Fidelity National Title Barbara Willis, legal counsel for Arizona and Maricopa County offices Peter Sadowski, VP of legal department DiAnna Jackman, escrow supervisor, Camelback office in Phoenix Michael Bennett, investor buyer and owner of SOMA business partners Incorrectly interpreted purchase contract in favor of unscrupulous investor; agreed to split earnest money 50/50 and at the last minute, after paid mediation that resolved nothing, decided to send all earnest money back to the investor rather than to me, the seller Phoenix AZ

Chicago Title (owned by Fidelity) neglected to state that the buyer violated the purchase contract, that both parties went to legal mediation and did not reach an agreement, and that Chicago Title initially decided to split the earnest money if an agreement on disbursement was not mutually reached by both parties, but then handed it over to buyer at the last minute without explanation after being threatened several times by the buyer’s attorney that the buyer would pull future business from Chicago Title. I will detail those facts in the remainder of this letter and with the attachments referenced herein.

I have documentation that is an overview of the buyer’s lack of good faith and fair dealing that was compiled by my attorney Greg McGill in advance of the mediation with Bruce Meyerson as mediator. Mediation is not intended to place blame, but was an effort by both parties to reach agreement on disbursement of earnest money. Mediation concluded with the buyer offering us (Roger and Gail Overton) $3000 of the $10,000 earnest money, which we refused. In fact, both Barbara Willis and her paralegal Susan Handwerk had informed all parties that if mediation was not successful, they would split the earnest money 50/50, which is the reason we rejected the $3,000 offer in lieu of knowing that we would receive $5000 from the Escrow Company (we should have received the entire $10,000 but would have settled for half). ATTACHMENT 2, by the way, includes those salient exhibits that prove the buyer did not exercise good faith in canceling the contract. Basically, they lied as to the reasons they cancelled, even after we provided a cure notice stating the violation and they never did provide a list of repairs that we could have remedied, as they never stepped foot in the house and said, in writing, that they had too many “other projects” – clearly contradicting their reason for cancellation.

Nonetheless, the buyer lack of good faith and contract violation is a separate matter to the Chicago Title earnest money disbursement. Other details that I have on email show Chicago Title’s written promise to split the earnest money (both by Barbara Willis and Susan Handwerk), as well as threatening emails from the opposing attorney Byron Sarhangian, as well as the 180 done by Chicago Title in reversing its decision (for reasons never explained to us, the sellers, or our attorney Greg McGill) and returning the earnest money in its entirety to the buyer. This action by Chicago Title is a clear violation of ethics, internal policy, and faith/fair dealing by a financial institution, not to mention a slam-dunk “promissory estoppel” legal violation if indeed I take them to court. I would like to avoid court by all means as I am just a private citizen up against a very large corporation, and we all know how those confrontations usually end. I ask you to review the details and help if you can.