The party listed above agreed to sell an elderly woman's household possessions and her house at auction. He advised her that he would advertise in local papers prior to the sale. Initially, he stated that the cost of such advertising would run $400 to $500. Later, he said that it would be between $600 and $700. He spent nearly $1100.00 on advertising. One of the three papers he used is run by a close friend of his. Two of the papers are what are commonly referred to as "throw aways."
Further, he spent the money and ran the ads without once asking the seller for her comments. He failed to provide copies of the ads and, when pressed, said that he didn't have to supply copies. He announced in the newspapers (using a statement written in the first person, as if the woman had stated it) that the seller had moved out of her house and was living in an apartment. Because it was announced in print, the woman's insurance company has dropped her property insurance. This was all done without her knowledge or approval.
He realized that the sale was a wash and that the woman's take was nearly nothing, but when she got upset, he avoided her for five days before finally turning over her take of the sale and the paperwork which she had every right to receive. He immediately threatened her and her daughter with legal action if they complained to anyone or said anything negative about what he had or had not done. Her final profit after advertising and his commission - less than $123.00.
He agreed to a minimum bid on her house, but later told people that she had a fair offer on the house, but had refused to take it. The highest bid was over $20,000 LESS than what THEY had agreed to prior to the auction. Further, he did not contact her to ask her about the highest bid (she was not present at the sale, but her family was there). Still, he has told people that SHE refused a fair bid.
He has told people that she refused to sign a contract with him, but he never completed a contract for her signature prior to the sale. A blank contract was presented at a meeting, but was never seen again. When pressed, the woman told her daughter that she believed she had a contract with him. Clearly, her memory was not clear on this matter.
He sold a Tiffany bowl (in the box) for $2.50 to a friend of his family, then denied that he had sold it. The item was NOT FOR SALE, but had been carried to the sale rack prior to the sale by one of his workers. After the sale, when the bowl could not be found, the woman called to ask him if he knew what happened to it. He said he had no idea, and didn't recall a TIFFANY bowl. He later told the daughter that he couldn't believe that so much was made over "a $2.50 piece of glass." He has since stated that he helped retrieve the bowl, but this is simply untrue. He provided (after nearly a week of stallling) lists of the items sold and the names and addresses of the buyers.
With some detective work, the daughter was able to ascertain who bought the bowl, contacted the party, and bought it back. This "piece of glass" could not be replaced because it had a special inscription on it. Still, a bowl of similar size and shape at Tiffany's sells for about $130.00. He told the daughter that he has sold a number of Tiffany bowls in the past...in a farm community nearly 130 miles from the nearest Tiffany store???????
This man represented himself as a realtor. He stated that if the house didn't sell at auction, he would like 30 days to try to sell the house outright. After the auction, he stated that he would like six months to try to sell the house. As it turns out, he is not a licensed realtor and planned to list the house with a friend who sells a very small number of houses each year as an independent insurance salesman/realtor in a tiny town not far from the tiny town where the auction took place.
Since the sale, Wilson has changed his story a number of times to cover his lack of professionalism and to appear to be the hurt party in the deal. This man is a wealthy farmer who dabbles in farmland sales and occasionally conducts auctions of personal property and residential realty. He brags that he is a "third generation" auctioneer. His cousin, another third generation auctioneer, came calling on the elderly lady several days after the auction and gave her an earful of stories about his cousin. It seems that there is bad blood between them, and the cousin asked the woman if she would consider selling her house with him, as the cousin IS a licensed realtor. Since she has no interest in getting into the middle of a family feud and doesn't trust them, she is refusing to deal with any of them any further.
A detailed contract would have been the best scenario in this case, and no contract seemed like a relief at first when everything had been said and done. Still, a lack of a written document has led to a battle of "he said/she said" that will have no fair resolution. The woman, for reasons her daughter will NEVER UNDERSTAND, trusted Wilson implicitly from the moment she met him. Likely because she is elderly and felt that auctioning her possessions was the best way to ensure her adult children an inheritance, she gave Wilson the opportunity to conduct her business for her. IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE. His lack of professionalism, from his dreadful grammar down to his shorts and combat boots, presented him as something that cannot be stated here because he has threatened the woman and her daughter with a lawsuit for DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.
If he wants to sue someone for defamation of character, he needs to file against his cousin...who has a great deal to say about him and none of it is positive!!!
A Tiny Town, Illinois