Dear Ms. [redacted]: Alamo Title Insurance (the “Company”) received notice of [redacted]’s (the “Complainant”) Revdex.com Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed against Austin Title Company (“Austin Title”) on July 20, 2016. The Company has reviewed the Complaint and relevant documents and hereby...
responds as follows. On or about July 1, 2016, the Complainant filed the Complaint contesting certain funds held in escrow as a result of a Bastrop West Water Company bill (“BWW Bill”). The Complainant asserts that the funds were never disbursed to her pursuant to an escrow agreement (“Escrow Agreement”). Consequently, the Complainant is requesting that the Company disburse the Escrow Funds. The facts, as understood by the Company, are as follows: On August 13, 2015, the Company closed a sales transaction between the Complainant and Anastacio and Laura Reyna (Buyers”) involving property located at 000 Edmonson Lane, Cedar Creek, Texas 78612 (“Property”). Based on the Company’s investigation, the Buyers’ Realtor, [redacted], contacted Bastrop West Water Company (“BWW”) before closing to inquire about water services for the Property. At this time, she learned about the BWW Bill in the amount of $655.00. The BWW Bill arose from certain services performed for the Complainant while she owned the Property. Specifically, the BWW Bill is comprised of two charges: (1) a $430.00 charge for repairs to the water main after damage caused by one of the Complainant’s contractors on January 29, 2015, and (2) a $255.00 charge for installing a new water meter pursuant to an agreement on February 2, 2015. Based on the Company’s investigation, it appears that although there is a charge for the installation of a meter, the meter was removed after the Complainant denied having requested installation of the meter, and refused to pay the $255.00 for installation. Consequently, before closing, there was no water meter or water service for the Property. Upon discovery of the BWW Bill, Ms. Harris and the Buyers required that the Complainant pay the BWW Bill so that the Buyers could receive water service at the Property. The Complainant, refused to pay the BWW Bill because she believed it was an attempt by BWW to “extort money prior to the sale” and therefore “not valid.” Subsequently, the Complainant initiated a Public Utilities Commission complaint (Complaint Number [redacted]) contesting the validity of the BWW Bill (“PUC Complaint”). Pursuant to the Complainant’s decision to initiate the PUC Complaint, the Buyers, the Complainant, and the escrow agent entered into the Escrow Agreement on August 12, 2015, in order to close the sale. The Escrow Agreement provides that $655.00 be held in escrow (“Escrow Funds”) pending satisfaction of the following: 2. Restoring the water meter. All parties must agree on the final amount to be paid to Bastrop West Water Company or if funds are not used to the Water installation/restoration, all parties must agree to release the funds to the seller. Seller agrees to sign disbursement release within 5 business days of receipt of the invoice. All parties must sign the disbursement of funds. (Emphasis Added). Based on the Company’s written records, Ms. Harris received a copy of an invoice for the BWW Bill on August 11, 2015 (“Invoice”). The Invoice was subsequently give to the Complainant since she agreed to “sign disbursement release within 5 days of receipt of the Invoice.” The Company’s investigation demonstrates that the Complainant received the Invoice on more than one occasion. When the Complainant received the Invoice, she refused to release the Escrow Funds because she believed that she “had not received a legitimate invoice” and her “attorney had advised her not to pay until the PUC made its final ruling.” Suspecting the Escrow Funds would not be disbursed to BWW in time, Ms. Harris paid the BWW Bill out of her personal funds on September 8, 2015. In accordance with the Escrow Agreement, because the Escrow Funds were “not used for the water installation/restoration,” the escrow agent sought the agreement of the Complainant and the Buyers before releasing the Escrow Funds. Under Texas law, an escrow agent owes a fiduciary duty to both parties, seller and buyer, to carry out the terms of the agreement creating the escrow agency. Dunmore v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 400 S.W.3d 635, 642 (Tex. App. 2013), citing Watkins v. Williamson, 869 S.W.2d 383, 387 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no writ). When the Complainant requested that Escrow Funds be disbursed back to her on October 22, 2015, the escrow agent specifically informed her that it “would not release the funds to the Complainant without the Buyers’ signatures.” When the Complainant requested the Escrow Funds be disbursed a second time, on November 12, 2015, the escrow agent contacted the Buyers’ Realtor inquiring whether “the Buyers are willing to release the funds.” The Escrow Agent again contacted both the Complainant and Buyers in December 2015, stating that if the Complainant and Buyers had “come into agreement on who will receive these funds, it needs a signed authorization signed by all parties showing agreement on how the funds are to be disbursed.” Based on the Company’s investigation, the parties have not yet come to an agreement; therefore, the Escrow Funds have not been released to date. Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Escrow Agreement, “The funds are to be released ONLY upon written notification given by ALL Parties.” Additionally, paragraph 9 provides in pertinent part, “The undersigned agree to save and hold harmless Escrow Agent and its underwriter from any liability arising under and as a result of this Escrow Agreement.” Based on the foregoing, it is the Company’s position that the Escrow Agent’s actions did not violate the Escrow Agreement. The Company’s review of the documents associated with this transaction confirm that no Escrow Funds have been released without the Complainant’s consent. Furthermore, the Escrow Agent’s retention of the Escrow Funds is pursuant to the Escrow Agreement entered into by the Complainant which requires that the Escrow Agent receive authorization of all parties before the Escrow Funds are released; however, the Escrow Agent has been unable to obtain the consent of both parties. Promptly upon receipt of the Complaint, the Company again reached out to the parties to determine whether they would authorize the release of the Escrow Funds. In addition, the Escrow Agent has sent releases to the parties in an attempt to obtain authorization from both parties showing how the Escrow Funds are to be disbursed. Pursuant to the Escrow Agreement, if the Escrow Agent receives the signed releases from the parties showing how the Escrow Funds should be disbursed, the Escrow Agent will release the funds accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, the Company has been unable to release the Escrow Funds to the Complainant. The Company will continue to attempt to obtain the requisite authorization from the parties. Accordingly, the Company respectfully requests that the Revdex.com find the Complaint to be without merit and close its file. Please contact me [redacted] or at [redacted] should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter or if you need additional information or documentation. Please reference the above claim number in all communications with my office.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: while
copious, Austin Title did not respond to the issues in my complaint.
Nor do I understand why I had to file a Revdex.com complaint in order to get
a response to my calls, emails and letters.
The
sole purpose of the Escrow agreement was to ensure that the buyers
were not charged for initiating the service of the water meter. They
were not; that would have been illegal. That purpose was Terminated when service began in September 2015.
It
is fraudulent for the Austin Title company to be the authors of the
Escrow Agreement which enriches them & not me, the Payee, in
case of ambiguity. They are also cherry picking which terms they
choose to comply with.
**
#4. Fund are to be held until September
14, 2015.
**
#6. (WHICH supercedes #5) In
the event that no funds are received by Escrow
Agent on or before the date in #4, Escrow agent ...shall pay all
remaining funds to [redacted] without
recourse or liability.
3. In
Austin Title's October 5, 2015 email, they refute their sole defense
here, item #2.
If
we do not receive your signed Release of Escrow Funds by October
14, 2015, we will release the funds to Bastrop Water for
payment on the invoice as requested. They
were quite willing to release the funds, WITHOUT signature
to BWW, but not me, the payee.
In
addition, Austin Title continues to confuse the alleged &
fraudulent BWW invoice to the SELLER
with
a possible invoice to the BUYER.
I
cannot understand how BWW can claim that it charged the buyers
nothing while Austin Title is claiming that BWW charged the realtor
[redacted] $655. Yet both BWW & [redacted] told Texas Public
Utility Commission that BWW did NOT charge for the meter. Nor have I
received any copy of [redacted]' payment, despite my frequent
requests.
Dear Ms. [redacted]: Alamo Title Insurance (the “Company”) received notice of [redacted]’s (the “Complainant”) Revdex.com Complaint (the “Complaint”) filed against Austin Title Company (“Austin Title”) on July 20, 2016. The Company has reviewed the Complaint and relevant documents and hereby...
responds as follows. On or about July 1, 2016, the Complainant filed the Complaint contesting certain funds held in escrow as a result of a Bastrop West Water Company bill (“BWW Bill”). The Complainant asserts that the funds were never disbursed to her pursuant to an escrow agreement (“Escrow Agreement”). Consequently, the Complainant is requesting that the Company disburse the Escrow Funds. The facts, as understood by the Company, are as follows: On August 13, 2015, the Company closed a sales transaction between the Complainant and Anastacio and Laura Reyna (Buyers”) involving property located at 000 Edmonson Lane, Cedar Creek, Texas 78612 (“Property”). Based on the Company’s investigation, the Buyers’ Realtor, [redacted], contacted Bastrop West Water Company (“BWW”) before closing to inquire about water services for the Property. At this time, she learned about the BWW Bill in the amount of $655.00. The BWW Bill arose from certain services performed for the Complainant while she owned the Property. Specifically, the BWW Bill is comprised of two charges: (1) a $430.00 charge for repairs to the water main after damage caused by one of the Complainant’s contractors on January 29, 2015, and (2) a $255.00 charge for installing a new water meter pursuant to an agreement on February 2, 2015. Based on the Company’s investigation, it appears that although there is a charge for the installation of a meter, the meter was removed after the Complainant denied having requested installation of the meter, and refused to pay the $255.00 for installation. Consequently, before closing, there was no water meter or water service for the Property. Upon discovery of the BWW Bill, Ms. Harris and the Buyers required that the Complainant pay the BWW Bill so that the Buyers could receive water service at the Property. The Complainant, refused to pay the BWW Bill because she believed it was an attempt by BWW to “extort money prior to the sale” and therefore “not valid.” Subsequently, the Complainant initiated a Public Utilities Commission complaint (Complaint Number [redacted]) contesting the validity of the BWW Bill (“PUC Complaint”). Pursuant to the Complainant’s decision to initiate the PUC Complaint, the Buyers, the Complainant, and the escrow agent entered into the Escrow Agreement on August 12, 2015, in order to close the sale. The Escrow Agreement provides that $655.00 be held in escrow (“Escrow Funds”) pending satisfaction of the following: 2. Restoring the water meter. All parties must agree on the final amount to be paid to Bastrop West Water Company or if funds are not used to the Water installation/restoration, all parties must agree to release the funds to the seller. Seller agrees to sign disbursement release within 5 business days of receipt of the invoice. All parties must sign the disbursement of funds. (Emphasis Added). Based on the Company’s written records, Ms. Harris received a copy of an invoice for the BWW Bill on August 11, 2015 (“Invoice”). The Invoice was subsequently give to the Complainant since she agreed to “sign disbursement release within 5 days of receipt of the Invoice.” The Company’s investigation demonstrates that the Complainant received the Invoice on more than one occasion. When the Complainant received the Invoice, she refused to release the Escrow Funds because she believed that she “had not received a legitimate invoice” and her “attorney had advised her not to pay until the PUC made its final ruling.” Suspecting the Escrow Funds would not be disbursed to BWW in time, Ms. Harris paid the BWW Bill out of her personal funds on September 8, 2015. In accordance with the Escrow Agreement, because the Escrow Funds were “not used for the water installation/restoration,” the escrow agent sought the agreement of the Complainant and the Buyers before releasing the Escrow Funds. Under Texas law, an escrow agent owes a fiduciary duty to both parties, seller and buyer, to carry out the terms of the agreement creating the escrow agency. Dunmore v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 400 S.W.3d 635, 642 (Tex. App. 2013), citing Watkins v. Williamson, 869 S.W.2d 383, 387 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, no writ). When the Complainant requested that Escrow Funds be disbursed back to her on October 22, 2015, the escrow agent specifically informed her that it “would not release the funds to the Complainant without the Buyers’ signatures.” When the Complainant requested the Escrow Funds be disbursed a second time, on November 12, 2015, the escrow agent contacted the Buyers’ Realtor inquiring whether “the Buyers are willing to release the funds.” The Escrow Agent again contacted both the Complainant and Buyers in December 2015, stating that if the Complainant and Buyers had “come into agreement on who will receive these funds, it needs a signed authorization signed by all parties showing agreement on how the funds are to be disbursed.” Based on the Company’s investigation, the parties have not yet come to an agreement; therefore, the Escrow Funds have not been released to date. Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Escrow Agreement, “The funds are to be released ONLY upon written notification given by ALL Parties.” Additionally, paragraph 9 provides in pertinent part, “The undersigned agree to save and hold harmless Escrow Agent and its underwriter from any liability arising under and as a result of this Escrow Agreement.” Based on the foregoing, it is the Company’s position that the Escrow Agent’s actions did not violate the Escrow Agreement. The Company’s review of the documents associated with this transaction confirm that no Escrow Funds have been released without the Complainant’s consent. Furthermore, the Escrow Agent’s retention of the Escrow Funds is pursuant to the Escrow Agreement entered into by the Complainant which requires that the Escrow Agent receive authorization of all parties before the Escrow Funds are released; however, the Escrow Agent has been unable to obtain the consent of both parties. Promptly upon receipt of the Complaint, the Company again reached out to the parties to determine whether they would authorize the release of the Escrow Funds. In addition, the Escrow Agent has sent releases to the parties in an attempt to obtain authorization from both parties showing how the Escrow Funds are to be disbursed. Pursuant to the Escrow Agreement, if the Escrow Agent receives the signed releases from the parties showing how the Escrow Funds should be disbursed, the Escrow Agent will release the funds accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, the Company has been unable to release the Escrow Funds to the Complainant. The Company will continue to attempt to obtain the requisite authorization from the parties. Accordingly, the Company respectfully requests that the Revdex.com find the Complaint to be without merit and close its file. Please contact me [redacted] or at [redacted] should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter or if you need additional information or documentation. Please reference the above claim number in all communications with my office.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: while
copious, Austin Title did not respond to the issues in my complaint.
Nor do I understand why I had to file a Revdex.com complaint in order to get
a response to my calls, emails and letters.
The
sole purpose of the Escrow agreement was to ensure that the buyers
were not charged for initiating the service of the water meter. They
were not; that would have been illegal. That purpose was Terminated when service began in September 2015.
It
is fraudulent for the Austin Title company to be the authors of the
Escrow Agreement which enriches them & not me, the Payee, in
case of ambiguity. They are also cherry picking which terms they
choose to comply with.
**
#4. Fund are to be held until September
14, 2015.
**
#6. (WHICH supercedes #5) In
the event that no funds are received by Escrow
Agent on or before the date in #4, Escrow agent ...shall pay all
remaining funds to [redacted] without
recourse or liability.
3. In
Austin Title's October 5, 2015 email, they refute their sole defense
here, item #2.
If
we do not receive your signed Release of Escrow Funds by October
14, 2015, we will release the funds to Bastrop Water for
payment on the invoice as requested. They
were quite willing to release the funds, WITHOUT signature
to BWW, but not me, the payee.
In
addition, Austin Title continues to confuse the alleged &
fraudulent BWW invoice to the SELLER
with
a possible invoice to the BUYER.
I
cannot understand how BWW can claim that it charged the buyers
nothing while Austin Title is claiming that BWW charged the realtor
[redacted] $655. Yet both BWW & [redacted] told Texas Public
Utility Commission that BWW did NOT charge for the meter. Nor have I
received any copy of [redacted]' payment, despite my frequent
requests.
Regards,
[redacted]