"Satpal Singh
11512 Lake Potomac Dr.
Potomac MD 20854
Satpal Singh, Mandeep S. Narula and
Pushpinder S. Singh
Purchaser/ Plaintiff
VS
Jobin Realty
507 N. Fredrick Ave.
Gaithersburg MD 20877
c/o Joseph Yost (broker)
Defendant
______________________________________
Plaintiff alleges:
1. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the defendant, Jobin Realty, is a corporation doing Real Estate business in the state of MD.
2. Contract Initiated:
a. On or about November 18, 2009 Satpal Singh (purchaser) and Sandy Spring Bank (seller) entered into a written contract ( Exhibit 1) through Jobin Realty to purchase the land and pursuant to which the purchaser agreed to purchase the Buck-lodge land from the seller for the sum of $420,000.
b. Before writing this contract, the purchaser submitted one contract in July- 2009 to check the feasibility of this land for 21 days. But after 16 days, when the purchaser tried to cancel the contract, it was learned that the contract had been tempered with (page 7 of the contract was changed before it was submitted to the seller and replaced again after received back from the seller, to collect $10,000 deposit from the purchaser). Now, per seller, there was no study period as mentioned in purchaser's copy of the contract. The purchaser was shocked to hear that. The seller refused to refund the deposit money. At this time, the purchaser learned that the land would not perk properly as informed by the seller. It would perk only with the help of sand mount, that is lot more expensive.
c. After the first contract was written, purchaser checked with Montgomery County Permitting Services to inquire if a temple could be built on this land and they did not have any problem at that time. Later the request was rejected because of an undisclosed TDR Easement.
3. Attempted Closing and Botched Title Search:
a. Purchaser went to attorney's office on March 31st, 2010 for settlement. Mr Goozman, the attorney, told the purchaser that he had done the full title search and did not find any defect in it. I handed over all the money owed for settlement.
b. He immediately handed over some money to the bank and $7,350 to Jobin Realty agent (Exhibit 2).
c. Based on the contract, Jobin Realty was suppose to get a portion of the Listing Broker’s Commission from the seller. In this case, there was no listing broker therefore no commission was given to the listing broker. In other words the contract was sloppy and incomplete. But the closing attorney still gave $7350 to Jobin Realty.
4. Unable to Record Deed:
Later Mr. Goozman, the closing attorney, tried to record the deed under purchaser's name but was not able to do that. The County wanted the purchaser 's to fill out and sign one form.
5. Discussion with Permitting Services of Montgomery County
a. In the meantime, the purchaser went to the Permitting Services to get the final approval for purchaser's intended land use. The inspector there told the purchaser that every thing seems fine but we should write a letter to the Manager to get the final approval. Purchaser did that.
b.On the telephone, the Manager said she almost approved the request but then just thought about calling the Park and Planning Commission. The manager of Park and Planning told the manager of Permitting Services that this land had one TDR Easement and that any land with a TDR Easement is prohibited to build any religious place on it.
c. There are other Temples and Churches on a similar land but, per Permitting Services, that policy has been changed through TDR Easement.
d. The Permitting Services manager also mentioned that this Easement should have been disclosed to the purchaser in writing before the contract was written and also at the settlement time by the Closing Attorney. In other words, the Jobin Realty agent should have filled the GCAAR Disclosure Form before the contract was initiated to protect the purchaser from this kind of situation. The Permitting Services manager was surprised and shocked to hear that we, the purchasers, did not know any thing about this Easement.
e. Afterwards the manager sent an email (see Exhibit 3) explaining what happened and said that she could not approve this land for a religious place because of this Easement.
6. Non-Disclosure:
a. When this was brought to seller's attention, Mr. Fleming, vice president-Sandy Spring Bank, he apologized.
b. Mr. Fleming said "Mr. Singh (one of the purchaser), I knew you wanted to build a temple and I knew this land had TDR Easement but I did not know that this Easement will prevent you from building a Temple.”
c. Mr. Fleming also said that “your agent never raised any question about any kind of Easement, let alone TDR Easement, and that is why it never got disclosed." He hinted that it is obvious that the agent we are dealing with is just not familiar with this kind of land or he is just plainly incompetent. The agent did not fill GCAAR Disclosure Form, where all that info could have been disclosed. We do not even know whom the Jobin Realty agent was representing at this point.
7. Right to Cancel Contract:
Mr. Fleming said Mr. Singh you have every right to cancel the contract if you want to, given this information. The purchaser said OK go ahead and cancel the contract. So Mr. Fleming called his attorney to prepare the Release Agreement to declare the contract Null and Void
8. Release Agreement:
a. The contract was declared null and void (exhibit 4) after it was discovered from Montgomery County Permitting Services that this land had a TDR Easement. This cloud on the title was discovered after the attempted Close, when all the money had been paid but before the deed was recorded. In other words, the closing was never completed.
b. After the TDR Easement was revealed by Park and Planning Commission, it became clear that very pertinent facts were withheld that would have affected the price of the land significantly and our ability to use it for our intended purpose. The seller did offer $50,000 refund if purchaser still goes through the deal. The purchaser refused.
c. But now the ironic part is that the closing attorney added a clause to the Release Agreement that "the commission money that was given to Jobin Realty will be returned to the purchaser if and when it is received by them. The agreement also mentioned that the purchaser shall retain all rights and remedies, if any, that may be available to collect the same from Jobin Realty.
9. Return of commission money by Jobin Realty
a. Item #25 of the contract (page 7) clearly states that if contract becomes void and of no further force and effect, without default by either party, both parties will immediately execute a release directing that the deposit be refunded in full to Buyer.
b. In November -2010 the Seller did return its portion of the equity after several months of delay while negotiating the release agreement. During that period purchaser paid $14,337 interest on the money borrowed.
c. But the Broker who was negligent and primarily responsible for the deal falling through has not returned the $7350 commission money even after knowing that this land never got “sold”.
d. The closing attorney wrote two letters to Jobin Realty explaining what happened and requested that this commission money be returned because the contract has been declared Null and Void. (Exhibit 5).
e. No where in the contract does it state that the Buyer will be responsible for paying any commission, whether the contract goes through or not.
f. It is sincerely believed that the purchaser was tricked into this deal so that the agent could make commission on this deal.
1. This is very clear from the way contract was tampered with from day one.
2. None of the pages of the contract were initialed, as required, to make sure that the pages are not tampered.
3. The GCAAR form that would have revealed all the required details was never filled.
g. The purchasers lost lots of money because of improper handling of this contract
h. This is not the kind of representation any purchaser expects from any Real Estate Broker/Agent .
Wherefore purchaser prays judgement against defendant as follows:
a. The defendant be ordered to return the $7350 commission money that was prematurely paid because the badly prepared contract just did not go through. It cost the purchaser $14,337 interest charges and lots of aggravation.
b. For costs of suit herein incurred, and
c. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Dated December 15, 2011
Satpal Singh
By ---------------------
Satpal Singh
on behalf of plaintiffs"