Opinion ID: 803512
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sells or offers for sale, buys or offers to buy,

Text: or negotiates the purchase or sale or exchange of real estate . . . , or (ii) leases or offers to lease, or rents or offers for rent, any real estate or the improvements thereon for others. Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2100. The statute expressly excludes from the definition the following: attorneys acting in the performance of their duties; trustees, administrators or executors; auctioneers; property management companies; and owners or lessors of property acting “in the regular course of or incident to the management of the property and the investment therein.” Id. § 54.1-2103. Real estate brokers are subject to what the Exchangers call “statutory fiduciary duties,” Appellants’ Br. at 36, namely that they (1) must “[a]ccount in a timely manner for all money and property received by the licensee in which the seller has or may have an interest,” Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-2131(A)(5), (2) must disclose all material 25 facts known to the broker, id. § 54.1-2131(A)(6), and (3) must not “divert or misuse any funds held in escrow or otherwise held by him for another,” id. § 54.1-2108. The Exchangers argue LES was a real estate broker because LES received compensation for its role as an exchange accommodator, which involved selling relinquished properties and buying replacement properties, and QIs are not expressly exempt from the statutory definition of real estate brokers. We disagree. Simply put, we believe the Virginia legislature would not have intended QIs like LES to be considered real estate brokers. QIs exist as a mechanism for qualifying taxpayers to defer the recognition of gains on investment properties. They serve a different, more specialized function than do real estate brokers as the term is commonly understood. Moreover, and importantly, the Exchangers agreed to limit LES’s duties to those “expressly set forth” in the Agreement, and LES is more analogous to the entities listed among the exceptions than to real estate brokers. For these reasons, we hold as a matter of law that LES was not, and may not be treated as, a real estate broker under Virginia law. 8 8 SunTrust argues in the alternative that, even if the Agreement rendered LES a real estate broker under Virginia law, LES disclaimed any corresponding duties imposed by virtue of that status. The Exchangers argue to the extent there was such a disclaimer, it should be “void as a matter of public policy.” (Continued) 26 For the foregoing reasons, read as a whole, the Agreements did not impose fiduciary duties on LES, and therefore the district court properly dismissed the claim seeking to hold SunTrust liable for aiding and abetting LES’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. 9