Yuma Title Company - Chicago Title And Fidelity unethical dishonest misrepresentation fraud illegally playing "lawyer" with contracts Yuma Arizona

Yes, the deal was dead on 10-04-04. Yuma Title was contacted by phone and told that the buyer had not performed (signed the counter-offer ) and that the time alloted to sign it had passed so the deal was dead in the water, and that cancellation papers needed to be drawn up. The new buyer signed her purchase agreement 10-05-04, without a "continguent upon release of 1st contract" due to the fact that the first contract was expired and therefore voidable by the seller. Yuma Title found out that we had placed a new offer in escrow with First American Title Company so they sent an email to First American telling them that they already had an escrow on the property so theirs was invalid. First American called me and sent me a copy of the email.

I called them and explained the first contract had expired and that the escrow had been cancelled, I was just waiting for the paperwork. The next day I had a message saying that the Seller had come into their office and signed papers and that the escrow had closed at Yuma Title, and they claimed not to know whether or not it had recorded. Yuma Title President Dan Fauth then walked into my office and asked to see my paperwork.

Someone had called the Seller; He then thinking that it was the second contract, had gone into the office and signed the papers, which contained an odd one stating that the title company had no responsibility for anything he signed, that it was his choice. They demanded that he come in immediately to do this so he had no time to consult with me and they did not call me since I would have objected to closing a deal that had counters unsigned. You make a counter and it puts you out of contract unless it is agreed upon. Also, the contract must have a beginning and an ending date and cannot be closed without an extension. They closed it anyway and did not explain to the Seller that the counter offer he made was not accepted. He found out when I did.

If Yuma Title were the only Title Company in Yuma, I would close my contracts in my office or use a company in Phoenix. What am I supposed to do when I am audited and I don't have the necessary contract in order because the Title Company is operating by their own rules instead of following the directions of the Buyer and Seller and remaining a neutral party? I know the difference but the Buyers and Sellers don't and it makes me look bad because they think I messed up, when what Yuma Title did was both unethical and illegal.

I am regulated by the Department of Real Estate. I could lose my license if I am audited and cannot explained why I allowed deals to close without completely executed contracts so obviously a real estate agent would be a fool to deal with them, as they don't care about the consequences to me, the Seller, or the Buyer. This is not the first time the escrow agent Stacey, has closed a deal that wasn't accepted. There is a gentleman that now lives in California that has been trying to get his money back from the Buyer for 3 years now.

Stacey gave the Buyer $1800 from the Seller's proceeds in order to close, without any kind of authorization from anyone and we didn't know about it until after it recorded. A responsible company would not cover for someone like that... they would send her packing. Yuma Title thinks she's great because she closes so many escrows. They don't care how.

Your seller had the agreement with the prior buyer that if the deal wasn't closed by 10/04 then the $2000 wouldn't be paid? If that's the case, what does it have to do with a new buyer? Establishing who was paying the $2000 should have been discussed prior to closing with the new buyer.

I'm a little fuzzy here because if you represent the seller, and the previous buyer's deal went dead, then any new buyers would have essentially a new deal. If anything, earnest money would have been forfeited by the first buyer as a result of the extention and wouldn't fall under the normal failure to obtain adequate financing clause.

Please explain more because I am not understanding the problem.