I watched the video Vance, and COME ON...what's NEXT?  Seriously, this is so totally out of hand, and there is no personal responsibility anymore, and didn't these people get an appraisal?  

HOW many clients did we talk to over the kitchen table in the past few years about the internet lenders and "do you REALIZE" that your payment is going to increase and on and on and on....

So now, they've paid too much.

There is SO much liability these days, and it is so out of control, we need to be asking for 15%, not 5 or 6.  So are the sellers going to start sueing us for not selling their not up to date and crappy properties fast enought?

Sorry, but this is just so out of control, and I just don't even know what to say about it anymore.  But thanks for the update.

Cindy  who of course, is venting, in public...

And I do apologize for venting in public...

But really, it's scary stuff ... and it's never ending...

Here's further reading on the same subject.  Not the whole story, but a few more details.

http://tinyurl.com/2vlhcw

California's market just went crazy.  I feel for this agent.  What a way to waste time and money on a lawsuit.  I can't believe the appraiser was moved by the agent.  This woman just wants to blame someone. Thanks for posting Vance.

Vance, I'm all for it. If the agent was a buyers agent or a dual disclosed agent they may very well have a case. Let's get the legal branch involved here and now. Clear up this whole agency relationship cya stuff and get a judge to decide for whom we work.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3hIcKkKID8k

I'm a Cali girl and no offense to the Calis, but this is SOOO Cali!

A university couple, not exactly learning challenged, from the Bay area, not exactly low end housing. . . what makes them think they are unaccountable for their choices?

Plus they fired an agent and cancelled two deals. So they knew they had options. Shoulda kept exercising them.

Having said this, we always get in writing when we advise our buyers or sellers that our opinion is their choice is 'outside the margin of reasonability in the current market'.

A case for yet another disclosure :))

Yes, my agent showed me all the recent sold listings in ______________ community within the last 4 months and I still want to buy the house at _____________________________________

______________________________________

Seller's Signature

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Disclosure: I'm NOT an attorney and have no idea what I'm doing.

Thanks Vance!

I really needed that!

Cindy

At first, it would seem that this is a case of a "crazy" buyer suing the agent after getting a bad deal or not being able to cope with the realities of a declining housing market.

However, after reading more details, it also seems that there is more to the lawsuit than what we perceive. If we are to believe the plaintiff, the agent was also the mortgage provider and therefore, had a conflict of interest and a potential financial motive, which could have influenced the results of the appraisal. It is also relevant that the mortgage company and the appraiser both reached a financial settlement with the homebuyer.

In our business, just like in many others professions, there are good and bad apples. In this case, we don't know which one the buyers selected.

Just another view.

Too much time and money on thier hands. Can't believe it got this far. I love the disclosure. Its great. I know nothing ,see nothing , hear nothing. HaHA!!

I feel things are out out out of control. Get a life and move on don't blame others for your mistake.

Betty

Vance, I love that youtube video. But, I don't think that was agent Little.

The NYT article says the Buyer was "pressured" into using the Agent as a lender (is that even legal?).

It also says there was no written agreement between Buyer and Agent.  Once again, legal?  (Not for Abe and me, we know that much!).

If he was a Transaction Agent (not common in my neck of the woods), he could not provide recommendations on price, only paperwork.

It depends on the laws in Cali (which are freaky, at best), but, as I always tell my Buyers....Caveat Emptor!  I encourage them to research.  I give them websites ("including but not limited to....") Local Registry, Assessor, Sex Offenders, etc.  All the dirt.

Would you buy a computer without doing the research on the competitors?  Why would you buy a house without doing the same research?  

These are intelligent people.  Give me a break.  I'm with Cindy we should be charging 15%.  Vance, great Youtube, in fact one of the best.  Also, the article mentioned that the one down the street sold for $175K less and closed the same day.  In Georgia we can't get that info until it closes.  It is usually posted 15-30 days after closing.  So how would the agent have had that info, unless in CA they can get that info before closing.

Well from my chair someone it look like they are all throwing each other under the bus, some have settled maybe to get rid of the picketing sign in front of there business, who knows.

I think either way in one way or another they are all guilty and part of a much broader picture of this deal getting a year to get sour, why so long?

"Grayhound Real Estate" :)

Remember Vern and Marty Ummel, the Carlsbad couple we profiled last year? They were picketing Re/Max offices around San Diego County to protest the practices of their agent, Mike Little, who they said defrauded them by not disclosing a lower-priced, comparable listing down the street from the home they bought in 2005.

They bought that home in the height of the boom market!!!

   here is a link with photo of him and her picketing

http://voiceofsandiego.org/survival/

The Jury From Hell

A jury of Homeowners,

Wow, some of those who may be sitting on homes with jittery values, you bet they are, is not going to have much sympathy for an agent  about what was actually going on around the neighborhood, could have avoided all of this.

How do you find a jury that are not homeowners?

Vance, I think you could use this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5513mXmQbw4

This is a great example of why our files are 2 inches thick with addendum's that say the same thing over and over.  I can see a new one coming now.

I am a REALTOR in Cali so found this very interesting.  The two properties that sold for less than the Ummel's would have been in escrow and in the MLS as pending or taking back up offers at the same time the Ummel's was.  Most agents will not share what that selling price is in case the property does not close.  This would be unfair to the seller of those properties.  I would like to know what their asking price was.  So the fact that Mr. Little didn't tell them about those selling for less is preposterous.  He would have had no idea what they actually sold for until after they closed.  Yes, Gloria same here, but we will get the sold price a bit sooner than 15-30 days.  Do you think this is one of the items Mrs Ummel wants changed?  Can you imagine the havoc this would cause and how unfair to a seller that would be?

As far as him pressuring the Ummel's into doing their loan with him (he probably wanted them to double app.)  In CA loan brokers have to have a real estate license and can do both.  Since the article said a mortgage "broker" and appraiser had already settled, tells me Mr. Little didn't arrange the loan.  

Without seeing all the evidence - asking prices of the other homes, including the one they bought (they may have gotten a sweet deal) the homes in that development that had sold in the last 3 months of their sale, etc.  Who knows the buyer may have agreed to pay some of the sellers cost for a lower sales price.  There are so many factors and each deal is totally different.  The Ummel's were not ignorant buyers.  They knew what they wanted and Mr. Little found it for them.  

Cathy I think the agreement they were talking about is a buyer broker agreement, not an agency. We are required to sign agencies with everyone.  Like a listing agreement with the seller that is required, we have a buyer broker agreement that is not required.  Most of us will have the buyer sign this only if we feel the buyer may be looking with other agents or trying to go behind our backs with the seller.  It is not used that widely.

It is a real shame that this women doesn't spend her energy and money on a cause that would benefit the general public and not her ego.

Just my 2 cents, but I am sure we all will be watching for the outcome.  Wonder how much of my tax payer's money will be spent on this lawsuit?

Jana

We need to learn from this, folks!! I pray this is not the first of many. Protect yourselves.

I think a good way may be to provide a CMA with every purchase (you should do this anyway to protect  and advise your client) and have them sign "read and approved". We will be doing this from now on.

[Jana sez: He would have had no idea what they actually sold for until after they closed.]

That's right. Every situation is unique and I wouldn't imagine those homes are tract homes either.  :)

[It is a real shame that this women doesn't spend her energy and money on a cause that would benefit the general public and not her ego.]

That is a major point. Injured egos file more lawsuits than injured rights.

Vance, you're going to pop a blood vessel. Serenity Now!

But the word is Due Diligence. Did the agent provide the same information to this buyer as he would to his own mother, father, brother, or, sister? Was he obligated to do so? Was there a contract between the buyer and the agent? Implied or in writing? Here comes da judge!

Gregory what ever that agent did or not did will be decided this Monday hopefully.

My whole take on this whole thing is they were all part of the deal Buyers also and somewhere something went wrong, to have those settlements with the mortgage broker speaks volumes there is an untold story behind all of this I am convinced of it..

If a buyer saw R/R tracks or low flying airplanes in the area they to have responsibility to ask the agent if there is an airport close by and can you hear the trains.

Home buyers have a burden to ask questions and do there own home  work , the Ummels did some by turning down deals and changing agents.

As I said there is a pile of dirty laundry all around on this deal and will ultimately be dug up in court.

The real looser here  once again, the Realtor word is flying around on national news  in the public eyes we...are the the bad guys..

All For Dirty Laundry !!!

You all remember Dirty Laundry ?

If not --->  http://youtube.com/watch?v=2IhIH1IrsXE

Vance, I try not to use that word. I am a real estate salesman. I pay the required dues because that is the only way to get access to the MLS. I list, market and sell real estate - I do it to make money. I have no higher calling. 2008 should be the year of the courts. DOJ and agent Little is just the start of laundry washing.

Try not to let it worry you. This too shall pass.

Vance, Yanni is O.K., but when I think Serenity, I am thinking more like this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7sjSHazjrWg

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8BTKnD4R_g8

Or this! :)

Candice, Nine Inch Nails does not know the meaning of the word Serenity. And, Vance, you are taking this way too serious. Here's the Law Firm she is looking for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcaVSTsYyOI&NR=1

LOL! Trent's serene, in his fashion.

As for the law firm interview  . . . should be required for all attys. ROFL

From the words of Boston Legal (William Shatner) Denny Crane and Mad Cow!!

I hope the results of this trial comes out in front page publication reading.

Real Estate Agent acquitted woman institutionalized for insanity.

[Lloyd sez: I hope the results of this trial comes out in front page publication reading.]

LOL, its placement will depend on the outcome . . .

Here is an interesting article from our state (MA):

Favorable decision confirms brokers only liable for what they know

Last week REALTORS® received some very good news from the Massachusetts Appeals Court in a case the Association has followed very closely: Quinlan v. Clasby. The court found the REALTOR® defendant did not violate Ch. 93A by failing to determine whether a three-family home they listed and sold was in compliance with all applicable zoning laws. This finding reversed a lower court ruling which had found against the real estate broker.

While the appellees do have the right to try to appeal this case to the SJC, this decision is consistent with a series of hard-fought and won precedent cases that hold real estate brokers liable for “what they know and not what they could have known.” This is a very important legal standard that has helped brokers defend themselves against innumerable Chapter 93A claims over the years.

This case involved a REALTOR® who listed and sold a three-family home in Boston. The appearance of the home, the statements by the seller and the tax records and utility bills of the property all indicated it as a three-family home. Several years after the sale it was determined by the buyers that a zoning/variance problem dating back to 1974, which was unknown to the listing REALTOR®, invalidated one of the 3 units and required that owners would have to seek relief form the Zoning Board of Appeals. Rather than pursue that route, the buyer sued the listing broker under Chapter 93A.

In the opinion the Appeals court stated: “the broker here had no obligation in the circumstances presented to verify compliance with zoning laws, and absent knowledge of such a violation, cannot be liable under G.L. c. 93A. [FN18], [FN19] (emphasis added).” This is the standard for review in Massachusetts and this decision is valuable to the real estate industry as a whole. The industry has always understood they are required to disclose what they know, but they are not responsible to investigate legal matters outside their scope of expertise.

Ah come on, Vance. If that's all you got against Obama, say hello to our next president.

Here's a little article on Bush (there's plenty more):

The Times January 05, 2006

Bush rushes to get rid of dirty money from crooked lobbyist

By Tim Reid in Washington

Both sides of the House are scrambling to distance themselves from a disgraced lobbyist

PRESIDENT BUSH’S re-election campaign will give to charity thousands of dollars received from the lobbyist at the heart of a Capitol Hill bribery investigation, while the White House and nervous politicians from both parties scrambled to distance themselves from the widening corruption scandal.

Scott McClellan, Mr Bush’s spokesman, said yesterday that Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist who pleaded guilty on Tuesday to bribing politicians, donated thousands to last year’s Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Abramoff, whose plea deal with federal prosecutors makes him the star witness in an investigation that could implicate at least 12 politicians, most of them Republicans, also raised more than $100,000 (£57,000) for Mr Bush’s re-election campaign, earning him the honorary title “pioneer”.

Although there is no suggestion that Mr Bush or any senior administration officials were involved, the White House’s swift efforts to wash its hands of any dealings with Abramoff demonstrated just how radioactive the once-powerful lobbyist has become in a city where he lavished meals, travel and campaign donations on dozens of politicians. Abramoff pleaded guilty yesterday to separate conspiracy and fraud charges in Florida. He acknowledged that he faked documents used to get a $60million loan to buy gambling ships in 2000. Under a plea agreement four other charges were dropped.

The Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, yesterday became the latest in a growing line of politicians to dump campaign contributions received from Abramoff and his clients, in what is shaping up to be the biggest political corruption scandal in Washington for more than a decade.

Mr Hastert gave about $70,000 to charity, although his spokesman said that the contributions had been legal. Democrats, keen to make the Abramoff scandal a central plank of their campaign for November’s mid-term congressional elections, pounced on Abramoff’s guilty plea. Nancy Pelosi, the party’s leader in the House of Representatives, said: “This Republican congress is the most corrupt in history.”

Yet although the Justice Department’s investigation appears to be focusing on several high-profile Republicans, some senior Democrats also had dealings with Abramoff, making it far from certain that Democrats will be able to paint the scandal as an exclusively Republican problem. Recent polls suggest that the US public has little confidence in the ethics of either party.

Abramoff pleaded guilty to defrauding several Native American tribes — who had hired him to lobby on behalf of their gambling interests — of tens of millions of dollars. He then used that money to lavish golfing fees, meals, gifts, foreign trips and campaign funds on politicians in direct exchange for legislative action favourable to his clients.

Campaign contributions are not illegal unless there is an express agreement that the money is being paid in exchange for a legislative action.

Abramoff’s largesse “went far beyond lawful lobbying”, said Alice Fisher, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. “The corruption scheme with Mr Abramoff is very extensive. We’re going to follow this wherever it goes. Government officials and government action are not for sale.”

Since 1999 Abramoff has directed more than $4.4 million to political candidates, two thirds to Republicans, one third to Democrats.

The politician most immediately implicated in the scandal is Bob Ney, a Republican congressman from Ohio. Mr Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee and referred to as “Representative No 1” in Tuesday’s plea deal, is accused of advancing the interests of several of Abramoff’s clients. Mr Ney, who has not been charged, denied wrong- doing, saying: “I obviously did not know. . . the self-serving and fraudulent nature of Abramoff’s activities.”

Another person under scrutiny is Tom DeLay, the former Republican House leader, who is facing campaign finance charges in Texas. Mr DeLay has taken three overseas trips with Abramoff, including a golfing trip to St Andrews, and received more than $70,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients.

Also in the spotlight are Conrad Burns, a Republican senator from Montana, the largest recipient of Abramoff-related campaign contributions, and John Doolittle, a Republican congressman from California, whose wife received payments from Abramoff’s lobbying firm.

The number of politicians under investigation makes the Abramoff investigation the biggest federal corruption case since the Abscam scandal more than 20 years ago. Then, FBI agents posed as Arab sheikhs and offered bribes to members of congress. Six politicians were convicted of taking bribes.

Some analysts are comparing the potential fallout with the 1992 House banking scandal, which finished the careers of 77 politicians.

Vance, it is kind of like Mitt Romney said, "our government in Washington is fundamentally broken. Having the same people change seats will fix nothing." Or, words to that effect.

Printing more money has always worked before   - ask Germany.

You got my vote, Vance. Made in China GPS for all politicans.

For the first time in my life time, maybe in history, the Canadian Dollar is worth more than the US dollar. I got the drift of where you were going with the RTC link. Print more money and call it a stimulus package. All those on fixed incomes from pension plans and SS are going to see what their grandparents had seen in 1930. Tar and feathers.

Vance, all is not lost. There are buyers looking every day. They seem to be waiting for the right purchase. If you are going to quote me at least let it be known that I think "Happy Days" are once again on the way. See for yourself > http://tinyurl.com/ys9dvp

Smart buyers are in line making decisions on which house they want tomorrow. I am taking deposits today.

Just in case anyone is wondering, the Ummel's lost this lawsuit. The agent prevailed...

http://www.phoenixrealestateguy.com/breaking-news-ummel-v-little-agent-prevails/881

I think VancePOTUS updated us on that a bit back J, but always good to see ya! :)

[Gumba sez: yea and I will run for president.. and WIN.]

Get Jesse V as a running mate and DO IT! LOL