Coryell County Land and Abstract

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:To whom it may concern,These are not total accurate facts and are manipulated on the behalf of the the business at handI have personally contacted the business weekly to resolve the issuesTo address the issues at handI believe she claims she helped me locate pervious indidvidulasHer employees who I dealt with even admitted that they were astonished I found these people and that I had mad contact and that they were getting paid and they couldn't get it done within there dayThis company also has stated that no other entity has complainedAs she has stated there is two other factors involved and they do not complain because one is a large bank and the other was not told of all the errors they made since they have an agreement for business purposesThe building contractor was not told of the multiple mistakes the company did makeAs addressed in the response the company DID NOT address the mutitide of mistakes of there servicesFrom not sending off, the correct title information the first time, to not ensuring all parties had agreed to information provided the first round, and finally presenting a correct product the second time.None of these were admitted or addressed and made where it took an extended period of timeTo be completely thorough I have left out names of each employee who I dealt withEach person at this company has informed this customer that it was someone else's fault thus the reason why I had to call each week to get a new storyYes I had to call the governing body of this agency to insure compliance and laws were being followedAs to the July 3rd my bank was working so again an error of facts made by the companyI never sent an email stating to stop the processI did go and pay for the mail service that was provided, because I will hold up my word and work obligation to any service I say I will make payment forI did call the office the first week of may so this company can check there phone logsI did request if there was any information they needed, such as previous deeds, survey, line of infomation to assists, I was informed that they need nothing which obviously was wrong being the different emails and weekly phone callsThe issue of the banks accepting the original proposal was rejectedPlease note the original proposal was incorrect by this companies behalf and had to be admendedMr*** even requested a different title company but the contractor wanted to use them sinc? "he previously believed they did good quality work." Which he has his previous experiences I have my current factual informationThis is the primary reason he and national have not filed a complaint they have long standing comment men's and business with this organizationBut it is clear they have not made an reasonable effort to correct the three errors or compensated the customer for there errorsIt was also mentioned that they didn't receive the information till June 1stI believe this to be a falsifcationDoctuments were signed in april, building was suppose to start June 1stMr.*** himself stated, "I suspect it would take a little longer than weeks possible past June 1st but never this." Dated July 10thThe first week of may they did confirm by telephone they had this informationIt also is indeed the information they are providing youMr*** did and still does own tenths of an acreCoryell county records have confirmed thatThe stipulation this organization is referring to, is a stipulation only held by *** law, which under another *** law did not apply after checking with two other lawyers in this matter and there board, but because of the way it was written basically until we had additional evidence the two banks would not agreeOnce this company had the additional information in had after I had to track them down and pay for investigation means was it approved by the banksOne investigation mean was provided in one day by another title company in the local area free of charge, where this company did not accomplish the taskAgain the complaint primarily stems from the original errorsNot providing the original primary service by sending to both counties when informed oral by customer, builder bank, and on paper, next not ensuring the product providing to the banks were correct after subcontracting services out which caused another delay, and finally not providing sevice ( theft of services) when customer clearly sked at the beginning of may WA there anything he needed to do to assist to make sure it would happen and being informed a final product would be delivered by the end of the month (may) at latest first week of juneAnd then the second week of June being told he had to find people.After re-eading I also believe this company is trying to skew actions of myselfI did locate the building on a fridayAfter not returning my calls and making there 2nd mistake earlier in the week, I did drive to there establishment in *** ***, ( I did have my children with me on my way to soccer practice.) I did sit in my vehicle for minutes, while talking to my bank to estiblish I was at the correct placeI did notice people working after hoursI did look up the hours on the intent to find this out this would have been the second week of June by this time at least five weeks in when, the employee head of that office as reported to myself, was out on leaveWhen I pulled out of the parking lot, I was calledI was informed that she had resolved the issue and the company who they subcontracted with would fix the issue by minday, since it was fridayI personally did thank them for completing the job that was suppose to be completed earlier in the week, and I did notice they were there minutes after closing to call myself back.So I still see no issue resolvedThey did not provide sevice correctly several timesThey did not value the customer or hold standard to best business practices which is costing me more money nowIssue still unresolvedI still wish for the Revdex.com to investigate so an appropriate lower rating from A will demonstrate to others lower practicesThank youRegards,
*** ***

Re: Complaint ID ***Dear MsRuth, received your report of a complaint from Mr*** *** regarding the nature or services provided by my businessI believe that Mr*** is mistaken as to a title company's role in his loan closing process and
is shooting the messenger, furthermore, of the many entities involved in this particular transaction (two lenders, two title companies, contractor, and Mrand Mrs***) the only person complaining of anything is Mr***The Revdex.com's instructions asked me specifically not to include any information that would identify the complainant Mr*** has publicly posted the same detailed complaint on Facebook and now with Revdex.com as well as complaining to the *** Department of Insurance, so I believe he has waived any expectation of privacy it is also patently unfair of the Revdex.com to allow him to publicly criticize my business while remaining anonymous, regardless of the merit of the complaint.Mr*** appears to be frustrated with the length of time it took from the time he signed a construction contract on April until July 10, when his 'construction loan was closedHe attributes this extended schedule to be entirely and directly the result of errors and incompetence on the part of our company, Coryell Country Land and Abstract.Mr*** *s mistaken as to she role of the title company, in general and as to the timing of our involvement in his transaction, in particular in getting from the time of his loan application to closing I'd like to summarize my responses to the various issues raised in his complaint which I have identified by circled numbers on the attached copy of the complaint.(lssues #and #2) Mr*** apparently executed a construction contract on April and began the loan application processes early in MayThe construction lender insisted on written confirmation that the permanent lender would accept the loan, so he was pursuing his permanent loan application as wellWe provided title work to and consulted with both lenders , although we were only closing one transaction at this time.Our first request to provide any services relating to Mr*** transaction was received on June in a request from the construction lenderMr*** complaint alleges the problem occurred on May and that he talked to the company on June That is incorrect.Mr*** allows "one to two weeks to complete the title and insure and do paperwork." No one involved in this process would have made any such guaranteeWhile it might be possible to conclude a simple transaction in two weeks, it is uncommon and the length of processing time depends on the nature the transaction.Mr*** transaction was not simpleHis property is located in two counties, requiring a title evidence from two different title agents, one licensed in each countyFurthermore, the small portion of his property located in Coryell County, the tract we searched, included two different chains of title, so we had to perform two title searchesThen the information must be combined in a single document to be presented to the lender or lenders, in this caseSo essentially, the facts of Mr*** transaction was a step process instead of step.Had we received the request the same time Mr*** began his process, our work could have overlapped some of the other processes, but that is not what happenedOur involvement began on June when we were contacted by the construction lender.One to two weeks to produce a title commitment is reasonableWe produced a commitment covering both tracts in both counties on June This is not an unreasonable time frame the simplest circumstances.(Issue #3) It's true that the first title evidence we received from the *** *** title company contained an error (an omission) which was corrected when the lender reviewed itIt's unfortunate that the error was made, but the only risk that particular error posed was to the company providing the title evidenceMr*** seems to he asking for public admission of incompetenceThe error was not made by my company and posed no risk to Mr***I believe his reaction to this error is unreasonable.(Issue #4) Mr*** accusation that we "placed an exception on the title that no bank would accept" is wrongThe exception we placed on the title was the disclosure that Mr*** did not own 100% of' a small portion of the propertyThis was apparently a surprise to Mr***We did not create the fact, rather we disclosed a condition he was unaware ofFurthermore, we provided a prompt solution that made his partial interest acceptable to the lendersI personally proposed this solution with both his lendersEach lender then took the facts and my proposed solution to their own attorneys for approvalBoth lenders agreed that my solution was acceptable and was used in the final closing processMr*** *s wrong in his declaration that the banks would not accept this.(Issue #5) As you can see by my email to Mr*** dated June 25, I had already proposed the title solution to his lender regarding the fact that he did not own all of' the small tract (acres)Furthermore, I provided him a detailed explanation as to how this situation had probably occurred, and suggested ways to fix it and did not cause a two week delay.(Issue 6) Neither of his two lenders and neither title company required him to obtain 100% interest in the small tractMr*** did not reply to my email of June nor did he request my legal services in an attempt to obtain title from the ex-husband of a previous ownerHe did however, contact a person of that same name he located on the internet and asked my staff to contact the person, as wellThe person did not respond to Mr*** phone messages, but returned my staffs call because "she sounded legitimate." Unfortunately he was not the correct person.The week of June 22, Mr*** located the woman from whom he bought the property, whose ex-husband we needed to contactIn his email to us, describing the prior owner, he notes she "is alive, and apparently no longer in jail and does live here in ***", and he suggested that she call my officeShe did and was very agreeable and stated that her ex-husband would be happy to sign anything we neededMy office contacted him and on June 26, we prepared and express mailed a deed for him to convey the remaining interest to Mrand Mrs***We received the executed document from the prior owner on June Mr*** *s wrong when he complains we provided "zero assistance".(Issue #7, 8, 9) Mr*** complains of this "week process" and a delay caused by taking "a day off"The day off he's referring to is July 3, the holiday for July I'm pretty sure his bank was also closed that dayJuly is not weeks after June He then accuses us of another two week delay.His complaint is inconsistent, however, because on July 1, after our having done title work and legal work for him, his lender called to tell us Mr*** had cancelled the transactionMr*** came personally to our office and paid what he owed us for our services - $30.00.On July 6„ the lender called saying the transaction was "on" again and asked a question about a mobile home on the propertyMr*** was apparently irritated by his lender's questionOn July 9, we received closing documents from construction lenderLater the same day, lender sent revised closing documentsWe process their instructions and documents and sent them to the builder and Mrand Mrs*** at 4:to reviewClosing was scheduled for pm on July Lender revised closing documents a third time, at Mr*** request, to correct the designation of his address from "Road" to "Drive", We received the revised documents from the lender while the ***s were waiting in our office.Closing occurred on Friday July 10, and was surprisingly uneventfulWe received Mr*** complaint to Revdex.com on Monday, July 13.In summary, I dispute Mr*** characterization of our performanceThis transaction involved many more parties than usual, and everyone we dealt with (the other title company, two lenders, the builder, the prior owner and her ex-husband) was agreeable and accommodating, except Mr***No other party complained of delay or sloppiness or incompetence by my officeIf his loan application process took longer than he expected, it is not a result of misbehavior or inattention from our office.Mr*** however, posted this same complaint on Facebook, complained to *** Department of Insurance who holds my license to conduct business, provided me a copy of an unrelated *** statute that he thought should answer the legal question of his ownership (apparently he disputed my legal opinion), and sat in his pickup in front of our office for some time late one Friday afternoon awaiting a return phone call from usWhen we returned the call he stated he was glad we were working overtime for him.Mr*** has never contact me personally to complain or ask questions nor did he respond to my detailed email of June 25.We provided the service expected of us professionally and in a timely manner, he was given courtesy in spite pf his critical and threatening behaviorI appreciate the opportunity to respond to this spurious complaint, Sincerely, *** *** ***

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
To whom it may concern,There is no swearing, only recognition or errors.Once again recognition of what this company has done wrong has not been addressed.I have went in and paid personally for the issues at handI went in and paid cash to a representative of this companyI have dealt with two employees of this company, neither of which have created a resolution to there errors of which they cause in a timely reasonable matter.Again facts of the case are they failed to preform there duty properlyThey did not file paperwork correctly that is part of there task the first or second timeThey did not check the work before providing it to myself or anyone elseThey took over weeks to preform a task that they insured would not take longer than a monthIn neither the responses have they admitted or addressed the primary issuesThese are facts, not smearing just correct representation of pour business practices that are needed to be addressed and know by consumersNo further lawyers need to be involved unless a reasonable outcome can not be agreed upon at the lowest level, such as admitting to errors in writing at minimal with the apology of what mutiple errors the company did without dismissing and costing the customer thousands in interest since no area of the process/service was expediting or quickAgain company not person and mr.smith did reach out several times to address this matter but was never rectified
Regards, times and dates of calls and email show this to be true so if any further evidence is needed by Revdex.com, I will more than happy to provide
*** ***

Re: Complaint ID ***Dear MsRuth, received your report of a complaint from Mr*** *** regarding the nature or services provided by my businessI believe that Mr*** is mistaken as to a title company's role in his loan closing process and is shooting the
messenger, furthermore, of the many entities involved in this particular transaction (two lenders, two title companies, contractor, and Mrand Mrs***) the only person complaining of anything is Mr***The Revdex.com's instructions asked me specifically not to include any information that would identify the complainant Mr*** has publicly posted the same detailed complaint on Facebook and now with Revdex.com as well as complaining to the *** Department of Insurance, so I believe he has waived any expectation of privacy it is also patently unfair of the Revdex.com to allow him to publicly criticize my business while remaining anonymous, regardless of the merit of the complaint.Mr*** appears to be frustrated with the length of time it took from the time he signed a construction contract on April until July 10, when his 'construction loan was closedHe attributes this extended schedule to be entirely and directly the result of errors and incompetence on the part of our company, Coryell Country Land and Abstract.Mr*** *s mistaken as to she role of the title company, in general and as to the timing of our involvement in his transaction, in particular in getting from the time of his loan application to closing I'd like to summarize my responses to the various issues raised in his complaint which I have identified by circled numbers on the attached copy of the complaint.(lssues #and #2) Mr*** apparently executed a construction contract on April and began the loan application processes early in MayThe construction lender insisted on written confirmation that the permanent lender would accept the loan, so he was pursuing his permanent loan application as wellWe provided title work to and consulted with both lenders , although we were only closing one transaction at this time.Our first request to provide any services relating to Mr*** transaction was received on June in a request from the construction lenderMr*** complaint alleges the problem occurred on May and that he talked to the company on June That is incorrect.Mr*** allows "one to two weeks to complete the title and insure and do paperwork." No one involved in this process would have made any such guaranteeWhile it might be possible to conclude a simple transaction in two weeks, it is uncommon and the length of processing time depends on the nature the transaction.Mr*** transaction was not simpleHis property is located in two counties, requiring a title evidence from two different title agents, one licensed in each countyFurthermore, the small portion of his property located in Coryell County, the tract we searched, included two different chains of title, so we had to perform two title searchesThen the information must be combined in a single document to be presented to the lender or lenders, in this caseSo essentially, the facts of Mr*** transaction was a step process instead of step.Had we received the request the same time Mr*** began his process, our work could have overlapped some of the other processes, but that is not what happenedOur involvement began on June when we were contacted by the construction lender.One to two weeks to produce a title commitment is reasonableWe produced a commitment covering both tracts in both counties on June This is not an unreasonable time frame the simplest circumstances.(Issue #3) It's true that the first title evidence we received from the *** *** title company contained an error (an omission) which was corrected when the lender reviewed itIt's unfortunate that the error was made, but the only risk that particular error posed was to the company providing the title evidenceMr*** seems to he asking for public admission of incompetenceThe error was not made by my company and posed no risk to Mr***I believe his reaction to this error is unreasonable.(Issue #4) Mr*** accusation that we "placed an exception on the title that no bank would accept" is wrongThe exception we placed on the title was the disclosure that Mr*** did not own 100% of' a small portion of the propertyThis was apparently a surprise to Mr***We did not create the fact, rather we disclosed a condition he was unaware ofFurthermore, we provided a prompt solution that made his partial interest acceptable to the lendersI personally proposed this solution with both his lendersEach lender then took the facts and my proposed solution to their own attorneys for approvalBoth lenders agreed that my solution was acceptable and was used in the final closing processMr*** *s wrong in his declaration that the banks would not accept this.(Issue #5) As you can see by my email to Mr*** dated June 25, I had already proposed the title solution to his lender regarding the fact that he did not own all of' the small tract (acres)Furthermore, I provided him a detailed explanation as to how this situation had probably occurred, and suggested ways to fix it and did not cause a two week delay.(Issue 6) Neither of his two lenders and neither title company required him to obtain 100% interest in the small tractMr*** did not reply to my email of June nor did he request my legal services in an attempt to obtain title from the ex-husband of a previous ownerHe did however, contact a person of that same name he located on the internet and asked my staff to contact the person, as wellThe person did not respond to Mr*** phone messages, but returned my staffs call because "she sounded legitimate." Unfortunately he was not the correct person.The week of June 22, Mr*** located the woman from whom he bought the property, whose ex-husband we needed to contactIn his email to us, describing the prior owner, he notes she "is alive, and apparently no longer in jail and does live here in ***", and he suggested that she call my officeShe did and was very agreeable and stated that her ex-husband would be happy to sign anything we neededMy office contacted him and on June 26, we prepared and express mailed a deed for him to convey the remaining interest to Mrand Mrs***We received the executed document from the prior owner on June Mr*** *s wrong when he complains we provided "zero assistance".(Issue #7, 8, 9) Mr*** complains of this "week process" and a delay caused by taking "a day off"The day off he's referring to is July 3, the holiday for July I'm pretty sure his bank was also closed that dayJuly is not weeks after June He then accuses us of another two week delay.His complaint is inconsistent, however, because on July 1, after our having done title work and legal work for him, his lender called to tell us Mr*** had cancelled the transactionMr*** came personally to our office and paid what he owed us for our services - $30.00.On July 6„ the lender called saying the transaction was "on" again and asked a question about a mobile home on the propertyMr*** was apparently irritated by his lender's questionOn July 9, we received closing documents from construction lenderLater the same day, lender sent revised closing documentsWe process their instructions and documents and sent them to the builder and Mrand Mrs*** at 4:to reviewClosing was scheduled for pm on July Lender revised closing documents a third time, at Mr*** request, to correct the designation of his address from "Road" to "Drive", We received the revised documents from the lender while the ***s were waiting in our office.Closing occurred on Friday July 10, and was surprisingly uneventfulWe received Mr*** complaint to Revdex.com on Monday, July 13.In summary, I dispute Mr*** characterization of our performanceThis transaction involved many more parties than usual, and everyone we dealt with (the other title company, two lenders, the builder, the prior owner and her ex-husband) was agreeable and accommodating, except Mr***No other party complained of delay or sloppiness or incompetence by my officeIf his loan application process took longer than he expected, it is not a result of misbehavior or inattention from our office.Mr*** however, posted this same complaint on Facebook, complained to *** Department of Insurance who holds my license to conduct business, provided me a copy of an unrelated *** statute that he thought should answer the legal question of his ownership (apparently he disputed my legal opinion), and sat in his pickup in front of our office for some time late one Friday afternoon awaiting a return phone call from usWhen we returned the call he stated he was glad we were working overtime for him.Mr*** has never contact me personally to complain or ask questions nor did he respond to my detailed email of June 25.We provided the service expected of us professionally and in a timely manner, he was given courtesy in spite pf his critical and threatening behaviorI appreciate the opportunity to respond to this spurious complaint, Sincerely, *** *** ***

Via Fax: [redacted] Re:       Complaint ID [redacted] Dear Mr. Ruth, I received Mr. [redacted] response to my response. I hate to continue this process which, by its nature, will just result in a swearing match. Mr. [redacted] and I disagree on facts and on the nature." of my company’s role in a larger process. Respectively, your process only allows for opinions of two parties, the complainant and the business. In this case, the request for services came to our office dame from Mr. [redacted] lender, .We Were requested to issue title insurance on behalf of the lender and to close the transaction according to the lender's instructions and documents. We received final, revised documents from the lender as Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] sat in our lobby on July 10 at the scheduled time of closing.   Mr, [redacted] complaint' alleges a dispute. I have no dispute with Mr. [redacted] nor, throughout this extended process, has he ever contacted me personally. According to his statement, he has contacted two attorneys, other title companies, the [redacted] Department of Insurance, criticized my business on Facebook and to the Revdex.com. I have heard from no one on his behalf, except the Revdex.com. It appears that his intent is to damage the professional reputation of my business. This transaction is complete. His Loan was closed in accordance with insurance regulations and the requirements of two lenders, and in a timely manner considering the issues involved. In addition to these title and escrow services, we also helped him quickly cure a legal title issue. Mr. [redacted] seeks $125,600 in compensation for his dissatisfaction. He was treated courteously and professionally and his demand for compensation has no basis in fact or law. Respectfully, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
To whom it may concern,
These are not total accurate facts and are manipulated on the behalf of the the business at hand. I have personally contacted the business weekly to resolve the issues. To address the issues at hand. I believe she claims she helped me locate pervious indidvidulas. Her employees who I dealt with even admitted that they were astonished I found these people and that I had mad contact and that they were getting paid and they couldn't get it done within there day. This company also has stated that no other entity has complained. As she has stated there is two other factors involved and they do not complain because one is a large bank and the other was not told of all the errors they made since they have an agreement for business purposes. The building contractor was not told of the multiple mistakes the company did make. As addressed in the response the company DID NOT address the mutitide of mistakes of there services. From not sending off, the correct title information the first time, to not ensuring all parties had agreed to information provided the first round, and finally presenting a correct product the second time.
None of these were admitted or addressed and made where it took an extended period of time. To be completely thorough I have left out names of each employee who I dealt with. Each person at this company has informed this customer that it was someone else's fault thus the reason why I had to call each week to get a new story. Yes I had to call the governing body of this agency to insure compliance and laws were being followed. As to the July 3rd my bank was working so again an error of facts made by the company. I never sent an email stating to stop the process. I did go and pay for the mail service that was provided, because I will hold up my word and work obligation to any service I say I will make payment for. I did call the office the first week of may so this company can check there phone logs. I did request if there was any information they needed, such as previous deeds, survey, line of infomation to assists, I was informed that they need nothing which obviously was wrong being the 12 different emails and weekly phone calls. The issue of the banks accepting the original proposal was rejected. Please note the original proposal was incorrect by this companies behalf and had to be admended. Mr. [redacted] even requested a different title company but the contractor wanted to use them sinc? "he previously believed they did good quality work." Which he has his previous experiences I have my current factual information. This is the primary reason he and national have not filed a complaint they have long standing comment men's and business with this organization. But it is clear they have not made an reasonable effort to correct the three errors or compensated the customer for there errors. It was also mentioned that they didn't receive the information till June 1st. I believe this to be a falsifcation. Doctuments were signed in april, building was suppose to start June 1st. Mr.[redacted] himself stated, "I suspect it would take a little longer than 2 weeks possible past June 1st but never this." Dated July 10th. The first week of may they did confirm by telephone they had this information. It also is indeed false the information they are providing you. Mr. [redacted] did and still does own 3 tenths of an acre. Coryell county records have confirmed that. The stipulation this organization is referring to, is a stipulation only held by [redacted] law, which under another [redacted] law did not apply after checking with two other lawyers in this matter and there board, but because of the way it was written basically until we had additional evidence the two banks would not agree. Once this company had the additional information in had after I had to track them down and pay for investigation means was it approved by the banks. One investigation mean was provided in one day by another title company in the local area free of charge, where this company did not accomplish the task. Again the complaint primarily stems from the original errors. Not providing the original primary service by sending to both counties when informed oral by customer, builder bank, and on paper, next not ensuring the product providing to the banks were correct after subcontracting services out which caused another delay, and finally not providing sevice ( theft of services) when customer clearly sked at the beginning of may WA there anything he needed to do to assist to make sure it would happen and being informed a final product would be delivered by the end of the month (may) at latest first week of june. And then the second week of June being told he had to find people.
After re-eading I also believe this company is trying to skew actions of myself. I did locate the building on a friday. After not returning my calls and making there 2nd mistake earlier in the week, I did drive to there establishment in [redacted], ( I did have my children with me on my way to soccer practice.) I did sit in my vehicle for 5 minutes, while talking to my bank to estiblish I was at the correct place. I did notice people working after hours. I did look up the hours on the intent to find this out this would have been the second week of June by this time at least five weeks in when, the employee head of that office as reported to myself, was out on leave. When I pulled out of the parking lot, I was called. I was informed that she had resolved the issue and the company who they subcontracted with would fix the issue by minday, since it was friday. I personally did thank them for completing the job that was suppose to be completed earlier in the week, and I did notice they were there 5 minutes after closing to call myself back.
So I still see no issue resolved. They did not provide sevice correctly several times. They did not value the customer or hold standard to best business practices which is costing me more money now. Issue still unresolved. I still wish for the Revdex.com to investigate so an appropriate lower rating from A will demonstrate to others lower practices. Thank you
Regards,
[redacted]

Via Fax: [redacted] Re:       Complaint ID [redacted] Dear Mr. Ruth,
 
I received Mr. [redacted] response to my response. I hate to continue this process which, by its nature, will just result in a swearing match. Mr. [redacted] and I disagree on facts and on the nature." of my company’s role in a larger process. Respectively, your process only allows for opinions of two parties, the complainant and the business. In this case, the request for services came to our office dame from Mr. [redacted] lender, .We Were requested to issue title insurance on behalf of the lender and to close the transaction according to the lender's instructions and documents. We received final, revised documents from the lender as Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] sat in our lobby on July 10 at the scheduled time of closing.   Mr, [redacted] complaint' alleges a dispute. I have no dispute with Mr. [redacted] nor, throughout this extended process, has he ever contacted me personally. According to his statement, he has contacted two attorneys, other title companies, the [redacted] Department of Insurance, criticized my business on Facebook and to the Revdex.com. I have heard from no one on his behalf, except the Revdex.com. It appears that his intent is to damage the professional reputation of my business. This transaction is complete. His Loan was closed in accordance with insurance regulations and the requirements of two lenders, and in a timely manner considering the issues involved. In addition to these title and escrow services, we also helped him quickly cure a legal title issue. Mr. [redacted] seeks $125,600 in compensation for his dissatisfaction. He was treated courteously and professionally and his demand for compensation has no basis in fact or law. Respectfully, [redacted]