West Virginia Senate Bill SB400

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/13/25
• Refer: 2/13/25

Caption

Real Estate Commission rule relating to licensing real estate brokers, associate brokers, and salespersons and conduct of brokerage business

Summary

SB400 authorizes the West Virginia Real Estate Commission to promulgate a legislative rule governing the licensing of real estate brokers, associate brokers, and salespersons, as well as the conduct of brokerage business. The bill does not itself create a new licensing framework; instead, it gives legislative approval to an existing rule filed in the State Register and later modified to address objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee. The measure is primarily administrative and regulatory in nature. It confirms the Commission’s authority to implement rule 174 CSR 01, which covers professional licensing standards and brokerage practice requirements for the real estate industry in West Virginia. By authorizing the rule, the Legislature allows the Commission’s updated regulations to take effect and be enforced under state law.

Impact

If enacted, SB400 would amend §64-9-1 of the West Virginia Code to authorize the Real Estate Commission’s rule on real estate broker, associate broker, and salesperson licensing and brokerage conduct. The practical effect is to validate and enable enforcement of the Commission’s regulatory standards for real estate professionals, affecting applicants, licensees, brokerage firms, and the Commission’s oversight authority.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be routine and noncontroversial. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition or debate, and the measure is framed as a standard authorization of a revised agency rule. The overall sentiment is neutral to supportive, consistent with a technical rule-approval bill.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. The only implied issue is that the rule had previously been modified to meet objections from the Legislative Rule-Making Review Committee before being refiled, suggesting that any concerns were addressed during the rule review process rather than in public floor debate. No named opponents, stakeholder disputes, or policy disagreements are reflected in the record provided.