I experienced something a couple of days ago that I've never had happen and I'd appreciate some opinions. If anyone wants to PM me privately instead of posting, feel free.

We got the written authorization necessary for a full trashout on a property for the debris removal, janitorial, yard cleanup, and boat removal.

When I got there and started giving instructions to my crew as to where everyone was to park the work vehicles and trailers, the broker, who was there to do a media interview with NBC, informed me he was taking the boat with him.

Unfortunately, I feel he overstepped his bounds as a broker, creating a conflict of interest liability for himself, and we ended up doing a very different story with NBC. And it's not over yet. I have another interview with NBC next week.

We did NOT do the trashout that day and I will no longer work with this broker. Instead I contacted my attorney and the bank that owns the property to find out what I'm supposed to do.

The bank itself was horrified that he would do something like that and told me to send them an e-mail outlining the scenario, which I did on Tuesday. Right now I'm waiting on written authorization directly from the bank to proceed with the trashout.

If the bank sends another broker out to the property and the boat has been removed, what do you suppose will happen? I can only guess on this but I'm thinking the broker will either have put his license in jeopardy or the listing will be pulled.

Would he not also be in danger of being arrested for theft of personal property since the registered owner hasn't been contacted and the bank has not authorized him to remove it? Will he get in trouble for interfering with the duties of a preservation vendor?

Seriously, I don't want to see this guy get in trouble but I've never had this happen before and have no clue as to what the backlash will be and really need some feedback.

This broker contacted me earlier in the week, prior to the scheduled trashout, and said he wanted to buy the boat from me. I told him it's not for sale and that I have to file forms with the DMV so they can locate the registered owner before anything can happen to the boat.

Then he offered RV parking at his cabin nearby. I told him that I have RV parking so thanks, but no thanks.

Then he suggested I keep the $350 for the vessel removal and let him keep HAVE the boat. After re-iterating that I have to contact the DMV, I all but hung up on him and thought the situation had been resolved by the time we got off the phone. I could have sworn I'd made my position clear.

So, imagine my surprise when he told me the morning of the trashout that he had told the asset management company that I had planned to donate the boat and asked them if he could keep it. I had never planned on donating anything except for the furniture inside the house. And, yes, I would love to have the boat but would never assume it's mine until the DMV says I can have the title to it, which is another process.

Not once have I ever had a broker offer to haul off trash. In fact, I've never had a broker interfere with the trashout at all.

If the boat had a hole in it or was lying on the ground in pieces, there wouldn't even be an issue. But because the boat is in great shape and has a value to it, the broker wants it for himself.

I see all kinds of problems with what the broker has proposed, done, or is about to do.

Anyone disagree or see other problems I haven't? Please let me know. I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

Linda

Linda,

It's pure greed on the broker's part. Your prior posts are consistent and they reflect your integrity. Don't go along with it just to avoid making waves. I agree with you and your gut feelings.He's already lied to the Asset Management Company and involved you in the lie. Don't feel bad if the consequences of his actions catch up with him. Document, report and communicate with the asset management company. If you lose this broker as a client, you're likely better off. I'm surprised he didn't offer to guarantee you the trashout and future work for kickbacks. It won't be long before behavior like this catches up with him. The more he does it, the easier it gets and then the more he does it....

Keep us posted.

You've done the right thing so far, let the bank decide his fate. Banks use not only brokers but vendors for their eyes and ears, looks like you've got good eyes and ears.

Linda, clearly you didn't do anything wrong. The broker did. In a way, you did him a favor on several fronts. You reported him, he doesn't need to be in this business; and he couldn't have registered the boat and gotten new stickers. Can you imagine what cock and bull story he would have cooked up for DMV?

I wonder what his story was for NBC? Look at the great stuff you can get at a REO? LOL.

If you never work with him again, you done good. Sorry you encountered a slimeball.

The broker actually put me on the phone with the asset management company that day, right in front of the camera and microphone. Nice to be put on the spot, isn't it?

The person I spoke with said that the broker has the right to modify the work order.

First, can they modify the work order in order for him to remove the boat without the BANK's approval?

Second, wouldn't I have to be notified in writing prior to the start of the trashout of any such modification?

BTW ~ the asset management company changed their story midway through our phone conversation, telling me that the boat was being donated to charity. They also threatened me with a lack of future work. Instantly the word "collusion" came to mind.

I got my termination letter from the broker yesterday, which was not unexpected. I had already terminated them before I even left the property. The only difference is that I told him I would never work with him again in person, not in writing.

His question to me that day was, "do you really want to put our relationship in jeopardy?"

My response to him was, "you just did."

To me, it sounded like a promise of future work in exchange for an item of value.

My business has never operated that way and it never will. Right now my business is struggling financially, thanks to the unethical asset management companies and other brokers I've had to terminate and suspend. So what's one more?

But I'd rather not take the job in the first place if it means lowering my standards and/or end up working for free. This year alone I've had to write off between $8,000 and $10,000 in services performed just to get paid AT ALL by the AM's.

This business is rough enough without the interference of a broker on a job where I could have used the money when it came in.

Thanks to both of you for your responses. They are very much appreciated.

Linda

CanDo ~ thank you.

One of the thoughts uppermost in my mind is that, since I coach and train new preservation vendors all the time, if I were to let something like this happen I could be setting a precedent that would allow unethical brokers to run rampant and destroy what little organization the industry has.

I appreciate your feedback very much.

Linda

It's extortion, and you should affidavit out of the situation telling the details, and I would bring this out iny subsquent interview with the local affiliate...if it was me. You go Linda!

Roy. Thank you as well.

NBC met me at the lodge down the street after the interview with the broker.

He already has my stand in this situation but agreed to withhold the second interview until the bank has a chance to respond to my e-mail requesting further instructions.

The last thing I want to do is a nationally televised interview that would jeopardize the future of my company by speaking before I have final instructions from the bank on how we're to proceed.

The nice thing about this interview is that it won't be just regarding the property we were to do the trashout on. We'll also be discussing the preservation business and what it takes to succeed in a cut-throat industry.

I'm just glad we won't have to dwell on this particular situation and can move on to other things. I don't think I could just do an interview strictly on a bad experience. For me, that would be depressing.

Linda

Linda, the AMC had absolutely no business telling you that the boat was going to be donated to charity. As I am sure you are aware, that boat was personal property and was worth well over $300. Two things come to my mind. 1. What attempt(s) were made to contact the former owner; and 2. No donation directly to charity without storage and appropriate waiting time.

I'm also wondering if the AMC knew that they were being recorded by a news crew?

Finally, your orders come from the AMC and should always be in writing, had you contracted directly with the broker, then your instructions would come from him, not the AMC. It does not appear that the broker hired you directly. He has no control over your initial instructions.

Just remember this: you deal with one particular functioning department within the AMC and the broker deals with an AM. Since your instructions came from someone other than the broker's AM I wouldn't worry to much about losing that business. The AM needs a refresher course in how personal property vs. trash-out is handled in California. It's not your job to offer that refresher course, let the AMC do that.

Again, Linda you did the right thing. It's not easy to be right or a comfort to be right when money is tight and you're worried about how you'll survive. The one thing though is that you'll be able to live with yourself long after this disaster is a forgotten memory.

CanDo. Exactly my point regarding personal property. If it was up for grabs, I would most definitely take it.

But it isn't up for anything until the DMV lets me know they can't find the registered owner. Then I have one, and sometimes two, more processes to go through before I can even move it from its storage place.

All of my authorizations have come from the broker, who cuts & pastes the authorization from the AM into an e-mail for me. This is something I insist on because my crews and I need to have the permission to do our job in writing, in case law enforcement or neighbors show up. None of goes to a property without something in writing. It's for our protection as well as everyone involved.

The last time I did something based on a verbal was the ONLY time I did it.

The AM was ad-libbing on the phone, I'm almost positive. I don't think she knew the media was listening and, basically, what she told me is that I work for them and they call the shots. I can only hope her end of the conversation was loud enough to be heard and recorded.

Being the kind of person I am, I don't appreciate threats in any way, shape, or form. So I reminded her that I work for myself and hung up the phone. I wasn't going to get into a verbal battle over who feeds whom.

Linda

I've had properties trashed out based my submitting bids and I've had properties trashed out and rekeyed before I ever laid eyes on a property. I misunderstood, I thought you had been contracted directly by the AMC. Regardless, what the broker said and did was illegal and guess who would have had egg on their face? He showed his true colors on film.

Don't let them get you down. We're not all like that. A small comfort I know. 2009 will be better I'm pretty sure.

CanDo. I understood while reading your post and no problem at all. I might not have made myself clear who gave me the authorization in the first place.

I know for a fact that not all brokers, agents, and asset management companies are the same. I've had the pleasure of working with the good ones.

The agent who works for this broker and I enjoyed an excellent relationship before this happened. This was my first time meeting the broker in person and I can tell you that, between the phone call with him and this incident, I AM NOT IMPRESSED.

Our company goes above and beyond for good clients. I padlocked both the of sheds on this property @ no charge when I did my initial inspection for the estimate 3 months ago. We were also going to comp the winterization during the trashout. We were also going to fix the back door that someone had managed to push in hard enough to where it wouldn't lock anymore.

We've been to their other properties and filed police reports at no charge. One property in particular is constantly vandalized so, every time we're nearby, we stop in and take a look around. We also do minor repairs @ no charge if it doesn't require a huge amount of time or special equipment.

Cabinet door hanging off? No problem. A couple of new screws in the hinge and it's good to go. No light bulbs? No problem. We typically carry extras just in case. We've even done boardups at their vandalized property by using the materials that were there and charged nothing for the labor.

THAT's the kind of relationship we had prior to this situation. I have several e-mails from her telling me that the AM loves my pricing and that we do an excellent job.

I can only hope that she'll wake up soon and realize she needs to be loyal to herself before she's loyal to her boss. SHE is a good person and I'm going to miss the rapport.

Linda

Linda, you handled this like the professional you obviously are. Your post just above mine reminds me of the contractors that handle a lot of my work. I would add a comment regarding non payment. If I hired the contractor he/she are paid the day they finish the job regardless of when or if a bank/Asset management company pays me.
Now regarding the implied threats from this broker. I'd suggest you speak to an attorney.
Keep doing what you're doing and you'll come out ahead.

JackREO. YOU sound like someone who knows how to take care of those who take care of you.

The only thing I would worry about on your part would be the reimbursements from the banks. For example, if you pay out of pocket for 2 or 3 trashouts per week, you could be putting yourself at risk if the banks don't reimburse on time and, especially if they decide not to reimburse at all.

I've always offered terms to my clients. I have one right now, unfortunately, who [I believe] has spent every dime that's come in on my behalf since last February and is having a hard time now that I've suspended her and told her that I would be sending demand letters to the banks. She recently bought a house and it makes me wonder if some of the up front money wasn't mine.

She's put me in a bad position by not paying her invoices and now I'm the bad guy and will be losing another client who I've enjoyed working for.

Since August of 2007, we've serviced over 1,500 foreclosures and satisfactorily closed over 2,500 work orders in California, Arizona, and Idaho.

This is a business that you have to work at non-stop and, until I took a vacation in September to go to Washington, I was working 14 to 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. I've started taking weekends off since I got back, unless there's a trashout to be done. But I'm at least taking 1 day off per week now just to relax and do nothing.

With the exception of today, I've worked every single holiday for over a year. I actually had an initial inspection scheduled for today in order to prepare a bid for a new client but decided to stay home and catch up on my reading and posting in the different forums I belong to.

My eyes are a little stressed right now but I've enjoyed having the time to post again, something I sorely miss when I don't have the time.

So I give THANKS to finding the time to get back in the groove, even if only for a day, and I give thanks to my fellow networkers for their thoughts and their feedback.

Linda

Linda, I think you're involving yourself too much with the broker's actions. your concern is protecting your company from liability and completing your job, not monitoring the broker. if the broker is interfering with the execution of your job, then you have a duty to inform the company that hired you. brokers have comfy relationships with the banks and AM's, and doing favors for the broker is not uncommon. it sounds as though you're not happy with that, but there's really nothing you can do about it.

She is not uncomfortable with any comfy relationship the broker may have with any AMC; rather, she's concerned about the disposal of personal property which has a value and for which there are laws regarding the disposal of personal property. The broker caused doubt by saying he'd take it off her hands. What's not to understand that the broker violated the law? For the sake of argument, let's say the property (boat) went directly to a charity, that under the law is illegal in California!

my point is that the broker's actions are really not her concern, if her employer directs her to act in a certain manner. she only needs to be concerned that her company's actions are legal.

definitely, if she is concerned, she should report the incident to her employer, but the employer makes the decisions. if she (believes) a crime has been committed, she has the right to contact law enforcement.

neither you nor I nor Linda can determine that the broker violated the law, which you appear to be stating as fact. only a court of law can make that determination.

whether the broker has put his license in jeopardy, created a conflict of interest, or engaged in unethical conduct, is largely irrelevant to a third-party contractor.

no offense to Linda, but she appears to be attempting to "manage" the entire situation with the bank, AM and broker, while speculating about legal issues, which is completely beyond the scope of her authority as a contractor.

no legal advice intended

Linda is the owner of her company. The broker supplied her with instructions from the bank, written instructions. Those instructions did not say that the broker was to take the boat; from what can be gleened from reading her posts, she was to take possession and store it. The broker countermanded those instructions.

The broker hired her (by accepting her bid to perform the work) and her company, the bank supplied written instructions based on her bid.

If the owner wanted his boat back pursuant to proper procedures, who is to say that the broker wouldn't say that it was trashed out by Linda and her company. That creates a situation for Linda that was created by the broker misappropriating the boat.

Go back and read her posts. Did I mention that she is the owner of her own company? By the way, when a broker takes personal charge of personal property without following the law, that's illegal. You seem to think that only a court can determine if something is illegal. No...kind of like running a red light. I don't need to be a judge or sit in a court to know that that is illegal. Will you get caught? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter if you're caught or not, it's still not legal.

The way I read this, linda bid the job through the Broker, the AM approved her low bid, and she received authorization to proceed per the bid specifications. If this were one of my properties, the T/O bid would have a line item "tow and store 1 boat and trailer". That's the bid, those are her written instructions and if that boat comes up missing there's no doubt in my mind this broker will throw her under the bus. If the broker wants the boat let him countermand the written instructions (again in writing) and tow and store the boat himself. Linda needs to protect herself. If the Broker's instructions cause injury to Linda; well that's a question for counsel to advise on. I'd suggest you document to the AM the liability associated with improper disposition of the boat, the agents coersion and let the chips fall where they may.
Linda: Regarding my risk if the bank doesn't reimburse. That's MY problem, not my contractor's problem. They're small business people and as such can't afford to take the loss. It's the risk agents take when they enter this lovely REO arena. When I call these folks in the wee hours to handle an emergency they jump right on it. One thing I learned in the Army; Loyalty up, loyalty down. I need these contractors every bit as much as they need me. The quality of their work reflects on me more than it reflects on them.

Shana ~ no offense taken.

I'm thinking you may not have read all of my posts or may not have understood what you read. If you go back and read in detail, you'll understand this topic is about a broker interfering with a trashout and that he's attempting to remove personal property for his own gain.

I don't manage anyone but my own crew. I own my own business and had specific instructions to do a job.

There is a procedure to follow regarding removal of property, personal or otherwise. The broker overstepped his bounds on my job. I'm now dealing with the bank regarding this property.

By creating this topic, my intent was to get feedback from others who hold the same position as, or work with, brokers who deal with REO properties and see what their take is on this situation.

Thanks for your input, Shana. Even those who don't understand the situation can bring up new things to think about and that's what my request for opinions is all about.

Linda

Do not rock the boat.

Next time, look the other way.

Corporations do not like fighting and controversy; it is bad for business.

Corporations like things to proceed in a smooth and timely manner.

Why didn’t the management broker cherry pick through the trash before calling you for an estimate?

Why didn’t the management broker just tell you to leave the boat in place with no other explanation?

I would warn the broker that he needs to go through the DMV to remove a titled item like a boat or car.

I would warn the broker that he must abide by the proper personal property eviction procedures.

If the broker wants to risk all this trouble over a $350 item that is his problem.

This broker needs to decide if he is running a real estate sales office or a thrift store.

This broker should realize his time is better spent selling houses than picking through trash.

I would tell the broker not to cherry pick through the junk after you have given an estimate as it cuts into your expected profit.

I know one trash-out company that separates all metal from the junk including door hinges to maximize their income.

If the boat is missing, change your final invoice to indicate that you did not remove it so that you are not blamed for an improper removal.

I am sorry, but I think it is our duty - as ethical professionals and citizens - to be concerned about illegal actions on anyone's part. It starts with a boat and the next thing you know this guy is helping himself to anything and everything in his wake.

Were it me, I wouldn't have stopped when I reported it to the bank; the next call would have been to the local Board of Realtors to file a complaint there.

Thank you, Linda, for doing your part to keep Realtors honest and ethical. That is what should be expected of us, and dirty Realtors just negate everything NAR is doing to try to clean up the perception the public has of us.

BPO Drone ~ I can't tell whether you're serious about the first two lines you wrote or whether you're injecting a little humor into the situation.

You brought up a good point, though, regarding removing the boat before I did the estimate. If it had never been there, I would never have bid its removal and there would be no issue to discuss now.

Thanks!

Linda

It was a bad attempt at a pun.

There is a lot of crookedness in the world, but we can only control our own actions.

The bank does not want to get bogged down moderating what they will consider a fight over scraps between you and the broker.

The bank wants the house cleaned out fast and cheap so it can be sold in a timely matter at the best price possible.

Getting the news media involved will only make a mountain out of a mole hill as the media already has a built-in bias against the big bad banks kicking out innocent homeowners who were tricked into buying more than they could afford.

I am not in the trash-out business, but I realize that some items can be recycled or donated for a tax deduction, and that is all figured out in your estimate.

The broker has no right meddling in your end of the business.

I will bet there is something wrong with the boat, otherwise the previous occupant would have sold it on Craigslist.

BPO Drone. Thanks. I must not be awake enough, otherwise I would have understood the pun.

I agree there's no time in this industry for fighting. And I don't want to waste my time [or the bank's] on something inconsequential. This situation, however, is not inconsequential since it concerns [IMO] questionable ethics by a broker.

If he's in the wrong but allowed to do as he pleases, what effect would that have on other brokers who might be contemplating the same thing? Would it give a big thumbs up to them to do as they please, too?

Every segment of this business from the banks to the preservation vendors, and everyone in-between, have a particular job to do. There are guidelines in place for all of us that are there to keep the industry from becoming more chaotic than it is.

I stay within my guidelines and have certain rules in place for my business that keep me from exposing myself to unnecessary liability and placing my company at risk for lawsuits.

The news media was involved before this happened, not after. NBC was doing a story on the preservation process. It was supposed to be a normal, routine trashout. How it ended up felt more like a 3-Ring Circus.

It will be interesting to see how it all turns out. I'm not a troublemaker, by any stretch. All I want to do is the job I agreed to do....... without interference and without the exposure to liability.

Linda

I was driving down the road the other day and a police officer passed me going 80 miles an hour. I got off at the next exit to get some gas and coffee and the same officer was there sitting drinking coffee. Was the police behavior unethical/illegal? Probably. Am I going on tv to make an issue about it? No. If I was a CA broker and saw how you dealt with this whole issue I would never let you near a property I had management of again cause you turned a minor business dispute into public laundry. If this broker is doing shady stuff he will be caught eventually but you sullied your own professional rep by making public accusations instead of directing the complaint thru the proper channels.

Having a News crew present was probably the worst thing for this particular situation - it is sickening how they can create so much out of nothing to make it 'News Worthy'.

As much as I feel it was probably wrong for the broker to do what was stated - as step backwards would have been in order and hard to do with the News there.

Getting all the facts through the principles involved and the subsequent exchange of information and intel, and let that take it's course.

Next you'll be seeing a News Worthy story about a preservation company ripping off personal belongings before they were inventoried and stored for lawful and proper distribution, all according to what some agent reports.

The Old Saying is: 'Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword.'

Linda, I really think you're putting yourself in the shoes of the client and/or titleholder of the property.

I understand this type of situation very well, from a legal point of view, including contract law, abandonment/eviction of personal property, etc. I've been directly involved in these types of disputes as a principal. I might add that the BROKER is charged with the management of the REO property, as long as he has a valid listing with the bank. as such the broker has responsibility and liability for EVERYTHING that happens at the property. as a PP vendor, you are not the property manager. If the broker has received some type of ad-hoc authorization to change the terms of the original agreement and act accordingly, you are not in a position to dispute that authority, and the client will not appreciate it. but you seem to have a need to do that. if someone has in fact overstepped their boundaries or duties, that will have to be sorted out later. this is clearly a battle for control (and the disposition of personal property), and this is precisely why we have courts to resolve such disputes.

hypothetically, if the broker takes control of the property, he may in fact be following the correct procedures for abandonment, pursuant to a new authorization by his client. In many states the property owner or designated property manager can remove personal property and place it in storage in order to secure it.

ultimately, the broker may or may not have exceeded his authority in this situation. so what, he doesn't answer to you. you get instructions from your client, do your job and document your actions. end of story.

no legal advice intended

She's better off without your business. This is NOT a minor business dispute. How a broker deals with a personal property isn't governed by what side of the bed they get out of that morning. It is governed by the various state laws. This arose in California. Our laws say that personal property is inventoried and stored if there is a value of over $300 for x amount of days, at the owner's expense (the former homeowner). It does not say well we'll donate these belongings to charity before we hold them for redemption. It does not say that we can make any decision as to the disposition of belongs other than what is legally required.

Finally, Linda didn't invite the media to the party, the broker did. The broker probably gambled (and lost) on the fact that the media would be there and Linda wouldn't rock the boat. Well, guess what? Linda didn't rock the boat, she's protected herself against an unscrupulous person. Can you see how this would have played on TV? News crew is there, former owner recognizes his former house and his stuff and sees his boat. He wants his boat back which is he is legally entitled to. He calls the broker to get it back by paying the storage fees and the broker says "Oh, that was donated to charity by Linda.". Or the broker says "Oh, that boat was sent to the junk yard." Do you think the broker will accept any responsibility for that boat? I don't.

In your analogy regarding the police car, the speeding and the doughnut, the fly in your ointment is that we don't know that the officer eating the doughnut is the same one who was speeding. In this case we do know (if we are in California) that the broker is wrong, legally wrong. They chose to fight on tv, not Linda. The dirty laundry isn't Linda's, it's the brokers.

I still think Linda did the right thing, like I said before, not only are Realtors but also outside vendors act as the eyes and ears of the bank, its their way of checks and balances. I don't think if the bank would just say to the Broker, sure take the boat and don't worry about the consequences because we own the property now, and with the law, forget about it, everyone will overlook it and you can have the boat. Good job Linda!

Sounds like you both wanted the boat.
You should of dragged it out on the street, call parking enforcement, and let it get impounded.
Then you guys can fight over it at the auction.

CanDo

Your posts have been right on target (at least for our state). I find it strange with some of the other posts that have taken the other side of the issue. It appears that they only read a portion of the posts and not formed a valid opinion. Linda should just validate her actions (cover her behind) by creating the infamous "paper trail". Should there be any legal ramifications she's got her company covered. If the bank and the broker are on the same page, then I would cut that relationship loose, in a heartbeat.

As for this broker......he/she would make make my "do not do business list". I've been in this business for a bunch of years. This list I've created has kept me out of court more than once. Even though we're "in the right" we can position ourselves to where we have to hire legal counsel (and they ain't cheap). Agents or brokers that run a "border line business" will make my list every time. It's just a matter of time before it all catches up with them and they finally get their due. If you or your company are involved in this transaction, you can "take it to the bank" you'll be named in this suit.

For years, I was as guilty ,as most, of sticking my head in the sand and just ignoring the issue with hopes it would pass by. My thoughts were......"I'm not the one that's breaking the law or unethiical"......The problem is "I know they're wrong". Sooooooooooo, this is how I now deal with these types of issues. I notify the party (or parties) of the infraction. They have one, and only one, chance to rectify the issue. If not corrected, I make my decision from there. No more of sticking my head in the sand.....No pun intended to Linda, but, I call it TAKING OUT THE TRASH. It's brokers like this that give us all a bad name.

And to Linda: Please PM me.....I need to know if you do business in my area. I WILL SEND YOU BUSINESS, ANYTIME.

Hey, if you want to be an industry vigilante, knock yourself out. but the banks will probably see you as a whiner and troublemaker, and send their business elsewhere.

I am learning alot about people in this thread...

THE BANKS WILL SEE YOU AS A WHINER AND A TROUBLE MAKER????

Shanna.....Either you're new at this business, related to broker referred to in this thread, or at least belong in the same box. I'll assume you're new for the sake of arguement.

As for the banks sending business to other companies....if they have the same thought and ethics as the broker in question ...GO FOR IT......Your assumption about loosing business must be correct.....guess that's why I worked 4 hours on Thanksgiving (lack of business?). TROUBLE MAKER?....youbetcha...must be my Irish side...If we continue to turn a blind eye to real estate ethics violations and those that break the law......just how do you think we're going to look to the general public (our current and future clients)? Rights right and wrongs wrong....no middle ground with me. If I'm involved I hit the ground running....and I don't mean the other direction. Just for clarification: When I say "if I'm involved" means it's my transaction and my business....I don't get involved in others unless I'm asked for advice (which happens often). I don't police the industry...just my own business......I clearly stated in my previous post that Linda should create a paper trail (to cover her back side).

It's a sad state of affairs when you see a broker go from a real estate business to a Sanford & Son operation......or could it be, just maybe, the boat in question, is worth much more than $350?

Would you care to put it to a vote to the members of this forum as to what's right or wrong in this issue? Without ethics, without honesty.....what do we have?......We offer a service....not a product.....without ethics and honesty we have nothing.

Wow! I popped in earlier to see if there was any reason for me to post a response. Unfortunately, I was in the middle of a trashout and I saw too many replies to respond to. But I'm home now so I've got a little time.

I agree, TB in TX. I also am learning about the people here at the forum so I want to say a big THANK YOU to those who actually took the time to read what I've posted. You guys get it.

And to a few others, please don't pat yourselves on the back for your speed reading skills yet. Anyone who is skimming, then posting is doing themselves and everyone else a disservice.

My topic is a very simple one, if you'll read the very first post. All I wanted to find out from the members here is if anyone thinks the broker is unethical or does he have an issue regarding conflict of interest?

In order to lay the foundation for my question, I outlined what happened. I've answered questions from everyone and [hopefully] addressed concerns others might have.

I now have a few questions of my own. I'm not going to attack anyone's ethics, trust me. Hopefully you'll all understand these are just straightforward questions that perhaps I can give me enlightened answers on.

To the person who would never work with me: Why would you NOT work with a reputable preservation vendor who knows the guidelines in and out and abides by them? I'm thinking perhaps you've misunderstood the basis for my topic or you might have borderline issues with other preservation vendors? In your experience, is this broker's behavior the norm?

To BourbonDuke: How did I sully MY reputation? Have I mentioned any names here, any property addresses, or even any cities where the incident took place? No, I did not. This topic is about ethics, not about exposing a particular person. I'm not the type to put someone on the spot by exposing them in a public forum anyway. To me, it just wouldn't be right. I'm also NOT making accusations. I'm asking for opinions from those in the same industry as the broker because YOU are his peers, not me. And, if you go back up a few posts, you can see I've already gone through the proper channels. Since this is a holiday weekend, I don't expect any kind of answer until Monday at the earliest.

Pinehurst RE Guy. You're right about the media. They can twist and turn the situation to either downplay it or sensationalize it. But, to re-iterate, the media was there to film a routine trashout, nothing more and nothing less. What happened between the broker and I happened BEFORE the producer/reporter showed up. And, like I said, I didn't give them an interview when they came to the lodge. I told them they would have to wait until I had talked to the bank and was given further instructions on how to proceed. They got very little from me before I left the property, too. I'm not stupid enough to go off half-cocked when I don't have all the answers I need to ensure the job gets done without liability on my part. [BTW. I'm not implying that you think I'm stupid. :)]

To Shana. I've read every word you've posted and I STILL think you're missing the point of the topic. I feel bad that I haven't made it clear enough for you. Sorry about that. But ME a vigilante? What if you showed up at a property where a preservation vendor was ONLY supposed to take photos to bid a trashout and saw him hooking a nice boat up to his truck? Would you report him to the bank or would you say nothing? Would reporting him make you a troublemaker?

To LandBaron: Thank you for making me laugh. I agree that sometimes words are not the most effective course of action. But I don't think involving the sheriff's department would have been the right one either. When I first read your post, I actually thought you were saying we should duke it out in the middle of the street. I read that during my break at the trashout and just the mental image of us going at it kept me smiling the rest of the day. It wasn't until after I got home that I re-read your post and realized what you'd said. [Yes, I was guilty of skimming today, too. I'm just glad I waited to post.]

I hope I haven't missed responding to anyone's posts. I actually had to have the forum site up twice on one page so that I could read and respond at the same time.

To those who disagree with what you THINK I've done, thank you for being honest in your post. I know that not everyone here will be in 100% agreement and I never expected it. Otherwise, there wouldn't be anything to discuss, would there?

I'm not a mean, spiteful person. I'm straightforward and honest and I'm a professional. I enjoy a very good reputation in the industry and would NEVER willingly do damage to anyone else's.

I'm also not overly concerned about damaging my reputation by posting what I've posted. I believe I've presented the issues at hand very well. So, basically, if you don't like me after this then you probably wouldn't have liked me anyway. And then, who knows? I might be fighting with you for payment. [J/K]

I love you all, btw. This has been interesting and I needed some excitement in my life.

Linda

I find it interesting how emotional people seemingly become when an opinion that differs from theirs is expressed.

Actually - I don't see any signs of skimming or speed reading either. Some opinions expressed simply take into account all the posts by Linda before their reply.

I have no problem being able to see 2 valid sides to this situation as originally expressed and before the subsequent post where Linda admits the News already knew her position and agreed to wait, which from personal experience is risky.

Linda asked for and received exactly that which she requested from others, "Anyone disagree or see other problems I haven't? Please let me know. I would appreciate it."

If Linda can take it, what's the problem with with differing view points.

I think TB has it right - we learning a lot about each other here - and the time of year may be influencing this a tad as well.

Hang in there Linda - everyone wants what is right to happen.

Good Luck

of course you will, because reality doesn't suit you. LOL, I've been in this industry for two decades. the veteran REO brokers know exactly what I'm talking about. the banks don't want to hassle with these kinds of petty disputes. like I said, if you feel the need, go ahead be a vigilante. try to get a few REO properties sold or trashouts done while you're at it, which is what the banks hire you to do, remember? LOL.

note that Linda stated she is having financial trouble, and lost her relationship with that broker. I would not be surprised if other relationships will be severed in the near future. this is the nature of the industry, like it or not.

if there's one point you should have taken from my posts, it's that you can't make assumptions about another's actions. as a PP vendor, you will certainly NOT be privy to all of the communications between all of the parties involved.

I've actually seen PP vendors physically break into and destroy doors and windows, to gain access to an REO property, because they refused to call the listing broker, when a sign with those instructions was clearly posted on the front door. the majority of PP crews in my area don't even speak english. this is what listing brokers have to put up with, so don't tell me I'm a rookie in this arena.

Linda already knows she needs to create a paper trail, and document her trashout work very carefully with photos. Linda asked for opinions, I gave her mine, based on experience.

People become emotional because they're passionate about what they do.

And, absolutely, Pinehurst RE Guy. I can take it [good or bad] and I hope no one thinks I'm putting anyone down for their opinions.

I believe everyone here knows the difference between right and wrong. But I also feel some have taken my posts out of context and that's why I mentioned the speed reading.

Every single response has simply added new dimensions to the learning curve for me and it's why I joined this particular forum in the first place.

I've seen some of the shakedowns others get in other topics and it shames me to think that people would lambaste others so badly in public.

BUT ~ If I should ever become afraid of getting beat up over something like this, then I don't belong here.

Linda

Wow, Shana. Now THAT is out of context to the topic. Do you think I'm posting here because you assume I'm on the verge of financial collapse?

And, more importantly, do you think that a boat is going to get me back on my feet? You didn't say this outright but you do seem to imply that I might STEAL the boat.

If that's where your posts are leading, you know nothing about me and all I can say is, an opinion is one thing, downright offensive comments is another.

Have a great day!

Linda

I am just giving Linda practical advice.

There is a big difference between the way it is and the way it should be.

In the corporate world, it does not pay to be a whistle blower.

Concentrate on the productive use of your time while keeping your own hands clean. Whistle blowing is non-productive.

I applaud Linda's integrity, but Linda should make amends with the broker and tell him that he cannot take the boat as it was part of the trashout bid and it affects her income.

I assume Linda figured that the boat would offset some of the disposal cost of things like waste motor oil, old paint, bald tires, crt monitors etc.

By taking the boat, the broker is taking from Linda, plus he is performing trashout work when he should just be taking bids.

You admitted in your second post that you are having financial troubles.

I don't imply anything, I state my opinions outright. I do think that you are upset because you (wanted) the boat as much as the broker did. LOL.

Hi Linda - Perhaps this should be a PM and I don't wish to beat another horse to death here - I think a large herd has been put down already.

We tend to hear the 'passionate' excuse played when logic and critical analysis has been overlooked and at times replaced with poor choices and even bad behavior.

IMNSHO, I find it difficult to follow someones thoughts when they hide in an emotionally charged post, but I understand more and remember it better when they add just a touch of humor - or at least attempt too.

btw, From the same set of notes and the exact same footage - that news crew can make you look like a champ or a chimp - you just never know. Do you spend any advertising dollars with them? Does that broker or bank? Get the point.

so shana, the boat is sitting in your back yard?

Since when is not breaking the law make one a whiner? Petty? Lying is never petty and breaking the law is never petty. Remember, who the whiner was. It wasn't Linda who called the AM it was the broker! The broker brought the news media, not Linda to this particular party. It wasn't Linda who didn't tell the AM that the call was being recorded by the news crew. Want to rethink who the whiner was shana?

As to Linda's financial difficulties, we all have them, everytime we advance one dime on behalf of any client with the expectation that we will get our money back for authorized and agreed expenses. It looks different from company to company but the bottomline is we are lending someone else our money and in some cases are forced through "click" or transaction fee to pay to get reimbursement!

You can't hire anyone who speaks English? Perhaps there's a reason. If they don't know what is going on then they'll never question you about why that boat is being hooked up to your truck as you pull away.

Spare me you sense of what's right and wrong. Legally, Linda was right.

Don't worry shana, you and I will never be on opposite sides of a transaction. You're too slick for me, you've got all the angles figured. Thank goodness, I wouldn't want you to break a sweat and do the right thing.

I think it's completely out of line to imply that Linda would have stolen the boat given the opportunity. Linda has never given any indication that she is anything but ethical and intended to follow the banks instructions to the letter of the law.

I am not so naive as to believe that property preservation companies don't reap the benefits of abandoned personal property, but what gives you the idea that Linda, in particular, would steal?

Again, this thread is really revealing some people's true nature, and frankly I find some of it surprising.

BPO Drone. I don't think anyone was talking about you specifically. I think, generally speaking, we are all getting to know each other in a way we haven't been exposed to before. That can be taken as a good or a bad thing.

Whistle-blowers DO have their place in certain situations where harm could come to someone if a problem is not brought to light. But this is not a whistle-blower case. This one is a question of ethics and ethics only.

I'm sorry to disagree with you but I just can't see me patting him on the hand and saying, "That's okay, big guy. We'll let it go this time. I'm just glad you're not mad at me [for what you did] and everything is fine between us."

I refuse to make amends to the broker. He put me in a position to take responsibility for what he was about to do and exposed me to unnecessary liability. Wouldn't making amends be condoning what he did in some way?

The way it is, is not always the way it should be. We're all in our respective businesses to make sure everything gets done the right way. Working together and abiding by the laws makes everyone's job a whole lot easier. Interfering with someone else's job and removing personal property for personal gain does not.

Linda

Shana. I'm not upset abour your opinions. To me, they're just as invaluable as everyone else's. What I don't understand is why you have to find a REASON for the topic I've posted here.

FWIW. I don't NEED the boat and left it at the property in the oh, so capable hands of the broker. I had my paperwork in hand with authorization to remove the boat and I could have very easily called the Sheriff's department to watch as I removed it.

The broker had no paperwork and it was his word against my written authorization. Who do you think the Sheriff would have allowed to remove the boat?

So, why didn't I do that? Two very good reasons.

One, I'm not materialistic and I don't fight over materialistic things. I said I would LIKE to have the boat but that, without going through the process with the DMV, it would have to sit in storage. Did you, or anyone here, even stop to think that a BANK might own it? I did.

Secondly, the media was on their way. No way was I going to make this situation any worse by bringing in law enforcement. Can you imagine the field day NBC could have had with that one? They would have the run the story that same night, regardless of the ethics in question!

Put your fears to rest, please. I am NOT on the verge of financial collape and I am NOT going out of business anytime in the near future.

Linda

"so shana, the boat is sitting in your back yard?"

I deny that allegation. neither I nor my employees were anywhere near that property at that time, and I have no connection with the listing broker in question.

please direct all future communications to my attorney and licensed boat captain, Mr. Sol Sailor.

Shana

I can only speak for the laws in California. It clearly states that if the personal property exceeds $350 in total value (not each), it's to be put into storage for 60 days and valid attempts will be made to contact the rightful owner....this law pertains to foreclosures as well as rentals. If the lenders and brokers have another agreement, that doesn't circumvent the law. Here, in my opinion, is where the broker really screwed up. By not removing the boat prior to the trash out bid (that means more than two parties are now involved), Linda had no choice but to notify the lender. She's now become a witness to this transgression of personal property rights. By creating a paper trail she'll cover her behind if there's any law suit. To the victor go the spoils doesn't apply here. I find it difficult to believe that the broker in question doesn't know basic California real estate law.

If you've read Linda's previous posts you'll realize her financial trouble was not from the lack of work, but rather the lack of being paid for completed jobs.

As for PP vendors breaking into a property, I had that happened a few months ago while doing an interior order. I asked him why and his reply was " I didn't have the keys". I slowly walked over and started unlocking various doors to the property. He asked me where I got the keys from.....my reply was "from the same lock box that you had access to". Oh, and by the way, he was working at the property before I arrived. It was so noted in my report.

I do get my REO listings sold and have very few problems with trash out crews or other vendors. My REO business is up and running (and growing, by the way). I do apologize for thinking you're a rookie. We have two different views on this subject. As for the reality check....I'll stay in my world..it works well for my clients as well as myself....It's nice and warm and cozy.....and the best thing of all is I can sleep at night. We all have our different ways of doing business.....my way works well for me.

Linda - How would you feel if the DMV goes after the broker for theft when the title shows a lien on the trailer by abc loan company

I wasn't disagreeing with what you said. I was just trying to analyze why people get emotional in their posts. We can all get emotional when we feel we're right.

No, no, and no to advertising with the media. I don't spend ANY money in advertising beyond a simple $8.95 per year website that I maintain on my own. As long as word of mouth and my website are doing the advertising for me, why spend another precious nickel on it? I've got better things to do with my money.

Linda

LOL. And here all this time I was thinking you didn't have a sense of humor, Shana. I love it.

Linda

You can really pack a lot into one sentence, can't you?

There is no easy response to this and no way can I answer in one sentence. I believe that whoever removes it should file the proper forms with the DMV to find out who the registered owner is. The current title would show any lienholder ~ if there is one.

The boat hasn't been registered since 2005. There is always the possibility the boat was stolen and parked there. I thought about that, too.

And then there's the possibility the boat loan was paid off prior to the registered owner leaving it behind and the title hasn't been changed.

So now we have a question of who stole what from whom. Does the original thief have any recourse against the broker? And if he does, is he willing to fork over the pay off to the lender? And, if the registered owner is found, can he sue the whole darned lot of them because he still wants his boat?

Linda

So if the owner doesn't claim the boat it has to go to charity by law in that state this was happening in? If it's not the law what would happen to it?

Linda

Speaking of trash outs........Have you noticed a similarity in what's left at the properties you trash out? While doing interiors I've noticed a lot of kids clothes and toys....and these weren't junk.....This almost brings tears....just can't seem to figure this one out.....I'm waiting to find a spare kid or two on one of these trips.....just doesn't make sense.

please deliver all unclaimed watercraft to my attorney and licensed boat captain, Mr. Sol Sailor.

the biggest trashout in American history will take place on Pennsylvania Avenue in January, 2009.

We get a pretty good mixture of stuff at the houses we trashout. But, yes, a lot of good clothes and toys. We bag everything separately as we work, along with linens and any other household items in good shape, then take them to donation centers.

We did a trashout earlier this year where I took roughly $5,000 worth of brand new ladies clothing, purses, and shoes to a domestic violence center. The women there obtain schooling from the center for future employment and, since these clothes still had tags on them, nearly everyone had brand new clothes for their upcoming interviews.

From this same property, we took 2 small truckloads of toys, bicycles, working appliances, linens, and other miscellaneous household items to a thrift store down the street from the shelter.

Most donation centers won't take baby furniture because of the liability if the baby gets hurt by something. These things we set up at home, make sure everything's intact, replace any missing screws, wash any cloth pads or seating, then ask friends if they know of someone with a baby on the way. Then we give them to the mamas to be.

Some of the trashouts tug at my heartstrings, too. I've learned to focus on the task at hand and try not to think about it too much. Otherwise, I'd be a quivering mess at night when I got home and probably cry for days.

Linda

Shana

Finally, we agree on something.....lol

I'll be so glad to see this 8 year run end.....The incoming president (and it doesn't matter who it is) has their work cut out for them. I'm afraid of what's still in front of us. I've said it many posts before, but, I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceburg...if, at anytime, I have ever wanted to be wrong, would be now.

Linda

It's kids stuff......toys and clothing....just makes no sense. Are the previous occupants saying the kids mean nothing? I've seen this time and time again. Did they wait til the last second, thinking the eviction would go away....was just a bad dream? I had the deepest respect for Greenspan until he made the statement "at least it gave the American family a chance to own". What a crock.......what good is owning if you can't keep it?......I'm going totally off subject....sorry...

While doing interiors, I've come across PP companies breaking up perfectly good furniture. Needless to say, they won't be working for me. We have a lot of needy families in this country. The thought process of this group leaves me in the dark as to "what are they thinking?".

CandyMan.

What we find at the properties is typically a small percentage of what the former homeowners take with them and it could be because they didn't have room in their rental truck for another box or bag.

Or maybe they ran out of time before the sheriff came to evict them?

Or perhaps they actually felt relieved to be rid of their excess, reminders that they spent too much and lost their home because of it?

It's so hard to say why people do what they do or leave behind things that others could use.

We've done a couple of trashouts where we had the Salvation Army truck at the property instead of a U-Haul because there was so much that was in excellent condition.

I don't know if you've been to the landfills lately or not. But the number of trashout crews and their trucks are growing steadily, adding enormously to the waste problems. A couple of landfills have closed down in the past couple of years to due reaching their limit.

If everyone would donate instead of take it to the dump, we'd all be better off in the long run.

Linda

Probably true. However, it's not up to Linda to enforce the law. It is up to Linda to protect herself and to attempt to enforce her legal contract with Broker.

Presumably, according to her contract agreement with the Broker, Linda would have hauled the boat away and taken steps to properly dispose. What that disposition was was up to Linda. The Broker, by his actions, breached their contract agreement, pure and simple. But what is at the heart of this breach? We cannot say that, by his actions, he denied Linda potential monies from sale of the boat, because Linda's contract (probably) was only for removal of trash and debris. That Linda may benefit financially over and above her fee for trash removal by selling items is not to the point. She may or may NOT profit from sale. We cannot know. So, that issue is moot. While it may be common practice in the industry for PP outfits to sell some of the trash, probably no where in the contract was this stated.

What is (apparently by Linda's reaction to the Broker's actions) at issue is Linda's contracted (and implied legal) responsibility for such items where ownership may be at question. To my mind, the nature of such items should have been determined PRIOR to the bid/order for trashout services. I would suspect this wasn't done. However, according to her written instructions, she was to remove the boat and assume responsibility for its disposition. Linda should be able to rely that the boat is trash of no value. IF Linda sees value in this trash, that is her own perception. She relies that both the bank and her general contractor (the Broker) believe and rely that it is worthless.

Here's where it gets a little murky for me-- the reason the Broker tries to hook up the boat to his towbar. He claims that Linda was going to donate the boat to charity. So? That claim implies that there is value in the boat. At that point, we have to ask value to whom? To the bank? If so, when did it become valued? And, should the bank be able to sell it and retain the proceeds? Is it at this point we suddenly decide to see who legally owns the boat? That issue should have been ascertained PRIOR to ordering it disposed of.

So, what we are probably looking at is Broker always wanted the boat and hoped to either buy it or get it free from Linda. He told the bank it was trash of no value. Linda will not sell the boat to the broker, so broker does an endrun, and Linda follows him, involving Broker's client(s). She raises a "defense" to Broker taking the boat that it may still belong to the original owner and that SHE will make all the necessary legally-required inquiries to protect all the parties. However, is that Linda's duty to the parties? Probably not. It is an attempt at "staying" the broker's actions. Does she have a duty to protect the Broker from his own actions? No, she does not. Does she have a legal "right" to take the boat? If it's in her written instructions and in the contract agreement with Broker, yes.

So, this is a contractual dispute, and not a dispute over the legalities of personal property left behind, per se. Here's where it get tricky. IF Linda had reason to believe that she was being asked to remove and dispose of personal property, the value of which and therefore ownership of which had not been properly investigated, was that wrong? If, only when this boat is being taken from her she raises this issue, what does that mean? To my mind, she cannot attempt to enforce the laws regarding disposition of personal property with a value exceeding guidelines against the Broker without revealing that she had some knowledge that there may be certain procedures she has to go through to legally have and hold the boat that has value above guidelins. THOSE issues should have been raised by Linda prior. IF she relies on Broker's implied okay on the valuelessness of the boat, that it is trash of no or very limited value, she gives it to him.

So, to wrap this up (for me and I'm not an attorney), the burden of legalities surrounding personal property and legal disposition of such resides with the Bank. They "shift" that burden somewhat to the Broker, who must act in a legal manner on their behalf. The burden NEVER shifts to the PPC acting at the Broker's direction. Unless they had specific knowledge that the directions given by the broker may have been extra-legal.

I expect Linda will comment, and I look forward to that.

No legal advice intended or given, only a reasonable person's inquiry and opinions

Your analysis is flawed at the first step. Who wants the boat, who owns the boat and who can dispose of the boat is immaterial. If its value is over $300 it must be stored for a minimum of 18 days. The boat is not real estate, it is personal property. The bank, cannot, do an end run around state laws, no matter what they say. The bank, as the new owner will be held responsible for releasing personal property without following the law. That is the bottom line. Their written instructions provided that the boat be stored, not trashed out. In order for them to sell it or donate it, the bank would need title. Linda was going to provide title through DMV (which is where boats are registered). That's her call, her written instructions stand (and are legally proper). The fact that broker wants the boat or wants to donate to charity or obscure who was going to allegedly donate to charity (remember it was the broker who said Linda was going to donate to charity, not Linda) is beside the fact.

This is not a contractual dispute. It is illegal to do as the broker and the bank suggested. In the end, do you think that either of them would defend Linda in a lawsuit? The answer is no, especially in light of the written instructions she had in her possession. The bank would say our instruction to subcontractor were in writing. It would become a pissing match and to what end? Trouble for Linda.

The law is the law, to argue otherwise is preposterous.

Here's a link to the applicable statutes:

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/civ/1980-1991.html

CanDo

I'm afraid of what some are missing in this thread is "in California, it's the law". Once Linda was brought into the picture she became a party to this issue. She had no choice, other than the one she chose.

One of our members posted that "this just the way it is" and I'm not facing reality. I don't really care how long this type of behavior has gone on.....Where the ice gets a little thin with me is "when I'm aware of it". Then, I'm given no choice. In most cases, the issue can be resolved......when it can't, then I TAKE OUT THE TRASH.

The broker, in question, doesn't appear to be the brightest pup in the litter. I'd pay money to hear the conversation with the brokers AM, when he/she finds out that the phone conversation was being recorded.

Interesting topic. From my point of view, I'm tending to agree with most of DueDiligence's post. Linda was contracted to handle the trashout for this property. Depending on what was written into the contract, the bank/amc may have the right to change the work order at any time. There's similar language in the listings I get. If the work order was changed correctly, then the boat is no longer any concern of Linda's (regardless of what the Broker said he was going to do). Even if it was not, Linda herself said that she refused to handle any of the trashout and received a termination letter from the broker the day after. If that is the case, I don't see how Linda could have any liability with regards to the boat--she didn't remove it and was actually fired for not doing so.

As far as the broker, though, I don't think that Linda should be too concerned over him or what he did/is planning to do. From my following of this story, there was not a confirmation that the broker did keep the boat, donated it to charity, or sunk it in the nearest lake. Until he actually does something with the boat, all of the conjecture is irrelevant. If or when he does do something with the boat, it is of no concern to Linda. After all, she was officially terminated. If it is taken illegally, it becomes a civil matter. If there is a lawsuit that involves Linda because of the illegal removal of the boat, all Linda would have to do is show her termination letter with regards to that property. She would be immediately dismissed from anything.

If I were Linda, I would strongly document to the AMC/bank regarding the possible illegal disposition of the boat via email and fax. Then, I would completely remove myself from the situation (good thing you have the termination letter) and let the proper authorities handle the situation after everything has played itself out. I think getting involved further is of no benefit to her.

Sorry, but the harsh reality is a lot of this business is CYA. We have absolutely no control over what others do and no authority to enforce the rights of an individual/owner (especially if the individual violated is silent on the abuse).

Based on Linda's first post:

We got the written authorization necessary for a full trashout on a property for the debris removal, janitorial, yard cleanup, and boat removal.

I saw nothing about storage, other than, when the Broker approached Linda to buy the boat, she said “no”. Her reasoning was that SHE felt she had to impound it, make a DMV search, etc. Her implication here is that no one had done that. Not the bank, not the Broker. We still don’t know whether she knew this for a fact, or would just be taking precautions after the fact.

If Linda's agreement with the Broker was to haul the boat away to storage (for whatever reason), she is entitled to do that. But that’s not the situation. I saw nothing in her post that indicated that she was directed in writing to store the boat by the Bank or by the Broker. IF no one, not the Bank, not the Broker had made those inquiries regarding the boat, and Linda had a concern about that, Linda should not have been laying hands on it. Linda cannot and should not take on the Bank’s burden. It is out of her scope.

So, without making the extraordinary assumptions you have, (such as the value of this boat, or whether or not sufficient inquiries were made regarding ownership, which, from what I've read—I cannot know and neither can you)-- according to her agreement, she was to haul away the boat. That is her agreement with the Broker. No where in her agreement according to her posts did she have an agreement with the Broker to undertake investigations regarding either the value of the boat OR legal ownership of the boat on either the bank’s behalf or the Broker’s. IF she did so agree, then she would be within her rights to insist that her contract indicated that she was to have charge of the boat (take it away), and was responsible for making sure that all laws and guidelines for disposition were according to law. I doubt that is the case. Whatever investigations Linda makes after she has the boat in her hands protects Linda. IF reasonable investigations were not made prior to the boat being turned over to Linda for DISPOSAL, Linda protects herself by undertaking them prior to selling or converting the boat.

If the Broker modifies their agreement by taking charge of the boat, he can do that. He’s the contractor. He then shifts responsibility for proper disposal to himself. Now, the issue will be between the Broker and the Bank. Linda is out of it. If Broker wants to break the law, he may do so. If Bank wants to break the law, they may do so. Linda is NOT the law. She has a right to protect herself from legal consequences as she sees them; and by letting Broker and Bank have the boat, she is no longer liable.

While I understand what the law is, I also have to determine, before the law can be applied, who has been given control of the boat, for what reason, and under what circumstances. Those can be fine determinations depending on what party was acting under what directions, assurances, and capacity. I also don’t have any problems with laws looking like they COULD be broken. So far, none have. So getting all up in arms about The Law is just plain silly and really misses all the fine points about this interesting situation.

NTB: Well said. Well reasoned. Very sober analysis. I agree, it's a very interesting topic and it's even more interesting to dissect it!

Linda needs to disinject herself from the boat business. Actually, she has effectively done that.

My last concern, and you may share that as an observer, is that with the media situation, Linda should consider being extremely circumspect. She's well out of harm's way now, and I'd hate to see her put in the way of a of tortious interference complaint. They're simple as pie to bring and sometimes (depending on the judge and the attorney's ability to convince on finer points and the passion and conviction expressed publicly by the defendant), simple as pie to win.

Yeah, I wouldn't be talking to the media, either. They're there to screw somebody over depending upon their perspective--I think the days of unbiased journalism are over. If you're not involved, you don't have to worry about that.

The lender has control over the personal property left behind; hence the law comes into play as to how it is to be disposed of. Let me repeat that, the lender, not the broker. Then there's the matter of instructions, Linda had written instructions, she specifically stated that she gets written instructions to avoid these situations. Regardless of what happened at the job site, her written instructions were countermanded verbally by both the broker and the am. How many times does an AMC tell us that nothing is final until it is reduced to writing? As I stated previously, let's pretend that Linda did allow the broker to just take the boat. Let's say that the person who is on title wanted it back. Do you really think that the broker would 'fess up or do you think the broker would produce the written instructions and hang Linda out to dry? What about the AMC? Don't you think their legal department would say that the written instructions controlled the situation? As to the value of the boat, even an aluminun fishing boat with no motor has a value of more than $300.

All of my authorizations have come from the broker, who cuts & pastes the authorization from the AM into an e-mail for me.

So, Linda did NOT have "written" authorization from the Bank. She had a copy of what the Broker was authorized to have done, on the Bank's behalf, by the selected vendor with whom he contracted; OR she had whatever the Broker purported to have cut and pasted. He could also have cut/pasted selectively. It only serves to outline what Linda was expected to do in carrying out her obligations to the Broker.

We now can agree that Linda's instructions came from the Broker and NOT the Bank. They are HIS instructions, purportedly copied from the instructions to him from the Bank. They are NOT Linda's instructions from the Bank. She has no standing.

So we are, despite your original feelings in the opposite, back to the contract between Broker and Linda. Which is absolutely where this all resides, and the centerpiece of my original post. The true issue. Which you raise in your most recent post, thank you.

And that is, the Broker counter-manded his own instructions (the contract) to his vendor. He can do that. There is no legal bar (which you somehow brought in as bar vis CA laws governing disposal of personal property, which have no bearing on the crux of the issue-- the contract), to his countermanding or changing the nature of the agreement somehow being in violation of those laws. No matter WHAT his reasons, good/bad may be, he can do that. Linda's only possible objection or avenue is breach. IF she wanted to do that. Her avenue is NOT approaching the Bank with whom she has NO agreement or understanding.

She could have let him take the boat. She could have said, "Well, our agreement was that I take the boat and I'll need you to sign a statement that you've decided to change that and take the boat yourself." That is what reasonably could have been done. Then chain of custody is clear, and Linda is in the clear.

And yes, the Bank could say that the written instructions TO THE BROKER controlled the situation. So? He failed to act on those written instructions. However he failed to do that, either by not communicating them to his vendor or by counter-manding them, the instructions are to HIM, period. You point out that the AM counter-manded her own instructions to the Broker. She, too, can do that. Again, Linda has no standing.

It is only your opinion, then, that the boat was worth more than $300 (that has not been established in any of these posts) because, to your experience, even aluminum fishing boats are worth more. That may or may not be true. But, the value or non-value of the boat is not at issue here, as far as Linda should be concerned. What IS at issue is whether Linda could have, according to her agreement with the Broker, taken the boat OR demanded from the Bank that she be allowed to take the boat. And, the answer is no on both counts. Legally, she must take direction from the Broker, and the Bank had no agreement with her.

I'm shaking my head. The statutes govern what happens to the personal property. Again, I go back to my analogy regarding running a red light. The fact that you're not caught doing it (or photographed doing it here in Califoria) does not make it right or legal to have run the red light.

If you don't want to do a personal property eviction (which is what this is) or you find the laws cumbersome and think they can be ignored as a convenience, then I suggest you keep your E & O coverage up-to-date. This is an E & O claim waiting to happen. I don't know about you but I don't have 1st dollar defense, I do have a hefty deductible. I'm sure the judge will side with your analysis...that is until the owner shows up and wants his boat or his whatever back. As to now trying to shift this as a risk managment issue consider this, under California law, if we hold ourselves out to be something other than a real estate agent (for example we hold ourselves out to be REO specialists), the law will hold us to a higher standard. While our professed ignorance of the right and wrong way to do things may make some of us feel better, the judge won't be as understanding of our ignorance.

Y'all people are C-R-A-Z-Y. LOL.
Here's how I would have handled that situation:
Scene 1:
MadHatter is performing trash out, Broker comes in and says he'll rid the boat for me. MadHatter asks Broker to bring her a notarized letter signed by said Broker taking responsibility for the boat per instructions from the AM.
Cut to credits and start music....
Appropriate theme song thanks to the Foo Fighters...
"Done, I'm done, and I'm on to the next one......"

But then I live in a Fantasy World. Frankly sometimes I am surprised myself that I passed my R.E. exam (on the first try no less!). I just do what I'm told and CMA!!!

Oh, I forgot to add. When it came time to PAY UP ...MadHatter would slightly discount for the boat removal and add "boat not removed per attached notarized document" and attach a copy of the notarized letter.
Because the Hatter didn't get where the Hatter is by lettin people walk all over her...ya hear?
That's a win win right there. Hatter looks clueless (just doin her job) and in the end it's pretty clear where the boat went.

One thing that concerns me Linda is when you say that you get your orders from the Asset Manager through the broker by "cut and paste" e-mail. That allows too much freedom for an unethical broker, which you seem to have wanting to employ you, to alter the order from the AM.

I seem to have two situations depending on who the client is. In some situations the client will hire that work done directly, typically using a company like Safeguard, Field Assets, Cyprexx, etc. In that case my only duty is to report if the work they have done is in any way unsatisfactory. With other clients I am asked to obtain bids and let the contract once a bid has been approved. Like Jack I pay my contractors directly (and quickly) and stand the time and risk for reimbursement.

If you were in my part of the country I think I would want you as one of my contractors. I appreciate trustworthy contractors and find they appreciate a broker they know will pay them when the job is done. A broker should not expect to "benefit" from the trash out in any personal way, the expectation should be that the work was done in a professional and legal manner.

This is your fall-back position? When you've failed to make your case or been able to defend what you've posted, you attack me and attempt to mischaracterize the nature and intent of my posts. You wrongfully relate to this forum that I either said things I never said or implied things I never implied.

Apparently all this was about YOU. You've flipped out and put yourself into this. Now don't go and try to make it all about me, okay? Falsely to boot! Just stick to the facts without all this distracting foolishness.

I called you on your assumptions and misstatements, and you're angry about that. You were misleading the dance, so to speak. After dispelling those (mistakes for which you have ungraciously failed to apologize), I simply clarified, got it down to the basic issues, cut out extraneous and off-point legal considerations you brought up, and you're angry. So, let's give you a whirl, okay?

The statutes govern what happens to the personal property. Explain exactly how that statement has any bearing on who should take the boat and who should not. Lay it out. Just don't make the statement, back it up. This is the issue that Linda raised. This is her defense to the broker taking the boat, both to him, and then she voiced it to the Bank. Did the Broker have the right, according to his contract with Linda, to counter-mand orders to Linda or not? Tell us how the statutes enter in right there, right then. Because you've said repeatedly that they do. Tell us how. And you can't use the silly redlight thing, either. Tell us how the statutes are being broken. Tell us how Linda uses those statutes to stop the broker from taking the boat, or worse, uses them to stop the Bank from doing whatever it is or is not doing with the boat. Give us your reasoning. Step by step. You claim the statutes govern this situation. Tell us how. And don't try to wiggle out with, "If you don't know then you shouldn't be licensed" or something similarly dumb like that.

You've hung your hat on those statutes being a part of the dispute between Linda, the Broker and Linda and the Bank. Some of us have said it's a contractual dispute, pure and simple. Now you have the opportunity to tell us everything you know about the application of these statutes to the dispute. Go ahead...

You're the best, you really are! That's the perfect and proper solution. You see it clearly. So do I. So do a few others.

It took me about 1500 words to say what you did in a couple of really hilarious paragraphs.

Of course, there is always the possibility that for your apparent reckless nonobservance of, and disrespect for The Law, you, too, may be characterized as a lawless and reckless person, a walking E&O claim. Wait for it, wait for it. Nah, don't.

We ain't worried girl. That's why we got the notarized letter. OMGOMGOMG.

I am not misleading any dance, thank you very much! As agents for a disclosed principal we have a fiduciary responsibility to our client (the principal). In California, you cannot dispose of personal property if it has a value of $300 or more. It is our responsibility to inform our clients of this law. In much the same way we would not allow them to make it a part of our marketing strategy to say "whites only" or "no families" or "retirees only", if not in a senior community or some other prohibited discriminatory practice. Whether we agree with a law or not. Your failure to act in accordance with the law and lay the responsibility of your actions, when you knew better, at the feet of your client will not keep you out of legal trouble. It's based on a what a reasonable person would do. Would a reasonable person allow another to take an illegal action without informing them of the illegality of their action.

I have provided the statutes regarding personal property and you're blowing it off. You're arguing with that, not me. As I pointed out the AMC and the broker do not have the authority to do an end-run around the law, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. My analogy to running a red light holds. You can get away with it, it doesn't make it legal.

Linda had a set of written instructions, regardless of where they came from. Those instructions were changed at the convenience of the broker, not the AMC or the AM. The broker lied to the AM about what was going to happen with the personal property. It doesn't matter if it were silverware, or a boat or a Ford Pinto, if it had a value of $300 it can't be disposed of in any other method other than prescribed by law. Did you see some loophole in the law regarding the value? I didn't.

Linda contracted to do a specific job that conformed to applicable standards. The contract was moot when it violated public policy (the statute). Any contract will be void when it violates the law. In other words, there is no longer a contract.

You did not answer my questions. No one has answered my questions and I've let it slide. What you have suggested is that Linda should just go with the flow and the broker has the authority to do whatever. I will again point out the obvious, the broker lied to the AM. If the person who owned the boat wanted it back who do you think the AM and the broker would point their fingers at? Linda. When the AMC is dragged into court to recover the value of the personal property what do you think their attorneys will say? They will say...we provided written instructions and those instructions were not followed. The broker and the AM will have a convenient lapse of memory as regards this transaction.

Contractual dispute? No way.

See? That's where that notarized letter from the borker comes in REAL handy.
I'm not disagreeing with any of you. Personally I don't see any problem with making the boat the brokers problem if you CYA.
We have these little disputes all the time in our office between trash out crews and brokers. The brokers always win. Arguing about it will only hurt the trash out crew in the wallet. There are plenty of them dying for business. Just CYA and go on about your business. That's all one can do really.

I never said that, now who's twisting? I did say that you were leaving yourself open for an E & O claim. That is true. From where I sit you are. You are apparently okay with that. I personally don't like taking on undue liability, like the possibilities of being involved in a lawsuit don't exist in real estate. Do you want to know something? You can be right and still get sued. You can be wrong and get sued. It doesn't initially matter what happened, you can get sued. If you're going to get sued, it's best to have the law on your side as opposed to arguing it's not germane to what it is that you do.

CanDo. I believe DueDiligence was talking about MadHatter's response. She just didn't quote her, which would have made it clearer.

I hope you guys don't mind but I'm just being an observer for the moment. I'm transferring all my job files to an external drive for archiving and haven't been able to post much due to the fact that I have to watch for duplicates during the transfer.

I have to say that, while it's hard for me to watch the two of you fighting over this, CanDo and DueDiligence are both giving me new things to think about and I appreciate it.

Linda

I believe that I have it right Linda. Hatter didn't refer to E & O and I did. Whatever, the bottomline is each of is going to do what each of us is going to do. The phrase that comes to mind is situational ethics. There are clearly two camps of thought. One camp says that you do what the AMC tells you to do, cause you're covered. The other camp says you do what the law requires. Sometimes what is expedient is at odds with what is legally mandated. My main thought with DD is that falling back on saying I was only doing what I was told to do isn't a legal defense. I hope that none of us ever find that out first hand. It would be an expensive lesson.

Okay, I think I got it. I thought she was responding to, and poking fun at, MadHatter, whose response brought a smile to my face, too.

I agree wholeheartedly about expensive lessons, CanDo, and sincerely hope none of us ever has to have that experience.

In a litigation-happy world, it's often the issues we think are inconsequential or minor that end up getting us in the most trouble and we can hang ourselves without even knowing we are.

I believe, for the moment, I'll just follow my instincts and let the bank be the one tell me to keep my nose out of it. If that's their decision, I'll respect it.

Linda

[quote=MadHatter. We have these little disputes all the time in our office between trash out crews and brokers. The brokers always win. Arguing about it will only hurt the trash out crew in the wallet. [/quote]

MadHatter. I've never argued with a broker since I started this business. This is my first experience with a situation like this.

Does this really happen often?

Linda

Linda contracted to do a specific job that conformed to applicable standards. The contract was moot when it violated public policy (the statute). Any contract will be void when it violates the law. In other words, there is no longer a contract.


That first sentence is high-sounding authoritative, but means nothing. The second sentence again makes an assertion, but there is no foundation given. How did the contract violate the statutes? By what action did it do that?

Again, you don't know that anything or anyone violated the statutes or intended to do so. That is your assumption. All you know is that the Broker changed the nature of the contract. THAT act, in and of itself does NOT violate statutes. It is not, on it's face an illegal act under the statutes. You do NOT know what the Broker was going to do with the boat. WHEN and HOW were the statutes violated? You've again made a statement without foundation. Linda is NOT the only keeper-to the statutes, and certainly not ex-officio. In some of your posts you did admit that the Bank (current owner) is responsible for the statutes being observed. That still holds.

I'm not blowing off your recitation of the statutes, I'm discarding your attempt to bring them in at a juncture where they are not a defense or a hammer. They are not germane.

am not misleading any dance, thank you very much! As agents for a disclosed principal we have a fiduciary responsibility to our client (the principal). In California, you cannot dispose of personal property if it has a value of $300 or more. It is our responsibility to inform our clients of this law. In much the same way we would not allow them to make it a part of our marketing strategy to say "whites only" or "no families" or "retirees only", if not in a senior community or some other prohibited discriminatory practice. Whether we agree with a law or not. Your failure to act in accordance with the law and lay the responsibility of your actions, when you knew better, at the feet of your client will not keep you out of legal trouble. It's based on a what a reasonable person would do. Would a reasonable person allow another to take an illegal action without informing them of the illegality of their action.

What's this all about? Are we now talking about the Broker's responsibility to the Bank? If so, let's start another thread. Once again, you're on a soapbox and bringing in extraneous and long-winded distractions. This is not about the consequences the Broker may face IF he is undertaking to mal-dispose of the boat. It's quite wonderful that you know all that, as most of us do-- but again, you're wool-gathering, off-point and holding forth in an attempt to distract from the fact that you have no case. It's not working. It's not to the point.

Why don't you take that foregoing paragraph you wrote about agent's duties and apply it to Linda? Make your case where it lies. Linda's duty as a trashout person. What exactly does that mean? What is her scope? If it's to do with the below quote, that's exactly nothing to stand on. Zip, nothing. An excuse, not a point of law.

Would a reasonable person allow another to take an illegal action without informing them of the illegality of their action.

The answer is yes, unless that "reasonable person" is you, from what I can observe. A reasonable person would not jump in between a person with a gun and the intended victim and tell the shooter the illegality of their potential action. And, it could be said, that in her scope as the vendor to the Broker contractor, Linda was unreasonable or at least ill-advised to overstep that relationship by tattling to the Bank with no real evidence to support her contention. The reasonable person test, as applied here, sorry to say, is that a reasonable person would assume that the Broker knew the law.

Did you see some loophole in the law regarding the value? I didn't.

Did you see that Linda positively stated that the boat had a value of $300? I didn't. I saw that you seemed to know by reasoning that any boat is worth more than an aluminum fishing boat without a motor. That's your rationale. Is that what you're basing the value on? The aluminum fishing boat proffer?

You did not answer my questions. No one has answered my questions and I've let it slide.

I've answered your questions as I could identify or intuit them-- they've been very scant, but you've not liked my answers. Mostly you've made statements and assertions that I've challenged. It's very possible that the people you've so kindly let "slide" didn't see any questions, just statements.

Linda had a set of written instructions, regardless of where they came from.

That's a doozie, it really is. It does matter where they came from because it establishes with whom she was contracted, it establishes who directs her. And, it should really matter to you because you've stated that, in your opinion, the contract violated statutes. Now, if it doesn't matter where her instructions came from, who ya gonna call?

I'm telling you, you're painting yourself into a corner here.

Your final paragraph lacks the reality of how that scenario would play out in the real world, and not the world of theory. In court, Linda's attorneys would produce witnesses to the effect that the Broker disallowed Linda to haul away the boat. That further there was a public altercation (if I remember correctly), and finally that she did not perform the trashout. Again, we have to deal with the facts as Linda presented them, and not add extraneous suppositions.

Linda...not ALL the time but there have been instances where the trash out crew wanted to take something and the broker insisted it be stored for XX amount of time because of the value.

Who cares about E & O? I have a notarized letter saying the boat is not my responsibility. That's all I care about. If someone else decides to do something shady....that's on the to defend. I can't stop them but I CAN CMA.

I agree with DueDiligence's analysis. Apparently DD has attended law school, but likely has not passed the bar exam, since DD stated that he/she is not an attorney.

"The reasonable person test, as applied here, sorry to say, is that a reasonable person would assume that the Broker knew the law".

Exactly, and as I stated earlier, this is why the banks assign the BROKER as property manager. Whether the broker actually acts in accordance with the law is a matter between the broker and his client, the bank, and ultimately the state RE licensing authority. the PP vendor has no direct interest in that relationship.

No, she doesn't have a direct interest, but any member of the public is free to, and should, bring a complaint against a person licensed by the state and bound by the Code of Ethics if they suspect an impropriety.

How would this argument unfold if Linda were said broker's neighbor who saw him bring the boat home and found out he got it from one of his properties. Said neighbor would be within his rights to find out who owned the property and make a call just to ensure that there was no monkey business going on.

I am not so much worried about the legalities of it as I am the public's perception of Realtors who keep swiping (rightly so or not) property from their listings.

And if the bank did allow him to take it, it may be construed as compensation for real estate services whether or not it is in the listing agreement as such. This opens a bunch of new doors to be concerned about - whether the compensation has been handled per state licensing laws, tax fraud, etc.

I just don't know why a professional would be so desperate to get their hands on a jankety ol' boat that they would open this can of worms. Just go buy yourself a boat already. And if you can't afford it, then you need to be working and not out on a boat somewhere.

Just my $.02.

Linda---do you know what happened to the boat? If it is removed, do you know what the broker did with it? All of the conjecture surrounding the boat really is pointless if it is being held properly or still sitting at the property. I would be surprised if you knew for a fact what happened with the boat since you withdrew from the situation.

And if nobody knows what happened, can you really file a complaint against the broker? It's just conjecture. We also can't go ranting and raving against the broker. Maybe he DOES know the law and is handling the disposition of the boat himself. Everybody seems so quick to destroy the broker when nobody knows what he has done with the property. Maybe his ultimate goal IS to keep the boat, but he's following all of the correct procedures in order to do so (or return it to the rightful owner). What if the owner DOES NOT WANT the boat?? I'm curious what the responses would be then. There's so many unknowns with regards to what the broker knows, what his actions really are, and what he would like to do that it is very unfair to attempt to characterize them (or him).

Actually, I don't know yet what happened to the boat. Once I left the property, I didn't see any point in going back to see if it was still there and have not contacted the broker to find out.

All of this happened on Tuesday, before the long holiday weekend and, after I talked to the REO manager at the bank Tuesday afternoon, she was off from Wednesday until today.

The REO Manager asked me to send her an e-mail, which I did. I included the authorization from the broker, my original estimate, and the photos of the contents of the property I took a week or so before the trashout was to take place.

It's in the bank's hands now so I'm just waiting for a response. It could be today or it could be a week from today. It's hard to tell since the banks are overloaded, too. But I'll update everyone when I hear from the bank regarding how they want me to proceed. If they do.

Linda

I sure hope everyone gets covered up with BPO and REO work this week, Golly Ms Molly - Talking about beating the poor horse to death, I cannot imagine how many horses must have died during the duration and length of this thread, and several poor keyboards just gotta be bruised - among other things .

Give it some time - we'll see how it works out - Geez.

Pinehurst..yes, but we've learned a lot in the process. this is why forums exist, to benefit from the knowledge and experience of our peers.

I know I'm going to kick myself later for asking :

What is it again that we have learned from this thread, I can't seem to find it?

*raises hand, jumping in her seat* I KNOW! I KNOW!!!!

There is more than one way to skin a cat!!! That's it.

<sigh>

I don't know about you, but I've learned that I have a lot of competition for the most long-winded posts.

I've learned who has missed their calling and really should be an attorney arguing in front of a judge.

I've learned more about California law than I'll ever need to know.

I already knew many REO brokers are scumbags because I could tell you stories that make this one look lame.

I already knew I should CYA everything. And I already knew that many times it doesn't matter how well you CYA because some attorney will be able to argue well in front of a judge and right doesn't always win. And you won't always know when your A needs CY'ing until after the fact.

OK, so that last one wasn't ALL covered in the topic, but consider a freebie.

I learned that if it was $400.00 worth of gravel no one would have cared.

LOL. Highest&Best. That was good.

I, personally, have learned to make sure I ALWAYS wear my Big Girl Panties when I post in this forum.

Linda

Thank you! Please note that I am not knocking anyone's post. I read them all (as much as my short attention span will allow) and follow the arguments. I DO find value in hearing all sides.

And Linda, I don't know you other than following your posts on here for some time, but I think you have a great mind for business and I am confident if you listen to your instincts you will do quite well. Sometimes what may seem like a setback (losing a client, writing off receivables, etc) puts you in a much better place down the road. It just doesn't always feel like it at the time.

Hang in there! And always keep a fresh set of big girl panties on standby.

Highest&Best. I know that everything in life is temporary and things change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. I know this will pass and, believe it or not, it's not even bothering me.

BTW. I have 8 pair of Big Girl Panties, one for each day of the week, and a spare in case I wet myself laughing at some of the forum posts.

Linda

Ahhh ~ Thanks you guys (non gender guys )I actually chuckled out loud - looked around to see who heard me and Trinity looked at me like: "was that really worth waking me up?"

Thanks HB and CD - I knew those guns would stop sometime

Bump
Did I miss the dispositon?...I thought I read that the original poster would update the forum when it was determined who got the boat and who was right or wrong?

No word from the bank so I presume they settled it another way. I'm actually glad to be out of the loop on this one.

My post appears to have created hard feelings between several members so I figured I'd just leave the thread buried. No point in resurrecting it since we'd probably all forgotten about it.

Linda

NO, we had not all forgotten about it. Maybe you wish we had and is usually a response when someone is found to be in the wrong. This is a very good forum for learning what might be a mistake and what is the correct way to do something. I was interested to see whom was correct and the poster was very adamat to their actions of being correct and they were in the right? However, since the poster failed to follow up or wishes not to disclose-I guess we will never know.

You know a lot for a new poster. It's a pity that you don't know who responded to your post and who the original poster is.

I agree, CanDo, and I don't think the newbie's post was very "Professional".

Apparently, our new member didn't get it, since this was a question of ethics, not a matter of right or wrong.

Some people just like to stir the pot. If there had been any news, good or bad, I would have posted it.

Linda

this situation is very simple. we know that Linda's company was hired by the broker. further, the broker is the property manager, per his listing agreement with the client. the broker calls the shots.

Linda can buy a nice used boat for a few grand, and have a ball on the water next summer. there are plenty of great deals on used boats.

CanDo-No pity, on my part and do not know how you made that assumption (duh, common sense). I knew who the orginal poster was and who responed to my post. I have read this site for years but never chose to post until now. To prevent from being redundant please read what I said. I ask for knowledge in case I am exposed to that type situation. We all could learn if we would payed attention and drop the "know it all" attitude.

Yeah. What she said.

Looks like we've got us a cliffhanger, don't we? Sometimes stories just don't have endings. If you want to know how this one turned out, let me know. I'll give you the name and phone number of the bank. Then you can tell us.

Linda

I was shopping online for boats in southern California the other day, for a friend of mine in that area. how about a 26' cabin cruiser for $5000? or a 40' sailboat for $10,000. those are great prices.

"The poster" has a name, BTW. If you want to address me directly, you can call me Linda. Everyone else does.

Linda

Go for it Linda!! Then go by and pick up CanDo and sail off into the sunset together.

Actually, that's not a bad idea.

CanDo? Wanna go? Shana says we can pick up boats real cheap here in California.

Linda

Hey I have a commission check which hasn't been spent yet! I live on a lake, I'm sure we could get something every bit as nice as what shana sees for less money here, complete with trailer! I'm willing to transport.

shana, wanna hang?

Whoo hoo! Anyone else wanna go? Hey, maybe a party barge. We could build a firepit and roast marshmallows!

Okay, NOW I'm getting excited.... let's do it.

Linda

that's tempting. I practically grew up on a boat.

anyone else wonder if 'Sybil' has joined us on the boards?

^^^

no doubt, Sybil has joined the thread.

I think Pinehurst is referring to MPD, you know,
like the "3 entities in 1" concept. LOL.

"Okay, I think I got it. I thought she was responding to, and poking fun at, MadHatter, whose response brought a smile to my face, too."

DD was pickin on me? Well I didn't realize on account of all the big words.
All I can say to you Miss DD is this.....Go ahead and pee on my Cheerios but please watch out for the bananas.

Okay, I think I just wet my spare pair of big girl panties with that one! Time to go change and throw a load of laundry in.

Linda

one things for sure...this boat wont sink...with all this BS floating about...LOL

Your comment just invoked a visual of the Tidy Bowl man. LOL

Linda

TMI

Hatter-- DD would never pick on you, not in a day-- I heart you-- and where you been?

I get a sinking boat feeling about the newbie poster. Maybe I should look around to see if there's a Silver Splurge parked nearby?

Okay, that made me laugh out loud (for real).

I'm trying to tell you Guys - I think 'Sybil' is here

No "Sybil"..Realist and exposer of fakes and liars would be a better description. It appears some of you have a problem with the truth or a difference of opinion. Some people need to get a life and stop being so transparent and childish by name calling.

Pinehurst, maybe if you contact the original poster and CanDo maybe they will take you with them on the boat ride off into the sunset. But hey, will ya do everyone a favor and leave your wireless capabilities and computer at home so we will not be forced to look at your mundane postings and someone with substance and intelligence can post?

Oh I know, but DDs comment just hit my funny spot at the right angle!

Certainly, you're not talking about yourself are you? I don't see that you've contributed anything to this discussion thread with anything even beginning to approach substance or intelligence. Just my opinion, a feeling if you will.