Public Mediation

City Villa Realty & Management LLC misrepresentation/fraud/deceit in a real estate transaction

N. G. vs. Anyn Papin
4990 S Rainbow Blvd Ste 120, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89118, United States
    • Status: In Negotiation
      This claim has posted for public comment and negotiation. It will remain posted until resolved to the claimant's satisfaction. Suggest a resolution to help these parties reach a settlement.
      (seeking public comment)
    • Claimant Seeks: View.
    • Claim #: 4246001
    • Amount Involved: 43,996.93
    • Filed On: Nov 15, 2014
    • Posted On: Nov 26, 2014
    • Complaint(s):
      • Contract / Agreement dispute
      • Failure to honor promises
      • Failure to disclose facts
  • Review this case.
  • Propose your solution.
  • Win the reward (1,000)
Statement of Claim
Claimant says:
"I. INTRODUCTION

This is a complaint against a Nevada Real Estate Agent identified as Anyn Papin, doing business as City Villa Realty & Management LLC, hereinafter referred o as" Respondent", and, her Investor, Delia Fernando, hereinafter referred to as "Respondent 1", whom while acting in concert one with the other, in the County of Clark, State of Nevada, on or about February 2013, against the peace and dignity of the State of Nevada, did contact Complainants pertaining to Complainants pending foreclosure and through deceptive trade practice act violations did solicit, engage, deceive and mislead Complainants into entering an illegal contract in violation of, including, but not necessarily limited to: NRS 645F.400; NRS 645F.430; NRS 645F.300 to 645F.450. Upon discovery and notice that an illegal contract had been created, Respondent and Respondent 1 failed to restore Complainants to Complainants original position thereby unjustly enriching themselves.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On or about May 4, 2006, Complainants purchased the real property located at 9235 White Waterfall Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89149 via a Deed of Trust and Promissory Note in the sum certain amount of $409,920 from Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. Reference: Instrument # 20065104168, Official Records, Clark County Nevada, Recorded May 10, 2006. As a direct and proximate result of "temporary financial hardship," Complainants received a NOTICE OF DEFAULT from Complainant's loan servicer. Reference: Instrument # 2013.301.2853, Official Records, Clark County Nevada, Recorded: 03/0112013.

After the Notice of Default and prior to the short sale, sometime in February of 2014, Respondent brought Respondent 1, her investor to Complainants house. Respondent told Complainants that Respondent 1 is willing to buy Complainants house on short sale and is willing to sell it back to Respondent in 3-6 months for the price whatever the bank approved plus 20% profit. This way as Respondent said, "we wouldn't have to leave the house and go elsewhere, instead we will just pay rent as tenants while processing to get a loan to buy back the house." Respondent convinced Complainants that it's not hard for Complainants and that Respondent will help Complainants get a hard money loan with the 20% down payment because Respondent allegedly knows a lot of investors and mortgage companies that Respondent can go to and rely upon.

Respondent made false and untrue promises that Respondent, a licensed professional real estate agent, could fix their foreclosure problem which Complainants believed, especially when Respondent told Complainants that Respondent 1 has other properties in mind to invest in, but because of Respondent , she was able to persuade Respondent 1 (they've known each other for quite a while with their real estate business) to buy Complainants house instead because Respondent 1 wants to help Complainants and they are just doing Complainants a favor. Complainants are not knowledgeable about real estate and real estate matters. Complainants relied upon Respondent because Complainants were desperate at that time and we were thankful they came to the house and offered Complainants their so-called "help" and "favor" because Respondent made Complainants believe that Respondent 1 is an "angel" trying to rescue Complainants. Complainants were convinced at that time especially when Respondent told Complainants that Real Estate laws change all time, no more so called "Arm's length" and there was a new law and program that Complainants can buy back the house now, so Complainants were so grateful and agreed to their proposal.

On February 11, 2014, Complainants received an email from Respondent with attachments that needed to be signed by Complainants for the short sale of Complainants home. When Respondent informed Complainants they had gotten an approval from the bank. This statement by Respondent misled Complainants into believing that the deal to stay in their home had been approved by the bank, when such was clearly not the case. Complainants did not pay attention to all the documents Complainants signed. Respondent did not adequately nor fully nor sufficiently explain the documents to Complainants which Respondent requested Complainant sign in order to stay in their home. Complainants are not trained in law and have no understanding or comprehension of legal documents or contracts. Complainants followed the instructions and directions of Respondent trusting Respondent was acting in Complainants interests, when in fact Complainants were being misled by Respondent to sign documents to complete the short sale.

Three days later (February 14, 2014). Complainants realizing they did not have a home anymore were anxious to start all over again. Complainants remembered Respondent telling Complainants at that time Respondent will make sure Complainants have the $ 3000.00 incentives from the bank for doing short sale, which Respondent expected to receive a commission from.

The night prior to closing of short sale, (February 14, 2014), Complainants received an email from Respondent that Respondent 1, wants Complainants to sign the Lease agreement with the option to purchase and requiring Complainants pay the 10% ($ 40,800) as down payment for buying back the house before Respond ent 1 wire money to the escrow. The next day after the closing of escrow, Respondent 1 and Respondent came to the house with all the documents prepared and had Complainants sign them. Respondent told Complainants that everything is self­ explanatory and Complainants must be thankful to Respondent 1 because Respondent 1 did Complainants a big favor. Respondent told Complainants that Complainants had to change names on complainants' utility bills so that the bank will not know that Complainants did not move out of the house because of the $3000 the bank gave us. Complainants asked Respondent to explain because Complainants thought everything was okay and the deal had been approved by the bank. Respondent told Complainants Respondent wanted to be safe. Complainants had never been advised nor informed by Respondent that the $3000.00 given to Complainants by the bank was assistance for moving out.

After Complainants gave Respondent 1 $40,800, (money came from Complainants (401k) Respondent 1 then issued Complainants an acknowledgement stating "Non Refundable". Complainants were shocked and surprised and worried because Complainants did not know about this, so Complainants called Respondent at that time and asked her. Respondent told Complainants that is only a statement which only applies if Complainants defaulted on the rental agreement, and not to worry because Respondent would help Complainants get the loan as early as possible, or Respondent can talk to Respondent 1.

Right after short sale, Respondent purportedly started looking for a Mortgage Company and an Investor that could help Complainants with a loan to refinance the property. Respondent told Complainants that Complainants will use Complainants niece or sisters first so that Complainants will not be on the title and Complainants could refinance it later or Complainants could add Complainants name later. Complainants did not understand what Complainants were doing. Complainants were confused and did not know what to do. Complainants trusted Respondent and did what Complainants were told by Respondent to do. Complainants submitted the documents of Complainants nieces to the Mortgage Company under Respondents instruction and guidance, both of were subsequently denied.

For the past 6 months Complainants have applied to a lot of Mortgage Companies and private investors. Every application has denied for the same reason that, " it's too soon to get a loan after short sale." Complainants called Cogburn Law office in Las Vegas, Nevada sometime in March, because Complainants saw their advertisement about buying back the house from foreclosure and were told that there are certain banks that do not allow buy backs and because Wells Fargo is one of them, they cannot help Complainants.

Complainants told Respondent about this and Respondent told Complainants again not to worry because Respondent will talk to Respondent 1. As far as Complainants remember, Respondent 1 told Complainants that she cannot give Complainants the money back because it's already been used for Respondent 1's other business ventures, and that Complainants only option is to get a loan so that Complainants could get back Complainants money. Complainants told Respondent 1 that Complainants couldn't buy the house back because it's against the law and Complainants needed to seek legal advice. Respondent and Respondent 1 knew or should have known that Complainants could not lawfully buy back Complainants house that had been sold to Respondent 1 via Short Sale and tricked and misled Complainants into giving Respondent 1 $40,800 as a down payment for the re­ purchase of Complainants home from Respondent 1..

Complainants went to Attorney Harker with Respondent in April 2014, to ask again for the possibility and consequences to buy back the house and he told Complainants that he cannot tell Complainants to buy the house back or not to buy because he does not know what the bank will do later on. Respondent then suggested Complainants use other relatives or an LLC or Trust instead so that Complainants could buy their house back.

Complainants found a mortgage company through a friend. Complainants were able to qualify for the loan with their 2nd chance home program upon the condition Complainants purchase any house in Las Vegas except the one that Complainants short sold because they said that it's against the law to buy back the house.

Attached as Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the denial letter from the Mortgage Company. Respondent after Complainants receipt of the denial letter still insisted that Complainants could do that with her friend Dianne from the same Mortgage Company with only a 30% down payment. Respondent still tried to convince Complainant and mislead Complainant to believe that Complainant could re­ purchase Complainants home that had been sold via short sale, when such was false, and untrue.

Given these circumstances as set forth and described herein above, Complainants on September 2, 2014 sent Respondent 1 a written request thru Respondent asking Respondent 1 return Complainants money deposit of $40,800.00. See Exhibit No. 2, copy of September 2, 2014 letter.

On October 17, 2014 Complainants received a response from Respondent 1's attorney, Alan Needham from the Needham Law Firm, stating that Respondent 1 is unable to consider Complainants request until the following conditions were met: 1) Complainants sign a cancellation instruction with the escrow company to release $3,000 earnest money deposit to Respondent 1; 2) Complainants vacate the home by December 1, 2014; 3) Complainants surrender the home in excellent condition, to be verified by Respondent 1; and 4) The home is sold. Exhibit No. 3."
Reply Have a similar problem?
What Claimant Wants Hide
1. Payment due: UNLAWFUL REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION Nov 30, 2014 $0.00
2. Recovery of Losses: MISREPRESENTATION/FRAUD/DECEIT IN A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION Nov 30, 2014 $40,800.00
3. Refund: LEASE WITH PURCHASE OPION Nov 30, 2014 $0.00
4. Pay me interest $3,196.93
5. Other – Copy claim to regulators Nov 30, 2014 $14.99
6. Other – Pay for claim posting cost Nov 30, 2014 $7.99
7. Other – Physical delivery charges Nov 30, 2014 $5.98
Cash total : $44,025.89
  • 0
Do you agree with the claimant’s demands?  (If you are a party to this claim, click here.)

Respondent's Counteroffer


There has been no response to this claim from Anyn Papin. This claim will remain posted until resolved
Get fast access to our Resolver community, for...
  • help with a PeopleClaim or any other complaint
  • assistance with a purchase or contract
  • expert advice
Other PeopleClaim resolvers
Get Free alerts when claims post in your area.
Get Alert

Need help resolving a dispute? Learn more.

Public Mediation

The shortest path from your problem to its resolution.
1
Peer to Peer

Engage the other party and use powerful tools to negotiate the best resolution.

Free
If Unresolved
2
Community Resolution

Post your case online and get help from legal professionals, industry experts, consumers & advocates competing to find the best resolution to your claim.

$14.99 + optional reward for best resolution
Full refund if not resolved to your satisfaction
If Unresolved
3
Private Mediation

Lets you mediate your case privately with the help of our professional mediators and industry experts.

Free to claimant. Mediator fees negotiable.
If Unresolved
4
Engage a Professional

Find the best community-reviewed professionals near you to resolve your issue in private online mediation or traditional court/mediation.

Resolution

A wonderful serenity has taken possession of my entire soul, like these sweet mornings of spring which I enjoy with my whole heart.

I am (not) alone, and I feel the charm of existence in this spot, which was created for the bliss of souls like mine...~ Goethe

Get a public verdict — create an online trial $50 public trial / $50 reward for successful resolution
Important: All information contained herein is the opinion of the posting parties, who are solely responsible for its content. PeopleClaim offers both free and paid services to help consumers, patients, employee, tenants, and others resolve disputes without lawyers or courts, through negotiated online settlement and public disclosure of wrongdoing or unfair treatment.
Claims against parties operating under bankruptcy protection, by law must be processed solely through the appropriate US bankruptcy court. Any claims against this party currently posted on PeopleClaim are available for purposes of public business review only and are not an attempt to collect money or recover assets subject to protections under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
*IMPORTANT: PeopleClaim is a public dispute resolution system, independent of the BBB, small claims court, or other dispute resolution services. PeopleClaim is not a law firm and does not provide legal services, opinions, or advice. PeopleClaim facilitates peer-to-peer negotiation and resolution and crowdsourced input on issues of fairness to help resolve complaints. Users should contact professional legal counsel on any matters of law or regulation regarding their claims. PeopleClaim does not review or evaluate the merits of claims submitted through its site, and users are solely responsible for all content filed in their claims.
© reserved by PeopleClaim