Burns and Ellis Realtors

I am writing in response to the above complaintAs the broker of [redacted] I have been very involved in this issue since the problem arose several weeks ago We listed the property for sale; [redacted] was the listing agent, back in mid-summerThe seller's disclosure was completed by the seller at the time that the property was listedIt is unlawful for an agent to complete the disclosure or to have any influence on the seller to cause the disclosure to not be an honest representation of the property to the best of the seller's knowledgeThe seller purchased the property in and at that time it was the responsibility of the mortgage company and their appraiser to determine the status of any flood zone and the potential need for flood insuranceThe mortgage company apparently made the determination that insurance was not needed and as a result the seller was never made aware of their flood zone status and did not pay insuranceThe responses in the seller's disclosure were truthful; she does not pay flood insurance and she answered "unknown'' as to being in a flood zoneThe fact that a neighboring property is in a flood zone is by no means a determination that you areThat is a routine occurrence in this businessThe issue came to light when the potential buyer's mortgage company looked at the maps and made the determination that the property was in zone "A" and that [redacted] would be required to pay for flood insuranceThe mortgage company ordered a flood certification froni a licensed surveyor and that survey determined that the property is in zone "A".without a BFE (base flood elevation)Ispoke with the surveyor myself and then have since followed up with the City of Dover director of planning and zone "A" is so de minimis that the.Army [redacted] has not bothered to establish a BFE in this particular areaSimply said it is highly unlikely that this zone will flood which is exactly why the previous mortgage company did not require the seller to have the insurance.•The only requirement in this zone without a BFE is that the structure be above the grade of tile propertyThe surveyor proved that it was 1'above but when I again spoke to.the mortgage company and told them that the survey that they ordered determined that insurance was not required based on the certification they still insisted that the property was impacted by the zone even though the structure was above it The initial report from an insurance company BEFORE the flood certification was completed was in the range of $Inever saw that quoteAfter that certification was in hand we received quotes in the $22Q0-rangeThe seller offered to pay the fir.st year's premium but the offer was declinedLet it be known that under no circumstance does an insurance company make the decision if you need insuranceor notThey simply sell insurance if you want or need it Understandably, the buyer was reluctant to move forward for reasons already statedThe buyer submitted a release on August 23rd asking for the return of their deposit along with additional reimbursements as noted on exhibit A The seller on the other hand initially took the position that she had truthfully and responsibly filled out the seller's disclosure and that the contract to purchase did not have a contingency about the buyer paying flood insurance or notAs explained above it was the buyer's mortgage company, which they selected on their own, that was requiring the insurance, hence, potentially causing the sale to not happenSo the seller not only initially felt that she was not going to reimburse the buyer for their expenses incurred but that the buyer was in breach of contract and she wanted to retain the deposit as damages since she had moved out in anticipation of closingI spoke with the buyer myself and directed her to her attorneyShe then agreed to return the deposit but not reimburse for the expensesThe buyer did not initially accept that and that is what created the delay in returning the depositAs you know I am bound by law not to return a deposit to anyone while in a disputeOnce the buyer agreed to accept only the deposit back the seller crossed out the pertinent lines, initialed and returned the document on September gthSee exhibit BAs you can see by the attached stub the check was written from my escrow account and signed by me on September lOCh to return the money to the buyer During that time frame I also spoke with the buyer's attorney and assured him that the return of the deposit was taking placeBased on the date of your letter apparently everything was crossing at the same time The seller put the property back up for rent then also for sale and has since filed with the [redacted] for a LOMA (letter of map amendment) to once and for all to determine the actual status of the propertyThe disclosures have been modified to reflect what we know to date This was an extremely unfortunate transactionThe buyer and seller were losers let alone the agents, mortgage company, insurance company and attorney; all of whom worked very diligently to make this happen [redacted] has worked for me for years, and while Iunderstand the buyer's frustrations, [redacted] is an agent of long standing credibility and integrityMy company has been a leading agency in Kent County since and we pride ourselves in trying to make things right when we are doing business l have additional documentation to support my response if requestedI trust that I have completely and satisfactorily responded to your concerns

I am writing in response to the above complaint. As the broker of [redacted] I have been very involved in this issue since the problem arose several weeks ago.
We listed the property for sale; [redacted] was the listing agent, back in mid-summer. The seller's...

disclosure was completed by the seller at the time that the property was listed. It is unlawful for an agent to complete the disclosure or to have any influence on the seller to cause the disclosure to not be an honest representation of the property to the best of the seller's knowledge. The seller purchased the property in 2010 and at that time it was the responsibility of the mortgage
company and their appraiser to determine the status of any flood zone and the potential need for flood insurance. The mortgage company apparently made the determination that insurance was not needed and as a result the seller was never made aware of their flood zone status and did not pay insurance. The responses in the seller's disclosure were truthful; she does not pay flood insurance and she answered "unknown'' as to being in a flood zone. The fact that a neighboring property is in a flood zone is by no means a determination that you are. That is a routine occurrence in this business. The issue came to light when the potential buyer's mortgage company looked at the maps and made the
determination that the property was in zone "A" and that [redacted] would be required to pay for  flood insurance. The mortgage company ordered a flood certification froni a licensed surveyor and that survey determined that the property is in zone "A".without a BFE (base flood elevation). Ispoke with the surveyor myself and then have since followed up with the City of Dover director of planning and zone  "A" is so de minimis that the.Army [redacted] has not bothered to establish a BFE in this particular area. Simply said it is highly unlikely that this zone will flood which is exactly why the previous mortgage company did not require the seller to have the insurance.•The only requirement in this zone without a BFE is that the structure be above the grade of tile property. The surveyor proved that it was 1'above but when I again spoke to.the mortgage company and told them that the survey that they ordered determined that insurance was not required based on the certification they still insisted that
the property was impacted by the zone even though the structure was above it.
The initial report from an insurance company BEFORE the flood certification was completed was in the range of $4000. Inever saw that quote. After that certification was in hand we received quotes in the
$22Q0-2500 range. The seller offered to pay the fir.st year's premium but the offer was declined. Let it be known that under no circumstance does an insurance company make the decision if you need insurance. or not. They simply sell insurance if you want or need it.
Understandably, the buyer was reluctant to move forward for reasons already stated. The buyer submitted a release on August 23rd asking for the return of their deposit along with additional reimbursements as noted on exhibit A.
The seller on the other hand initially took the position that she had truthfully and responsibly filled out the seller's disclosure and that the contract to purchase did not have a contingency about the buyer paying flood insurance or not. As explained above it was the buyer's mortgage company, which they selected on their own, that was requiring the insurance, hence, potentially causing the sale to not happen. So the seller not only initially felt that she was not going to reimburse the buyer for their expenses incurred but that the buyer was in breach of contract and she wanted to retain the deposit as damages since she had moved out in anticipation of closing. I spoke with the buyer myself and directed her to her attorney. She then agreed to return the deposit but not reimburse for the expenses. The buyer did not initially accept that and that is what created the delay in returning the deposit. As you
know I am bound by law not to return a deposit to anyone while in a dispute. Once the buyer agreed to accept only the deposit  back the seller crossed out the pertinent lines, initialed and returned the document on September gth. See exhibit  B. As you can see by the attached stub the check was written from my escrow  account and signed by me on September  lOCh  to return the money to the  buyer.
During that time frame I also spoke with the buyer's attorney and assured him that the return of the deposit was taking place. Based on the date of your letter apparently everything was crossing at the same time.
The seller put the property back up for rent then also for sale and has since filed with the [redacted] for a LOMA (letter of map amendment) to once and for all to determine the actual status of the property. The disclosures have been modified to reflect what we know to date.
This was an extremely unfortunate transaction. The buyer and seller were losers let alone the agents, mortgage company, insurance company and attorney; all of whom worked very diligently to make this happen.
[redacted] has worked for me for 23 years, and while Iunderstand the buyer's frustrations, [redacted] is an agent of long standing credibility and integrity. My company has been a leading agency in Kent County since 1966 and we pride ourselves in trying to make things right when we are doing business.
l have additional documentation to support my response if requested. I trust that I have completely and satisfactorily responded to your concerns.

Review: I was in the process of purchasing a home at [redacted] when it was discovered that the property was in a flood zone which was established at the end of 2003 and published in the news paper on January 6, 2004. The Selling Agent's name is [redacted] she was responsible for selling the house to the current owner they are family friends and she's also responsible for selling it to a potential buyer. I just found out when potentially buying this home that the selling agent and the sellers have a very close relationship this came out in the process. The current owner has lived in the home for almost 5 years neighbors on both sides of this residence pay flood insurance but for some reason the current owner never did. Now that I'm opting not to purchase for failure to disclose this information within the contract the seller is refusing to refund my $1000.00 earnest fee which is preventing me from obtaining a property for my child and I. In the state of DE if you have a offer on a property you are unable to bid on another. When it was bought to my attention I decided that it wouldn't be beneficial for my child and I to live in a flood zone because not only is it a flood zone it's a "FLOOD A!!!!!!!" WHICH WOULD COST ME AN ADDITIONAL $4000.00 a year not including mortgage and everyday bills, so I withdrew my contract. The sellers and there agent are refusing to give me back my earnest money and have placed the property up for rent but still holding me hostage by saying it's pending under contract. All I want is my money so that I can purchase a home for my son and I. The selling agent helped her client with the disclosure form. The Selling agent is also stating that she didn't know the property was in a flood zone. I find this hard to believe she didn't know she's been in the business for over 23 years that is part of her job to know am I right.

Business

Response:

I am writing in response to the above complaint. As the broker of [redacted] I have been very involved in this issue since the problem arose several weeks ago.

We listed the property for sale; [redacted] was the listing agent, back in mid-summer. The seller's disclosure was completed by the seller at the time that the property was listed. It is unlawful for an agent to complete the disclosure or to have any influence on the seller to cause the disclosure to not be an honest representation of the property to the best of the seller's knowledge. The seller purchased the property in 2010 and at that time it was the responsibility of the mortgage

company and their appraiser to determine the status of any flood zone and the potential need for flood insurance. The mortgage company apparently made the determination that insurance was not needed and as a result the seller was never made aware of their flood zone status and did not pay insurance. The responses in the seller's disclosure were truthful; she does not pay flood insurance and she answered "unknown'' as to being in a flood zone. The fact that a neighboring property is in a flood zone is by no means a determination that you are. That is a routine occurrence in this business. The issue came to light when the potential buyer's mortgage company looked at the maps and made the

determination that the property was in zone "A" and that [redacted] would be required to pay for flood insurance. The mortgage company ordered a flood certification froni a licensed surveyor and that survey determined that the property is in zone "A".without a BFE (base flood elevation). Ispoke with the surveyor myself and then have since followed up with the City of Dover director of planning and zone "A" is so de minimis that the.Army [redacted] has not bothered to establish a BFE in this particular area. Simply said it is highly unlikely that this zone will flood which is exactly why the previous mortgage company did not require the seller to have the insurance.•The only requirement in this zone without a BFE is that the structure be above the grade of tile property. The surveyor proved that it was 1'above but when I again spoke to.the mortgage company and told them that the survey that they ordered determined that insurance was not required based on the certification they still insisted that

the property was impacted by the zone even though the structure was above it.

The initial report from an insurance company BEFORE the flood certification was completed was in the range of $4000. Inever saw that quote. After that certification was in hand we received quotes in the

$22Q0-2500 range. The seller offered to pay the fir.st year's premium but the offer was declined. Let it be known that under no circumstance does an insurance company make the decision if you need insurance. or not. They simply sell insurance if you want or need it.

Understandably, the buyer was reluctant to move forward for reasons already stated. The buyer submitted a release on August 23rd asking for the return of their deposit along with additional reimbursements as noted on exhibit A.

The seller on the other hand initially took the position that she had truthfully and responsibly filled out the seller's disclosure and that the contract to purchase did not have a contingency about the buyer paying flood insurance or not. As explained above it was the buyer's mortgage company, which they selected on their own, that was requiring the insurance, hence, potentially causing the sale to not happen. So the seller not only initially felt that she was not going to reimburse the buyer for their expenses incurred but that the buyer was in breach of contract and she wanted to retain the deposit as damages since she had moved out in anticipation of closing. I spoke with the buyer myself and directed her to her attorney. She then agreed to return the deposit but not reimburse for the expenses. The buyer did not initially accept that and that is what created the delay in returning the deposit. As you

know I am bound by law not to return a deposit to anyone while in a dispute. Once the buyer agreed to accept only the deposit back the seller crossed out the pertinent lines, initialed and returned the document on September gth. See exhibit B. As you can see by the attached stub the check was written from my escrow account and signed by me on September lOCh to return the money to the buyer.

During that time frame I also spoke with the buyer's attorney and assured him that the return of the deposit was taking place. Based on the date of your letter apparently everything was crossing at the same time.

The seller put the property back up for rent then also for sale and has since filed with the [redacted] for a LOMA (letter of map amendment) to once and for all to determine the actual status of the property. The disclosures have been modified to reflect what we know to date.

This was an extremely unfortunate transaction. The buyer and seller were losers let alone the agents, mortgage company, insurance company and attorney; all of whom worked very diligently to make this happen.

[redacted] has worked for me for 23 years, and while Iunderstand the buyer's frustrations, [redacted] is an agent of long standing credibility and integrity. My company has been a leading agency in Kent County since 1966 and we pride ourselves in trying to make things right when we are doing business.

l have additional documentation to support my response if requested. I trust that I have completely and satisfactorily responded to your concerns.