EstatePass
Practice Of Real EstateFair_housingHARD

A seller in Ashland, Oregon instructs her broker to include the phrase 'no Section 8' in the MLS listing remarks. The broker knows that Oregon law protects source of income as a protected class under ORS 659A.421, but believes that because Section 8 is a federal program, federal fair housing law governs and source of income is not federally protected. The broker includes the phrase in the listing. Which of the following best describes the legal consequences?

Correct Answer

B) The broker has violated Oregon fair housing law by advertising a discriminatory preference based on source of income, which is protected under ORS 659A.421

Oregon's Fair Housing Act (ORS 659A.421) includes source of income as a protected class, which is a protection that goes beyond the federal Fair Housing Act. 'Source of income' includes housing assistance such as Section 8 (Housing Choice Vouchers). A 'no Section 8' advertisement discriminates against prospective tenants based on their source of income, violating Oregon law. The broker cannot rely on the narrower federal law to avoid Oregon's broader state protections. Oregon law applies to real estate transactions in Oregon, and the broker is independently liable for placing the discriminatory advertisement.

Answer Options
A
The broker is correct that federal law governs and no violation has occurred because source of income is not a federal protected class
B
The broker has violated Oregon fair housing law by advertising a discriminatory preference based on source of income, which is protected under ORS 659A.421
C
The broker has violated only the seller's duty to disclose, not fair housing law, because the restriction relates to payment method
D
The broker is protected from liability because the instruction came from the seller, and brokers are not responsible for seller-directed advertising content

Why This Is the Correct Answer

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Deep Analysis of This Practice Of Real Estate Question

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Background Knowledge for Practice Of Real Estate

Sign up free to unlock full analysis
Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Real World Application in Practice Of Real Estate

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Common Mistakes to Avoid on Practice Of Real Estate Questions

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Related Topics & Key Terms

Key Terms:

source_of_incomeoregon_fair_housingsection_8advertisingoregon_vs_federalbroker_liability

Related Concepts

Price fixing is an illegal antitrust practice in which competing real estate brokerages agree to charge the same commission rates, fees, or other pricing for their services. It is a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Florida brokers are required to maintain transaction records and escrow records for a minimum of five years.

A tie-in arrangement is an illegal antitrust practice in which a seller conditions the purchase of one product or service on the buyer's agreement to purchase a separate product or service.

Was this explanation helpful?

More Practice Of Real Estate Questions

People Also Study

Related Articles

Practice More Questions

Access 2,000+ practice questions and pass your real estate exam.

Start Practicing