Pencilman.com

Hello, Barristers received a title order for the Complainant's transaction on June 10thThe complainant was the buyer in this transactionThe contract called for a closing on June 29thThe buyer in the purchase agreement for the transaction was listed as [redacted] On June 17th, a representative of Barristers requested a copy of the operating agreement for [redacted] , which is standard practice for a transaction in which an LLC is listed as a buyer On June 20th, Barristers received an addendum from the real estate agents involved changing the name of the buyer from [redacted] to [redacted] PropertiesThe complainant submitted an operating agreement for [redacted] Properties on or about 6/It would appear that entity was created on June 20th, It would also appear this entity was created without regard to anything other than the June 29th closing date in the purchase agreementAs for the complainant and his signing appointment, when the complainant called the office at Barristers to inquire as to his closing appointment, there was another closing being handled by Barristers with a seller with the identical last name of the complainant's sellerThe Barristers employee that answered the phone, when asked when that seller was signing, gave the date the seller with the same last name was signing on the other transaction, which was a day earlier than when the complainant's seller was signingNonetheless, all appointments have been made, and it would appear as of today the closing took place without delay and prior to the date set forth in the purchase agreementAs for complainant's claim as to Barristers being in any way responsible for a fee associated with the LLC apparently created on June 20, 2016, we respectfully submit that fee was incurred as a result of complainant's preference to take title in an entity other than the one that originally contracted to purchase the property, and for no reason caused by Barristers whatsoeverWe remain available to discuss this matter further

Hello, I have reviewed [redacted] complaint, and it appears our Operations Manager has already spoken to [redacted] as of yesterday, and after looking into the matter she will talk to [redacted] again todayThe $at issue originated with a water and sewer hold taken at closing to ensure [redacted] final water and sewer bill were paidIt appears that she paid the bill, and Barristers paid the bill as well, resulting in a "double-payment"We will refund [redacted] the funds at issue and pursue a refund of the overpayment ourselvesAs for the $2,item, due to an oversight when the documents were originally prepared, the commission was shown incorrectly on the initial Closing DisclosureThat error was corrected prior to closing and title transfer, and the disbursement made at closing was accurateWe apologize to [redacted] for any inconvenience this may have caused

We've reached a resolution with the customer It was a misunderstanding on our part that has been rectifiedWe believe [redacted] to be satisfied with the resolution

I have spoken with the customer, and the funds in question are being released to him todayI believe this matter is resolvedI have expressed our apologies to the consumer for the inconvenience caused him

Per phone conversation with Mr***:MrC*** contacted him to discuss issues, and the matter is now resolved

As for a "HUD" statement, *** *** is referring to the "draft HUD", which was stamped as such, and is commonly used at closings in Northeast Ohio prior to buyer signing of closing documents. There were no "documents" filed with the IRS or any other entity. From a communication standpoint, perhaps the transaction could have been handled in a more efficient manner, and for that we apologize to *** ***

I apologize for the delay in the response, but I have been travelling the last few weeks and have been unable to replyI have spoken to *** *** and I believe we have come to a resolution of this matter, which was unfortunately caused by an inadvertent oversight during the closing process

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this
does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Regards,
*** ***
The only thing that was resolved was interest on the $I want someone to explain the rest of my complaint to me on the sell of my house on *** *** *** *** *** ** ***

We have read the complainants response and unfortunately we believed this matter to be resolved when we reached a resolution with him a few weeks agoAs far as the HUD-1, it is custom and practice in Northeast Ohio for a title company to issue a "Preliminary" HUD-when the parties sign, and issue a "Final" HUD-after the transaction is fundedBoth HUD-forms are marked as such, and typically the title company will mail the Final document to the parties with a request for them to sign and return the original to the title companyAdjustments, if any, that need to be made from a financial standpoint are made with the parties after the transaction has been fundedWe remain willing to discuss this matter at the complainant's convenience, notwithstanding the accord that was reached a few weeks ago

Mr***, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you in personMy name is Fred C***, and my direct dial number is 986-I am available all day today (Wednesday June 29) to discuss this matter further

*** *** was issued her water/sewer reimbursement on 11/16/I spoke with *** today and she did receive her check and is satisfied with Barristers at this time

But still...their answer seems as though they are placing the blame on the lender and they are just the innocent middle man.  I appreciate that Barristers of Ohio are trying to fix this now but I had to go through torture to get this far.  Nothing really happened until I contacted the Revdex.com.  Barristers wouldn't give me the settlement doc's and kept brushing me off for over a month.  When Sharon did call the tax people, she left on vacation and didn't bother to have someone else follow up on this while she was gone.  When she came back, I couldn't get a hold of her and she never bothered to call me.  Very professional.  Only when Revdex.com got involved, they started to take this situation seriously.  What is also disturbing is that all the companies involved are placing the blame on each other.  The first lender said they couldn't get doc's needed from Barristers of Ohio at time of closing so they couldn't take the assessment off.  Barristers say they couldn't give that document because the lender said they wanted something saying the assessment wouldn't appear for the next 3 years?  That just doesn't really make sense at all.  When I contacted the lender ([redacted]) before about this, they did not tell me anything about this '3 year' clause they couldn't get from Barristers.  In any case, the mortgage was sold to the 2nd lender [redacted], which told me it is up to the Barristers of Ohio to correct this mistake.  [redacted] are also doing everything they can to stall this.  And why would they want this to be resolved?  The lender is getting hundreds of dollars more each month until this issue is taken care of.  The lenders probably love dealing with Barristers of Ohio since they make this mistake often.  A mistake was made like this on the house that we just sold in May.  We would have ended up paying double our taxes if I didn't find the mistake.  When I brought it to their attention, Barristers fixed right away so I figured it was an honest mistake.  A month later, in closing of this house, there is another mistake on the settlement documents about the taxes.  This time when I caught it, they said they would fix it but they never did.  The agent had us believing that she took care of everything and we wouldn't have to worry.  Now months later, we are still paying on taxes that were already paid and Barristers are saying it's the lenders fault and they did everything they could.  So without anyone accepting any kind of responsibility, I may never figure out what happened here but it looks pretty sketchy to me.  It's odd that the same sort of mistakes keeps happening at closing.  You are bombarded with a library of paper work that you have to sign in a short amount of time.  Nothing was ever given to us by the lenders or Barristers before hand at both closings, which they should have been.  It seems they want it that way so you have no clue what is really going on.  It's like you have to have your own lawyer in there because these companies certainly do not have your best interests at heart.  Also, it seems to me, it's a conflict of interest that Barristers are handling the Howard Hanna sales and they reside in the same small office.  In any case, I appreciate Barristers taking this seriously now that Revdex.com has stepped in.  I will never use Barristers again and am sorry I ever dealt with them and trusted them to begin with.  I hope in future these 'mistakes' do not happen to anyone else.  I am thinking that there is some sort of conspiracy involving all these companies to get stashes of money put away in escrow by 'mistake' and then all involved are getting kick backs.  It's just hard for me to believe a company could be this unprofessional.  I would be embarrassed if I ran my companies like this.  To disrespect and disregard me over and over again, when I was just trying to solve the problem, shows how little they care about their customers.  Sincerely [redacted]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
If no false HUD statement then there should be no reason to attach a signature from a previous one which Barristers did. I'm pretty sure the seller of the home should be able to review HUD statement before being filed. I want compensated for having to leave my house in 3 hours. I was notified at 5pm and buyer wanted possession at 8pm. Pack up all my belongings with a wife and 3 year old child. Barristers cut corners and my family had to pay for it.
Regards,
[redacted]

I have...

reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
The gentleman had called and said he will send the check. Please do not close the complaint till I receive the check. The check is supposed to be sent from their Westlake Branch.
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted] was required by his lender to place funds in escrow at closing. Barristers was charged with holding the funds by [redacted]'s lender, per the terms of an Escrow Agreement signed at closing. There has been a misunderstanding as to our ability at Barristers to determine when, or under what...

conditions, the funds would be released. Those are both matters that are to be determined by [redacted]'s lender. Since the filing of his complaint, Sharon N[redacted] the Operations Manager at Barristers, has spoken with [redacted], and we have communicated to him that he can provide his invoices for work completed directly to Barristers, and we will have them approved by his lender, and they will then in turn authorize the release of the funds. I believe the matter is resolved, and we apologize to [redacted] for any confusion he may have experienced.

Hello,      Barristers received a title order for the Complainant's transaction on June 10th. The complainant was the buyer in this transaction. The contract called for a closing on June 29th. The buyer in the purchase agreement for the transaction was listed as [redacted]. On June...

17th, a representative of Barristers requested a copy of the operating agreement for [redacted], which is standard practice for a transaction in which an LLC is listed as a buyer.  On June 20th, Barristers received an addendum from the real estate agents involved changing the name of the buyer from [redacted] to [redacted] Properties. The complainant submitted an operating agreement for [redacted] Properties on or about 6/23. It would appear that entity was created on June 20th, 2016. It would also appear this entity was created without regard to anything other than the June 29th closing date in the purchase agreement. As for the complainant and his signing appointment, when the complainant  called the office at Barristers to inquire as to his closing appointment, there was another closing being handled by Barristers with a seller with the identical last name of the complainant's seller. The Barristers employee that answered the phone, when asked when that seller was signing, gave the date the seller with the same last name was signing on the other transaction, which was a day earlier than when the complainant's seller was signing. Nonetheless, all appointments have been made, and it would appear as of today the closing took place without delay and prior to the date set forth in the purchase agreement. As for complainant's claim as to Barristers being in any way responsible for a fee associated with the LLC apparently created on June 20, 2016, we respectfully submit that fee was incurred as a result of complainant's preference to take title in an entity other than the one that originally contracted to purchase the property, and for no reason caused by Barristers whatsoever. We remain available to discuss this matter further.

Hello,   At the time this transaction closed, the Sellers of the property were charged for the additional assessment that had been levied by the [redacted]'s lender established her escrow account based on the total tax figure, as opposed to establishing it sans the...

additional assessment. We (Barristers) informed [redacted]'s lender that a portion of the amount was for a "one-time" assessment, but they indicated they could not remove the amount from the escrow account without written confirmation that it would not appear for the next 3 years. In light of the fact that Barristers is not the taxing body, we could not provide such a statement. We have been in dialogue with the [redacted] continuously in an attempt to have them issue the letter that [redacted]'s lender requested, and in fact have forwarded a statement from the City indicating the assessment is paid in full and asking that they remove it from [redacted]'s escrow account, which would also adjust her monthly payment. As you know, it is our responsibility as a title company to reflect the taxes and assessments owed against the property at the time of closing. The establishment of the escrow account is a matter between the lender and the borrower. We will continue to assist [redacted] as she attempts to move this matter towards resolution with her lender.

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Hello,        I have reviewed [redacted] complaint, and it appears our Operations Manager has already spoken to [redacted] as of yesterday, and after looking into the matter she will talk to [redacted] again today. The $100 at issue originated with a water...

and sewer hold taken at closing to ensure [redacted] final water and sewer bill were paid. It appears that she paid the bill, and Barristers paid the bill as well, resulting in a "double-payment". We will refund [redacted] the funds at issue and pursue a refund of the overpayment ourselves. As for the $2,700 item, due to an oversight when the documents were originally prepared, the commission was shown incorrectly on the initial Closing Disclosure. That error was corrected prior to closing and title transfer, and the disbursement made at closing was accurate. We apologize to [redacted] for any inconvenience this may have caused.

We've reached a resolution with the customer.  It was a misunderstanding on our part that has been rectified. We believe [redacted] to be satisfied with the resolution.