18VAC135-20-10?Định nghĩa.

• Under the definition of "Active" the term "in good standing" is not defined anywhere in the regulations.
• Under the definition of "contact information" the term " digital advertising" is not defined anywhere and could cause consumer/licensee confusion.
• "Moral turpitude" is defined and used in the regulations. New legislation enacted 7/1/25 prohibits using this term. 
• Under the definition of "principal to a transaction" the terms "assignor" and "assignee" have been added. An assignor legally transfers his/her rights to the assignee and would no longer be a principal. The assignee would effectively become the buyer. With the current confusion in the market over assigning real estate contracts and wholesaling, we think the addition of these two terms will only further confuse licensees and both terms should be removed from the definition.

18VAC135-20-30?Qualifications for?individual?licensure.

• Use of the term "moral turpitude" is now prohibited. 

18VAC135-20-165?Duties of supervising broker 

4. Respond in a timely manner to inquiries from the public, cooperating brokers, and licensees affiliated with the supervising broker’s firm regarding existing or contemplated transactions.

• This could cause consumer and licensee confusion and lead to a flood of complaints because someone took too long to return a phone call. It will be very difficult to enforce. Another option would be rewording to "Act with reasonable diligence and promptness in responding to . . ."

 18VAC135-20-170?Maintenance of licenses  

B. Cho thôi việc hoặc chấm dứt tư cách hoạt động. 

• The language in 1. should be clarified to say that the termination is effective upon notification to the Board, not the processing. If there is a delay in the processing a licensee could be liable for continuing under a problem broker, or a broker could be liable if a problem licensee continues under their supervision.

18VAC135-20-181?Maintenance and management of escrow accounts.

• Under A.1.c.  "escrow account authority" should be changed to "signatory authority" to be consistent.

18VAC135-20-185?Maintenance and management of?hồ sơ.

The language in section C. is confusing. Perhaps reword to: 

1. Each brokerage agreement must be retained?for?three years from the date of execution.
2. Each disclosure and consent to dual agency or dual representation, or designated agency or designated representation?must be retained for three years from the date of execution.   
3. All documents pertaining to the real estate transaction including, a complete and legible copy of any ratified contract of sale, any ratified release from contract, any ratified lease agreement, any ratified property management agreement,?any disclosure to an unrepresented party, and any settlement statement in the broker's control or possession unless prohibited by law. Such records must be retained for three years from the date of closing or from date of ratification if the transaction fails to close. 

18VAC135-20-280?Improper?financial transactions and dealings. 

• Paragraph 2 is unclear. Is the intent to allow a closing agent to pay a licensee directly with written broker approval? Stating "at the time of the licensed real estate activity" could indicate a licensee could be paid for negotiating a contract or showing property. This section needs to clarified and keep the wording "at the time of the transaction."
• Paragraph B will put a lot of liability on licensees with the current state of fraud in real estate and require them to verify identity with tools they do not have. Perhaps better wording would be: "Actions constituting improper dealing include knowingly offering real property for sale or for lease without consent of the owner or the owner’s authorized representative, or on any terms other than those authorized by the owner or the owner’s authorized representative.  

Licensed Activities in a Personal Capacity

There is incredible licensee confusion surrounding this issue. The Code states in 54.1-2103.D. that "A licensee of the Board shall comply with the Board's regulations, notwithstanding the fact that the licensee would be otherwise exempt from licensure under subsection A."  This implies that even if a licensee is acting in his personal capacity (e.g. selling her own home, renting/managing her own rental property) she must still follow the regs and work through her firm, under supervision from her broker, and use her broker's escrow account. The regs even state in 18VAC135-20-155.B.? that Any licensee failing to comply with the provisions of Chapter 21 (§ 54.1-2100 et seq.) of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia or the regulations of the?Real Estate Board? in performing any acts covered by § 54.1-2100 of the Code of Virginia may be charged with a violation, regardless of whether those acts are in the licensee's personal capacity or in the licensee's capacity as a real estate licensee.

However, the regs contradict this statement later in 18VAC135-20-260.11.g.?Prohibited acts: A licensee??performing regulated activities for any third party, except for entities in which the licensee has an ownership interest, outside the licensee’s brokerage firm or sole proprietorship. 

The distinction between what a licensee can do when they have an ownership interest and what constitutes "personal capacity" must be clarified. It is impossible for a broker to enforce this with her agents and puts additional liability on the firm. Licensees are opening their own escrow accounts for their personal rental properties and the brokers are unaware. If the intention is that all of real estate transactions on properties where the agent has an ownership interest must run through the broker this requirement needs to be clearer.

Licensed vs. Unlicensed Activities

The list of licensed versus unlicensed activities is buried under broker supervision in 18VAC135-20-165. A licensee may not think to go to the broker supervision regulation to find this list. A better option would be to put the list of licensed and unlicensed activities into its own separate regulation. The licensed activities should also be better tied to the relevant Code section 54.1-2130. 

20-10  The term in good standing is introduced but not defined. 

20-55:  A broker seeking to exchange "the" broker's license...  I would suggest you replace "the" with "their".  

20-165(4): what is a timely manner?  This is very broad and will allow members of the public to file frivolous complaints.  I would suggest that you consider adding the concept of "reasonableness":  Respond within a reasonable time to inquires from the public....  Reasonable is a well established concept that has been defined by many courts. 

20-181.  (A)(1)(c):  Should use the consistent term of signatory authority instead of escrow account authority which is introduced under this subsection but not used in the other ones.  (B)(1)(a): an earnest money deposit received by the principal broker or supervising broker or "the broker's associates".  Who are these associates?  This is not a defined term.  Does that mean the title company designated in the contract? Is it the salesperson or other brokers/licensees affiliated with the firm?  If that is the case, then lets use consistent nomenclature so as to not create confusion. 

20-190(3).  The requirements in this provision, specifically the one which requires an update to the property's contract status will most of the time be subject to the control of third parties.  In (4) you added a sentence addressing this.  I would suggest you add the same sentence at the end of (3).

20-260(g):  This is very complicated to understand.  Given what was deleted, I believe it is targeted towards PM done through unlicensed firms by licensees.  Are you stating in this section that a salesperson/broker is allowed to act as a PM so long as they have ownership interest in the PM company even if the entity does not have a firm license?

20-280(B):  this language is very broad and would make it a violation for a licensee who reasonably believed that they had authorization from the owner but who was part of a fraudulent transaction.  I would suggest that you consider making this requirement a little more narrow requiring that it be a violation only if the licensee knowingly offered the property for sale or lease without the knowledge or authority of the owner.