fundamental fiduciary duties. Honesty with third parties is required, but the agent’s duty to protect the principal’s confidential information and negotiating position, as directed by the principal, is paramount.

This question does not require any mathematical calculations. In Oregon, land use is governed by a hierarchical system established under Senate Bill 100. At the top are the nineteen Statewide Planning Goals, which are administered by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Every city and county is required to develop a comprehensive plan, which acts as a local constitution for land use. This plan must be reviewed by the LCDC and “acknowledged” as being in compliance with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals. Once acknowledged, the comprehensive plan becomes the controlling legal document for land use decisions within that jurisdiction. Zoning ordinances are the specific regulations and maps that implement the comprehensive plan. They dictate the particular uses allowed on individual parcels of land. A fundamental principle of Oregon land use law is that zoning ordinances and any amendments to them, such as a rezoning action, must be consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan. If a proposed zoning change conflicts with the text or map of the comprehensive plan, it cannot be approved unless the plan itself is amended first. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) designates the area where a city is expected to grow, but it does not override the specific land use policies and zoning designations established within the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the primary legal test for the validity of a proposed rezoning is its conformity with the policies and designations of the jurisdiction’s acknowledged comprehensive plan.

To determine the relationship between principal and interest payments, we can analyze the first few payments of a hypothetical loan. Consider a loan of \(\$500,000\) with a fixed annual interest rate of \(6\%\) (\(0.5\%\) per month) over a 30-year term (360 months). The fixed monthly principal and interest payment would be \(\$2,997.75\). For the first payment: The interest due is calculated on the entire principal balance: \(\$500,000 \times 0.005 = \$2,500.00\). The remainder of the payment is applied to the principal: \(\$2,997.75 – \$2,500.00 = \$497.75\). The new principal balance is: \(\$500,000 – \$497.75 = \$499,502.25\). For the second payment: The interest is now calculated on the slightly lower principal balance: \(\$499,502.25 \times 0.005 = \$2,497.51\). The amount applied to the principal is now: \(\$2,997.75 – \$2,497.51 = \$500.24\). This calculation demonstrates the core principle of loan amortization. Although the total monthly payment remains constant, the allocation between interest and principal changes with every payment. As the outstanding principal balance is reduced, the amount of interest accrued for the next period also decreases. Consequently, a progressively larger portion of the fixed monthly payment is applied to reducing the principal. This dynamic continues throughout the life of the loan, with the principal portion growing and the interest portion shrinking with each successive payment. This is the fundamental structure of a fully amortizing loan, which is a standard financing instrument for real estate transactions in Oregon and elsewhere. Understanding this inverse relationship is crucial for explaining loan structures to clients.

The initial agreement between the parties was an estate for years, which is a leasehold with a specific start and end date. This type of estate terminates automatically upon the expiration date without any need for notice from either the landlord or the tenant. When the tenant, Mateo, remained in possession of the property after the lease expired on July 31st, his status changed. At that moment, he became a tenant at sufferance. This occurs when a tenant who was once in lawful possession continues to occupy the premises after their legal right has ended and without the landlord’s consent. The landlord has the option to either treat the tenant as a trespasser and begin eviction proceedings or to accept the tenant’s continued occupancy. The critical action in this scenario is the landlord, Lin, knowingly accepting and depositing the rent check for the month of August. Under Oregon law, specifically the principles within the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, the acceptance of rent from a holdover tenant is generally considered evidence of the landlord’s consent to a new tenancy. This action by the landlord creates a new agreement by implication. Because the rent was paid and accepted for a monthly period, the estate at sufferance is converted into a periodic estate, specifically a month-to-month tenancy. This new tenancy continues for successive monthly periods until one of the parties gives the proper statutory notice to terminate it.

The correct action is determined by the Oregon Subdivision Control Law, specifically ORS Chapter 92, which is administered by the Oregon Real Estate Agency and the Real Estate Commissioner. This law is separate from local county or city land use regulations that govern the physical layout and approval of a subdivision plat. While the developer has obtained tentative plan approval from the county, which is a critical step in the land use process, state law imposes additional requirements focused on consumer protection before the subdivided lots can be offered for sale to the public. For any subdivision creating four or more lots, and particularly for those with more than ten lots intended for sale, the developer must file a Notice of Intent with the Oregon Real Estate Commissioner. This notice initiates the Commissioner’s review of the proposed offering. The purpose is to ensure that the marketing and sale of the lots are conducted fairly and that prospective buyers receive adequate disclosure about the property. Following the filing of the Notice of Intent, the Commissioner may require the developer to prepare and provide a Public Report to all potential buyers. No advertising, offers to sell, or reservation agreements can be legally executed until this state-level process is initiated by filing the Notice of Intent and the Commissioner has acknowledged it, thereby permitting marketing to begin, often contingent on the future delivery of the Public Report. The recording of the final plat is a later step in the local approval process that legally creates the lots but does not substitute for the state’s marketing prerequisites.

Under Oregon Administrative Rule 863-015-0265, when a principal broker maintains an interest-bearing clients’ trust account, any interest earned on the funds in that account has a specific legal destination. Unless all parties to the transaction have explicitly agreed in writing to an alternative disposition of the interest, it must be paid to the Oregon Affordable Housing Fund. In this scenario, the purchase and sale agreement was silent on the matter of the interest, so this default rule applies. Neither the buyer nor the seller has a legal claim to the interest that has accrued on the earnest money deposit. Separately, Oregon Administrative Rule 863-015-0255 governs the handling of disputed funds. When a transaction fails and a disagreement arises over the disposition of earnest money, the principal broker must act as a neutral stakeholder. The broker is prohibited from making a unilateral decision about which party is entitled to the funds. The broker must continue to hold the principal amount of the earnest money in the trust account until one of two conditions is met: the broker receives written instructions for disbursement signed by all parties to the transaction, or the broker receives a court order directing the disposition of the funds. Therefore, the correct course of action involves treating the principal and the interest as two separate matters governed by distinct rules. The interest must be handled according to the statute on IBTAs, while the principal must be held according to the rules for disputed funds.

In Oregon real estate practice, an agency relationship defines the legal and fiduciary responsibilities a licensee owes to a principal. While these relationships are most commonly and properly established through express written agreements, such as a listing agreement or a buyer representation agreement, they can also be created by implication. An implied agency relationship is formed based on the words and actions of the licensee, which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the licensee is acting on their behalf and representing their best interests. This is distinct from the duties of honesty and fair dealing owed to all parties, including customers. When a licensee, who already represents a seller, offers strategic advice to a potential buyer that is contrary to the seller’s interests, such as how to negotiate a lower price, they are acting as an advocate for the buyer. This conduct creates an implied agency with the buyer. Because the licensee now has fiduciary duties to both the seller and the buyer in the same transaction, they have entered into a limited agency situation. If this has not been formally disclosed to and consented to in writing by both parties, it is an undisclosed limited agency, which is a serious violation of Oregon license law. The initial provision of the Agency Disclosure Pamphlet does not, by itself, create or negate an agency relationship; it is merely an informational document. The key determinant is the conduct that implies a fiduciary commitment.

In Oregon, a real estate licensee has a duty to disclose all known material facts to all parties in a transaction. A material fact is information that, if known, might have caused a buyer to not purchase the property or to have offered a different price or terms. The presence of an underground heating oil tank (UHOT), particularly one whose decommissioning status is not certified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), is a significant material fact. An uncertified decommissioning means there is no official verification that the tank was properly cleaned and that the surrounding soil is not contaminated from a past or present leak. Soil contamination can lead to substantial cleanup costs and legal liability for the property owner. Therefore, the licensee’s primary obligation is to advise their seller client of the legal requirement to disclose this information. The proper channel for this is the Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement. The licensee must ensure this disclosure is made to prevent misrepresentation and to protect all parties, including the seller from future liability and the buyer from unforeseen environmental risks. The licensee’s role is not to personally verify or remediate the issue, but to ensure the known facts are transparently communicated.

Logical Deduction: 1. The property is in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone, which severely restricts non-agricultural development. 2. A claim was filed under Measure 37 (passed in 2004), which allowed property owners to either be compensated for lost value due to land use regulations or have the regulation waived. A waiver would have allowed significant development. 3. Measure 49 (passed in 2007) superseded and modified Measure 37. It was specifically designed to manage the development pressure created by Measure 37 claims on farm and forest land. 4. Measure 49 converted most Measure 37 claims into a specific, limited authorization for development, rather than a full waiver of the underlying zoning. For a property of this type, this typically means the right to build a small number of homes (often three, but sometimes up to ten depending on the claim specifics) under what is known as an “express path” authorization. 5. Therefore, the original, broad development potential under the Measure 37 claim no longer exists. The owner’s rights are now defined and limited by the provisions of Measure 49, which grants a specific number of home sites while keeping the EFU zoning in place for the remainder of the property. Detailed Explanation: Oregon’s statewide land use planning system, established by Senate Bill 100, is designed to conserve farm and forest land and prevent urban sprawl. A key tool in this system is the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone, which places strict limits on the construction of non-farm dwellings and other non-agricultural activities to protect productive farmland. In 2004, voters passed Measure 37, which required state and local governments to either pay compensation to landowners or waive a land use regulation if that regulation reduced the fair market value of their property. This led to thousands of claims, many of which sought to waive EFU zoning to allow for large-scale residential subdivisions on rural lands. In response to the potential impact of this widespread development, Oregon voters passed Measure 49 in 2007. This measure significantly altered the landscape for Measure 37 claimants. Instead of retaining a broad right to have a regulation waived, Measure 49 converted most existing claims into a more limited set of development options. For claimants on high-value farm or forest land, this typically meant they could pursue an “express path” to receive authorization to build a limited number of homes (from one to ten, depending on the circumstances of the claim) on their property. This authorization is a vested right under Measure 49, but it is not the same as the full waiver of zoning rules that Measure 37 offered. The underlying EFU zoning remains in effect for the rest of the property, and the development is limited to the specific home sites authorized by Measure 49.

The fundamental principle governing this scenario is that a property’s tax liability is determined by its Assessed Value (AV), not directly by its Real Market Value (RMV). Under Oregon’s property tax system, shaped significantly by Measure 50, the AV is defined as the lesser of the property’s RMV or its Maximum Assessed Value (MAV). The MAV was established for the 1997-98 tax year and is legally permitted to increase by a maximum of \(3\%\) per year, unless the property undergoes significant changes classified as exceptions, such as new construction or remodeling. In a market where property values appreciate much faster than this capped rate, a large gap develops between the RMV and the MAV. Since the AV is the lower of these two figures, the AV will equal the MAV. Consequently, the property taxes, which are calculated by applying the local tax rate to the AV, will only grow in line with the MAV’s modest \(3\%\) annual increase, not in proportion to the much larger surge in the property’s market value. This system was designed to provide predictability and protection for homeowners against steep tax increases driven by volatile market fluctuations. While Measure 5 imposes separate limits on tax rates and can cause tax compression, the core reason for the value divergence described is the MAV growth cap established by Measure 50.

The listing agreement is voidable by the seller. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 696.241 explicitly requires that any listing agreement entered into by a real estate licensee must state a definite expiration date. The statute further prohibits any provision in a listing agreement that would cause it to automatically continue or renew beyond that definite expiration date. The clause described in the scenario, which creates an automatic renewal mechanism, is a direct violation of this law. The purpose of this regulation is to protect consumers, ensuring they are not unknowingly locked into agency relationships for extended periods. When a contract contains a provision that is illegal or contrary to public policy as defined by statute, it can render the contract unenforceable against the aggrieved party. In this context, the presence of the prohibited automatic renewal clause makes the entire listing agreement voidable at the option of the seller. This means the seller can choose to treat the contract as if it never existed and is not obligated to honor its terms, including any commission provisions, because the licensee failed to adhere to statutory requirements designed for the seller’s protection. The licensee who drafted such a contract would also be subject to disciplinary action by the Oregon Real Estate Agency for failing to comply with license law.

Total Commission Calculation: \[ \$500,000 \times 0.06 = \$30,000 \] Broker’s Contractual Commission Share: \[ \$30,000 \times 0.60 = \$18,000 \] Under Oregon Administrative Rule 863-015-0185, a real estate broker is strictly prohibited from accepting any form of compensation for professional real estate activity from anyone other than their registered principal real estate broker. This regulation is fundamental to maintaining proper supervision and a clear, auditable trail of all funds related to a transaction. The term compensation is broad and includes not only the agreed-upon commission but also any bonuses, referral fees, or gifts of value given in exchange for or because of the broker’s services. In the given scenario, the seller’s intended two thousand dollar bonus, while a gesture of gratitude, is unequivocally compensation tied to the real estate activity performed by the broker. Therefore, the broker cannot legally accept this payment directly from the seller. The only lawful procedure is for any such additional compensation to be paid to the broker’s principal broker. The principal broker would then process the funds and pay the associated broker according to the terms of their independent contractor or employment agreement, ensuring full compliance with Oregon Real Estate Agency regulations and maintaining the integrity of the transaction. This process protects the public and ensures the principal broker can fulfill their supervisory duties.

The core issue described in the scenario is a direct result of the physical characteristic of immobility. Land is fixed in a specific geographic location and cannot be relocated. Because of this immobility, the value, utility, and desirability of a parcel are inextricably linked to its surroundings. This includes factors such as the use of adjacent properties, local zoning ordinances, proximity to amenities, and exposure to nuisances. When the use of a neighboring property changes, as in the case of rezoning, the owner of the subject property cannot move their land to escape the potential negative impacts, such as increased traffic, noise, or a decrease in aesthetic appeal. This concept is fundamental to understanding real estate value and the importance of land use controls. The vulnerability to external influences, known as externalities, is a primary consequence of land’s fixed position. Oregon’s statewide land use planning system, administered by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), exists precisely to manage the conflicts and impacts that arise between adjacent land uses because property is immobile. The other physical characteristics, such as uniqueness or indestructibility, do not address this specific issue of vulnerability to neighboring activities.

The property owner’s directive constitutes illegal discrimination under Oregon’s fair housing laws. While the Federal Fair Housing Act provides an exemption for owner-occupied dwellings with four or fewer units, known as the “Mrs. Murphy” exemption, this exemption has significant limitations. Firstly, it never permits discrimination based on race. Secondly, the exemption is nullified if a real estate licensee is used to rent the property. In this scenario, Kenji is a licensed property manager, so the federal exemption would not apply to his actions. More importantly, Oregon law (ORS Chapter 659A) provides broader protections than federal law. Oregon law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on “source of income” and “familial status.” The owner’s stated reasons for rejection—concern about the reliability of public assistance as an income source and a preference against tenants with children—are direct violations of these protected classes. A landlord cannot refuse to rent to an applicant solely because their lawful income includes public assistance. Similarly, refusing to rent to someone because they have a child is a clear violation based on familial status. As a real estate licensee in Oregon, Kenji is obligated to adhere to both federal and state laws, and Oregon’s stricter regulations take precedence. Following the owner’s illegal instruction would place Kenji in direct violation of Oregon fair housing law and the administrative rules of the Oregon Real Estate Agency, potentially leading to license revocation and other penalties.

Step 1: The initial legal status of the property is identified. The parcel is zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and is situated outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This zoning falls under the protection of Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 3, which is dedicated to the preservation of agricultural land. Step 2: The requirements for UGB expansion are considered. According to Statewide Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization), a city can only expand its UGB if it provides evidence of a need for more land to support its projected population and employment growth over the next 20 years. Step 3: The exception process for converting protected land is analyzed. When a proposed UGB expansion includes high-value resource land, such as an EFU-zoned parcel, it requires an “exception” to the statewide goals protecting that resource. This process, governed by Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), mandates a rigorous evaluation of alternatives. The central requirement is to demonstrate that the identified land need cannot be reasonably fulfilled by other means. This includes first maximizing land use efficiency within the current UGB and then considering all available non-resource lands or lower-quality agricultural lands for the expansion. Step 4: The primary hurdle is determined. The most significant challenge in this scenario is for the local government to prove to the state’s Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) that no other viable alternatives exist. The burden of proof is high; the city must show that all other options have been exhausted before it can justify converting protected EFU land for urban development. This strict requirement to justify taking an exception to Goal 3 by proving a lack of reasonable alternatives constitutes the highest procedural and legal barrier.

Under the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, specifically ORS 90.320, a landlord has a legal duty to maintain a dwelling unit in a habitable condition at all times during the tenancy. This includes providing and maintaining a heating system that is in good working order and capable of sustaining a reasonable temperature, considering the climate. When a landlord fails to provide an essential service like heat, the tenant has specific remedies, but must follow a precise legal process. The first step is for the tenant to give the landlord actual, written notice of the deficiency. After providing notice, the tenant must allow the landlord a reasonable amount of time to make the repair. If the landlord fails to do so, the tenant may pursue several options under ORS 90.368. One of the most direct remedies for a failure of an essential service is for the tenant to procure the service or have the repair made themselves. The tenant can then deduct the actual and reasonable cost of this action from their subsequent rent payment. However, this self-help remedy is capped at a specific monetary limit, currently $300, unless the landlord and tenant agree to a higher amount. The tenant must provide the landlord with receipts for the expenditure. Other options, such as terminating the lease, require different notice periods and are typically used if the repair and deduct remedy is insufficient or the problem persists. Simply withholding rent without following the statutory process is not a permitted remedy and could lead to the tenant’s eviction for non-payment.

The core of this scenario revolves around the conflict between an Oregon real estate agent’s fiduciary duties to a current client and the surviving duties owed to a former client. Under Oregon law, specifically ORS 696.805, a seller’s agent owes their principal the full range of fiduciary duties: loyalty, obedience, disclosure, confidentiality, reasonable care and diligence, and accounting. A critical aspect of these duties is their duration. The duty of confidentiality is unique in that it survives the termination of the agency relationship. This means an agent is forever bound to protect the confidential information of a former client, such as their financial situation, motivations, or negotiating strategies, unless legally compelled to disclose it. Simultaneously, the agent owes a duty of disclosure to their current client. This requires the agent to disclose all material facts known to them that are not confidential. A material fact includes anything that might influence the client’s decisions, which certainly includes the agent having a prior professional relationship with the opposing party. This prior relationship constitutes a potential conflict of interest that must be revealed. Therefore, the agent must navigate this by upholding both duties. The agent must disclose the fact of the prior representation to their current client, Mr. Chen. This fulfills the duty of disclosure regarding a material fact and a potential conflict. However, the agent must not reveal the confidential information learned during that prior representation, such as Ms. Alvarez’s financial capacity or negotiation tactics. To do so would be a breach of the surviving duty of confidentiality owed to the former client, Ms. Alvarez.

In Oregon, the closing and disbursement of funds in a real estate transaction are strictly regulated by what is commonly known as the “good funds” law, codified under Oregon Revised Statutes and associated administrative rules. The primary purpose of this law is to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of the transaction by preventing the disbursement of funds that are not yet final and irrevocable. An escrow agent is prohibited from disbursing funds from their trust account until those funds are considered “good” or “available.” For a wire transfer, this standard is met only when the funds are not just received but are also unconditionally held and immediately available for withdrawal from the escrow agent’s depository institution. A provisional credit or a notification that a wire has been sent is insufficient. The receiving bank must confirm that the transfer is complete and the funds are settled. An escrow agent who disburses funds prematurely, before they meet this legal definition, is in direct violation of Oregon law and risks severe penalties from the Oregon Real Estate Agency, including fines and the potential suspension or revocation of their license. This legal requirement supersedes any contractual closing date or the convenience of the parties involved. The escrow agent’s fiduciary duty is to comply with the law to protect the financial interests of all parties to the escrow.

Anika must complete the entire 150-hour Oregon-specific pre-license education course package. The Oregon Real Estate Agency (OREA) sets forth specific educational prerequisites for all individuals seeking a real estate broker license, irrespective of their licensing status or experience in other states. Oregon does not offer direct reciprocity or automatic educational waivers for licensees from states like California. Therefore, an experienced licensee from another jurisdiction must still fulfill the foundational educational requirements mandated by Oregon law. This involves successfully completing the entire 150-hour pre-license curriculum through an OREA-certified education provider. This comprehensive course package covers essential topics tailored to Oregon’s market and legal framework, including Real Estate Law, Finance, Practice, Contracts, Agency, and Property Management. While the applicant’s prior experience is valuable, it does not substitute for this state-specific educational mandate. After completing the coursework, the applicant must then pass both the state-specific and national portions of the Oregon Real Estate Broker Exam. This process ensures that all brokers practicing in Oregon have a consistent and thorough understanding of the state’s unique laws, regulations, and market practices, thereby protecting the public interest. The experience gained in another state may become relevant when seeking to upgrade to a principal broker license in the future, but it does not alter the initial requirements for obtaining a broker license.

In Oregon, land use is governed by a hierarchical system established under statewide planning goals. The foundational document for a local jurisdiction, such as a city or county, is its comprehensive plan. This plan serves as a long-term blueprint or constitution for physical development within the jurisdiction. All land use regulations, most notably zoning ordinances, must be consistent with and implement the policies laid out in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. If a conflict arises between the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan is the controlling legal document. In the described situation, the city’s comprehensive plan has been updated to designate the area for higher density, transit-oriented development. The existing zoning for low-density residential use is now inconsistent with this updated plan. The city has a legal obligation to amend its zoning map and regulations to conform to its comprehensive plan. A developer proposing a project that aligns with the comprehensive plan’s vision has a strong legal standing. The city cannot use its own outdated, non-conforming zoning ordinance as the sole basis for denying a project that is consistent with the controlling comprehensive plan. The logical path forward involves the city processing a zone change to align the regulations with the plan, thereby enabling the approval of a compliant project.

The calculation determines the prorated tax amount owed by the buyer to the seller. Oregon’s property tax fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. The closing is on May 1. The seller has prepaid the taxes for the entire fiscal year. The buyer is responsible for the property from the day of closing through the end of the fiscal year. Number of days buyer is responsible: May: 31 days June: 30 days Total days = 31 + 30 = 61 days. Assuming annual taxes are \(\$4,380\), the daily rate is \(\$4,380 \div 365 = \$12\). Prorated amount = \(61 \text{ days} \times \$12/\text{day} = \$732\). This amount is a charge to the buyer and a reimbursement to the seller. Therefore, the settlement statement will show: \[\text{Debit Buyer: } \$732\] \[\text{Credit Seller: } \$732\] In Oregon, property taxes are levied for a fiscal year that runs from July 1 to June 30. Proration is the process of dividing certain expenses and income between the buyer and seller at closing. When a seller has prepaid an expense that covers a period of time beyond the closing date, they are entitled to a reimbursement from the buyer for the portion of the period during which the buyer will own the property. In this scenario, the seller has paid property taxes for the entire fiscal year. Since the closing occurs on May 1, the buyer will own the property for May and June of that fiscal year. Standard practice in Oregon holds the buyer responsible for the day of closing. Therefore, the buyer must reimburse the seller for the prepaid taxes covering the period from May 1 through June 30. On a settlement statement, a charge or an amount a party must pay is recorded as a debit. An amount a party receives or is being reimbursed for is recorded as a credit. Consequently, the prorated tax amount for this period will appear as a debit to the buyer, increasing the amount they must bring to closing, and a corresponding credit to the seller, increasing the net proceeds they receive from the sale. This adjustment ensures that each party only pays for the property taxes for the exact portion of the year they own the property.

The core of this issue rests on the specific duties a real estate licensee owes to clients within a Disclosed Limited Agency relationship under Oregon law, specifically as outlined in ORS 696.815. When a single licensee represents both the buyer and the seller in the same transaction, they must act as a disclosed limited agent. This role imposes specific, and sometimes conflicting, duties. While the agent must be loyal to both parties, this loyalty is limited. A critical limitation is the absolute duty of confidentiality. Under Oregon law, a licensee acting as a disclosed limited agent must not, without the express written permission of the respective party, disclose certain types of information. This confidential information includes the price the seller will accept if it is less than the listing price, the price the buyer will pay if it is more than the price offered, or any confidential financial information of either party. In this scenario, the information about the seller’s financial distress and their potential willingness to accept a significantly lower price is confidential financial information. The CFO’s comment, being “off-the-record,” underscores its confidential nature. Therefore, the licensee’s primary ethical and legal obligation is to protect this confidentiality. Disclosing this information to the buyer, even to help them secure a better deal, would be a direct breach of the fiduciary duty owed to the seller. The agent must facilitate the transaction neutrally, without leveraging one party’s confidential information to the advantage of the other. The agent can still encourage negotiation and present all offers, but they cannot reveal the seller’s confidential motivations.