Magnolia Homes

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
*** response to business response:

During our pre and post-purchase, we have interacted with all 3 entities, *** Development, Magnolia Holms, and ***. Their marketing is continually intermixed, and *** has continued to communicate with *** about our complaint. This complaint is filed against Magnolia Homes (Note that complaints as well as other social media and legal action will also be considered/filed against the other entities). As *** mentioned, we did not interact directly with *** during our purchase â?? only their marketing materials, but we did interact with personally with *** and Magnolia Homes. See the sign entering our neighborhood (attached) that we continually interact with (note also that *** is not listed, but Magnolia is.) *** is at the center of both *** and Magnolia as she noted in her response. Also attached is a picture of the Magnolia model home where we visited and where we were repeatedly told about the forever view of trees. Inside that Magnolia Home we were shown a display (about 6â??*6â??) of the rendering that included the â??natural areaâ? and surrounding forest, and that was where Ryan continually referred to the lot backing to the forever wooded area.

The Land Adjoining *** Lot Remains Wooded

It is true that the view out the back is improved in the summer months when the trees have leaves, but I have attached a photo taken August 18, 2018 from the patio to accurately show the gaps in the trees. 6 months out of the year, my view is what was submitted in our original complaint (photo taken 11.21.17). In addition, I went under contract on this home in March 2017 when I thought the view would be at its worst, as evidence by our original photos. We were sold that view by *** and that view was subsequently destroyed. It is also disingenuous for *** to provide â??canopyâ? photos when the canopy does nothing to block the view and sound pollution (and future homes). The evergreen trees that were removed would have provided that.

On March 26, 2018, *** swore in an affidavit (attached) that I, ***, was accompanied by our sales agent during my â??multiple visitsâ?. In truth, I never once visited the house/lot prior to signing the contract, as I still resided in Wisconsin. I did not meet, nor speak with *** until May 2017, after our house was under contract. *** lied on that sworn affidavit, and has now changed his story on the latest affidavit. *** has a documented history of lying, as evidence by his sworn changing stories. If his memory was flawed on March 26th, how can it be trusted with his latest affidavit?

In her response, *** states: *** accusation that he was promised a home that would back up to trees â??foreverâ?? and the actual MLS representation that the patio looks onto a view of a forever wooded areaâ?? certainly do not mean the same thing.â? *** and I, along with at least 9 of our neighbors, know that *** parsing of words not only in writing, but also oral and pictorially amount to intentional deception. Related, please watch and carefully listen throughout the video of the public meeting where this was discussed. 9 other families complain of the same deception from *** team. We have included in our original complaint affidavits from 2 of these attendees.
â?¢ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OEtd30cbjaXqqIAc1zYvkmU2qW0u9A7Q/view?usp=sharin g
â?¢ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Hn-TOKCtdGULUOljHB_MO10lL6QRZntl/view?usp=sharing
â?¢ please review minute 8-10. The *** representative states â??what was approved behind there was 62 town homes with all the trees removedâ?. In other words, whatâ??s been in the plans and is approved by the city currently includes no natural area and no forever view of anywhere near what was promised. Further, *** herself said she has no control over

what happens to the trees behind our property, yet she also acknowledges that she made promises about a view from our patio that looks onto a forever wooded area. Any reasonable person would make the same assumption as us and all of our neighbors.

Magnolia Homes and *** Intentions regarding the â??Natural Areaâ?

In ***â??s response she includes a depiction of the natural area with dashed lines, drawn by a team from ***. We disagree with the renderingâ??s accuracy, and we have no reason to trust plans from *** and/or Magnolia at this point. Even if the dashed lines were accurate it acknowledges that the â??natural areaâ? was indeed impacted by the tree gutting. What it doesnâ??t illustrate is that every evergreen was removed from behind our home. When *** showed *** the lot and described how heâ??d recommend this lot with the forever wooded view, the evergreens were a huge part of the screening. It is clearly deceptive for *** to claim that the â??natural areaâ? would remain under the new *** plan when they have already removed more trees than are depicted per their own Exhibit 3. The blue dotted line clearly shows that there was never an intention to keep a wooded â??natural areaâ?.

*** response states that she and *** have had very open communications about *** new plans including their plans to keep a natural area. While it is conveniently difficult to read the date on their Exhibit 6, the *** plans were submitted to Collierville in April 2018 â?? more than 1 year after our home went under contract. It should also be noted that those plans have yet to be approved, as the Town has concerns with their proposed solution, particularly as it relates to the trees. There was never an intention to provide a â??Tree Protection Planâ? until we and our neighbors began attending the town meetings. Magnolia built a huge display with colored brochures that highlight all of the trees south of Collierville Rd, and communicated in multiple ways that potential buyers would believe that area would not be developed. They chose to illustrate the natural area, and chose to not illustrate the plan for all of the development of houses and the removal of all of the trees. This was a lie that they only recently dis- continued to perpetuate in their marketing materials. I encourage the Revdex.com to contact any other neighbors in the *** subdivision â?? you will find that they were all told the same thing (several of whom attended the meeting in the video and said as much).

*** demand to be compensated

I find it offensive that *** accuses me of â??demanding compensationâ?, when my wife and I were asked directly in two separate in-person meetings, â??What would it take for you to be happy with the outcome?â? by ***â??s attorney, *** Both *** and *** were present during those meetings. We clearly stated at that time that we wanted our lot premium back at a minimum, and would really like to have the quality of our life restored. Since we cannot impact what *** now does behind our lot, our only solution is to plant trees in our yard to try and improve the privacy. We were asked to provide a landscape plan, and did so per *** request. It should be noted that the $10,000 we requested for landscaping does not even cover the cost of the plan we shared.

*** states that other bodies that I complained to did not take action. As you know, the state of TN consumer affairs does not take action â?? they attempt to mediate. *** had no desire to participate in a mediation, so no action was taken. While the TN Dept of Commerce & Insurance did not find ***

*** legally responsible, that was not our argument - we are claiming that their practices were unethical and misleading. The*** took the time to hear both sides in a lengthy hearing, and while I represented myself, *** was represented by her professional attorney, ***. After hearing both sides, studying all of the facts, and my wife and I being cross-examined by ***, they found ***â??s actions unethical and he was punished by the board. However, we have been financially impacted well beyond how ***â??s team was punished. They need to take further accountability for misleading us and our neighbors.

As *** mentions, she is not willing to take any action that would remedy our loss in financial value nor quality of life regarding our back view. She and her team have made insulting offers to try and make this go away. This demonstrates that they do believe they are at fault. Next, our demand for a lot premium has deep basis. As you watch and listen to the video, several others besides us were deceived into believing the value of the lot premium was closely associated with backing into this forever wooded view.

I would like to close this by saying that *** has no basis for saying â??we value our customers and
take all customer feedback seriously�. I have shown you 10 recent customers who know differently.