New Mexico Real Estate Purchase Agreement by tessafree


									                     NEW MEXICO REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
                                                 BROKER “B”
NMREC CASE #                   07-11-09-009
On November 20, 2007, a complaint was initiated by a Buyer of an alleged “residential resale” in Taos County
(hereinafter “Complainant”) and the following licensed real estate brokers: the Listing Agent (hereinafter “Respondent
LA”), the Buyer’s Broker (hereinafter “Respondent BB”) and the Buyer’s Broker Qualifying Broker (hereinafter
“Respondent QB”), wherein Complainant alleged that Respondent LA made substantial misrepresentations, pursued
a continued and flagrant course of misrepresentation; and made false promises. Complainant also alleged Respondent
BB made false promises, and, with regard to Respondent QB, Complainant accused all parties involved in the
transaction of fraud and conspiracy. PLEASE NOTE, there is no brokerage relationship between the Listing Agent
and Buyer’s Broker and his Qualifying Broker.

                                           INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS
    On October 3, 2006, Respondent LA entered into a one year “Residential Resale” Listing Agreement with the
Seller of the subject property in Carson, NM. According to a copy of MLS# 81193, printed on April 5, 2007, this
was a residential resale modular home with electric (off the grid), water (shared), septic, forced air heat, gas water
heater, on a gravel road. Under “Public Remarks” it notes: “House has been plumbed but not hooked up to
wellshare. Wellshare is located apprx 35-40 feet from house. Also house needs to be hooked up to electricity,
which is 3/10 mile away; and needs propane tank. Seller will provide Solar hook-up.”
    Seller also completed a Residential Disclosure Statement specifically noting that the home was a modular home
built on a crawlspace, with a new septic system, shared or community well with a handwritten notation stating “not
installed as yet, will be new.” The disclosures also noted with regard to electrical that “only 110 provided by
solar,” and that it had “forced air” heating and a notation that the “Buyer to purchase” the propane tank. Seller also
disclosed that there were “time and money” problems in obtaining utility service.
    Complainant contacted Respondent BB about other properties in the area and he furnished her with the
information from the MLS system on the subject property, along with copies of the Disclosure Statement.
Respondent BB further acknowledged that he had not seen the property prior to sending these documents to
Complainant. Complainant entered into a Vacant Land Purchase Agreement with the Seller on the subject
property contingent upon Complainant’s “personal inspection of the property” on or about April 16, 2007 and
setting a Settlement/Signing date for May 10, 2007. In addition to the Purchase Agreement, Complainant and
Seller executed Addendum No. 1 (Septic System Contingency), Addendum No. 2 stipulating the terms of the real
estate contract, and Addendum No. 3 noting that the mobile home is the personal property of the Seller and
contingent upon Complainant’s personal inspection of the property.
    On April 17, 2007, Complainant visited the subject property for the first time with Respondent BB who
advised this Investigator in a phone interview that he pointed out to Complainant numerous problems with the
home, including, but not limited to, the following missing items: furnace, hot water heater, appliances, AC (a hole
in the roof where the AC once belonged), septic hookup, water hookup to shared well. The Waivers, Objections
and Resolutions were completed wherein Complainant acknowledged that she personally inspected the property
and based upon that inspection, requested specific repairs to be completed prior to closing.
    In addition to the purchase documents, Complainant and Seller entered into a Buyer Occupancy Agreement to
commence April 24, 2007. Complainant arrived at the subject property on April 27, 2007 with 23 birds, 5 dogs, 3
cats, and 2 skunks, to discover that “nothing was completed as they stated.” Complainant further stated:

       “The toilets were not installed. All fixtures, smoke alarms, furnace, hot water heater, gravel driveway,
       vanities, electric, water, solar panels, replace missing shingles on the roof, swamp cooler, and ceiling fans
       were not done as stated in the purchase contract. I was told it was on a permanent foundation, later I
       learned it was not.”

  Complainant was advised that Seller suffered a mild stroke and the May 10, 2007 closing was cancelled.
Respondent BB drew up a new Purchase Contract, but Seller refused to sign and requested that Complainant
move out. Complainant stated that she could not move out because she had no money because Seller “refused to
                                 BROKER “B” – Case No. 07-11-09-009 (Moise)
sign the termination papers.” Complainant further stated that “I exercised my squatters rights until [Seller}
decided to return my money. I was in that house from April 27th until August 2, 2007 with no utilities.”

   On August 2, 2007, the Complainant and Seller entered into a “Termination of Purchase Agreement,
Termination of Occupancy Agreement, and Settlement Agreement and General Release” wherein Complainant
was to receive her full $10,000 held in escrow and to vacate the premises by August 9, 2007.


Respondent LA may have violated the following broker duties and made substantial misrepresentations through
advertisement: Broker Duties;

    A. honesty and reasonable care as set forth in the provisions of this section;
    B. compliance with local, state, and federal fair housing and anti-discrimination laws, the New Mexico real
estate license law and the real estate commission rules, and other applicable local, state, and federal laws and
    H. disclosure of any adverse material facts actually known by the associate broker or qualifying broker about
the property or the transaction, . . .; Advertisements.

   E. All real estate advertising shall be a true and factual representation of the property and/or real estate
      services being advertised. . . .
   F. All advertising must be in compliance with all local, state and federal laws and regulations.

With regard to Respondent BB and Respondent QB, there does not appear to be any violation of the NMREC
rules of the NM Real Estate License Law,.

It should be further noted, that the Manufactured Housing Division received a complaint about this same Seller and
Respondent LA, and concluded they were not in compliance with their rules and forced Respondent LA to
remove her signs and take the property off the market.

                                           AG RECOMMENDATION

Walter Mullen, Chief Investigator                             Date ____________________
New Mexico Real Estate Commission

                                 BROKER “B” – Case No. 07-11-09-009 (Moise)

To top