(now offical) -- Seller tried to sell a contract they didn't even own anymore!

[skierrob]

I made a bid for a small resale contract for old key west yesterday (at a great price!) Got the contact in the mail today and decided to do some looking on my own to see if I should get a title search and insurance.
So I did a search on the orange county comptrollers site with the name of the seller, and up pops a deed in lieu of foreclosure for the contract I'm about to buy!
It says that the seller gave up the unit to Disney a few months ago for failure to pay the mortgage and the document is signed by the seller and a representative from Disney.
I just called the broker and they are "investigating further" and will call me back.
Any thoughts if there is any chance I will be able to buy this contract? It appears from this deed in lieu of foreclosure that the seller doesn't even own the contract they are selling?

 

[vicki_c]

A - so sorry that's happening

B - how can the broker not know something like this? Do people just lie on their paperwork, or the brokers do not do any due diligence on their own or what?

 

[JimMIA]

I'm almost afraid to ask the name of the broker...

 

[skierrob]

Just heard back from the broker. It's official. The seller does not own the unit they are selling. The broker says they "didn't remember handing it over to Disney back in February." But both I and the broker now have a copy of the deed-in-lieu of foreclosure that is signed by the seller and notarized!

Not sure if I should say the name of the broker or not -- oh, wait, why not? It was Fidelity.

Needless to say, I'm disappointed at losing my opportunity to buy this unit and also upset at the broker for not researching before sending me the contract.

Sad to say it, but I guess this should be yet another reminder to everyone to not just trust a broker and to do your OWN research before you sign a contract or send in a deposit check!

 

[disneynutz]

You waisted some time but Disney would have caught the fraud as soon as they received a copy of the contract.

Bill

 

[DVCconvert]

Sad to say it, but I guess this should be yet another reminder to everyone to not just trust a broker and to do your OWN research before you sign a contract or send in a deposit check!

While there can always be exceptions, I've found it makes a world of difference WHO the broker is.

You wouldn't have lost any money, but there's no call for the listing broker not doing their job. {which includes verifying a contract BEFORE listing it for sale IMHO}

 

[drusba]

Owner didn't remember he deeded the property in lieu of foreclosure in February?

I wonder how many other frauds this person has attempted and perhaps gotten away with.

 

[JimMIA]

Not sure if I should say the name of the broker or not -- oh, wait, why not? It was Fidelity.

Yeah...I think we all actually knew that. My question was just a smart-alec rhetorical kind of thing.

I swear I think things are getting to the point where the DIS is going to need to start a DVC - Fidelity Messups forum!

Needless to say, I'm disappointed at losing my opportunity to buy this unit and also upset at the broker for not researching before sending me the contract.

You have every right to be upset. If that happened to me, I would go to MyFlorida.com and find the Department of Business & Professional Regulation website and file a complaint with their Timeshare Division. There is no excuse for their lack of due dilligence.

Sad to say it, but I guess this should be yet another reminder to everyone to not just trust a broker and to do your OWN research before you sign a contract or send in a deposit check!

Congratulations on having the good sense to do your own research. At least you found out early. As others have said, you wouldn't have lost any money, but you would certainly have wasted a lot of time.

 

[mickeysmyboy]

OMG! I'm soooo sorry this happened to you!!!!!!

 

[Kelblum]

So sorry you had to deal with this! That is a shame!!!

 

[sweetdana]

Just heard back from the broker. It's official. The seller does not own the unit they are selling. The broker says they "didn't remember handing it over to Disney back in February." But both I and the broker now have a copy of the deed-in-lieu of foreclosure that is signed by the seller and notarized!
k!

I could not imagine a situation where anyone.. could forget the foreclosed on something 3 months ago..

I am so sorry.

 

[Greysword]

Also, you may consider an email to DVC member satisfaction. They can probably get the information to the right people at DVD. If Disney is supporting the aforementioned broker as their premier choice, they may want to track all the negatives and look for someone else.

Good job, BTW. We all learned something.

 

[skierrob]

Thanks, everyone.

I have reported this to Disney and they are forwarding it on to the right people. I don't think they are happy that the seller tried to sell something that Disney owned.

 

[JimMIA]

I could not imagine a situation where anyone.. could forget the foreclosed on something 3 months ago..

I am so sorry.

You know, it's sad to say, but from some of the questions I've read here on the DIS over the years, I can see a poorly-educated owner making this mistake.

First of all, the contract was NOT foreclosed. The owners signed a "Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure," which means they transferred the contract back to DVD to avoid having it foreclosed.

Given the lack of understanding we often see, I can see someone signing such a document -- not having the common sense (or money) to run it by a lawyer -- and thinking it was only a temporary reprieve from foreclosure until they could "get back on their feet." People in trouble grasp at straws, and I can see this happening.

What I cannot understand is this one broker consistently turning a blind eye to any potential problems with contracts they offer for sale. NOBODY else in the DVC resale business does that -- NOBODY.

They don't know who really owns a contract; oops, the contract is in probate; oops, the owner hasn't paid the dues and can't bank those points you find so attractive; oops, there's this teeny-weeny little divorce problem...and on, and on, and on...

And considering the frequency of issues with this broker (and it has NOT been just during the 3/20 surge in transactions, it's been since Day One when they were GMAC), I think it's a very poor reflection on DVC and Disney generally that they are still sending business to these people.

But that's a money thing...DVC gets 50% of the commission, and I guess that's more important than how your product is represented.

 

[DVCconvert]

But that's a money thing...DVC gets 50% of the commission, and I guess that's more important than how your product is represented.

Jim - is that arrangement only with Fidelity? (do you know)

 

[JimMIA]

Jim - is that arrangement only with Fidelity? (do you know)

Yes, it's an exclusive referral agreement. Disney refers owners wanting to sell (often in very distressed situations) to Fidelity in return for a 50-50 split of the commission.

And that's all I can say about that.

 

[FindingFigment]

What I cannot understand is this one broker consistently turning a blind eye to any potential problems with contracts they offer for sale. NOBODY else in the DVC resale business does that -- NOBODY.

Umm...if someone co-brokers with Fidelity and they don't do due diligence either, then technically the "nobody" claim isn't exactly true. And I know because it happened to me.

I'm sure the mentality is....what's the big deal...Disney will catch it and it doesn't cost the client any money, etc. They get plenty of distressed/cheaper contracts so with such a big inventory, a buyer has to choose...."Do I go with TSS who I know does due diligence but wait longer for the right contract to come along or do I go ahead and take a chance with Fidelity since they have the contract I need right now even though I know it could blow up?" A buyer doesn't lose anything but time but they had that anyway as long as TSS didn't have what they're looking for.

I don't like it, but I do understand how it happens.

 

[dj~merlin]

i think your "thinking" is right on.

conflict of interest?! ...dvc is a "thing". but in reality , it is made up of
people. some are very hunger for money. based on observing this " 50%
cut" especially when they are processing these accounts under duress.
[owners with money problems needing to sell].

i would think this was illegal to sell something, that no longer belong
to the person?


i did not know the dvc relationship to this- until the previous poster.
and since it is being done by the "back door" & not up front
[ dvc sales & disney image ] ...should shed new light on those
raising issues with dvc managers & workers.

some defend these workers no matter what the facts are. but if
dvc are doing these kind of things, make me wonder more than i care
to admitt?

for example , who is getting this money inside the dvc store?

as an owner, it wasn't lost on me, how a cm new member got blt revs.
*not her home resort & just a couple weeks out.[ she never responded
to my question] . on another posting, attempted to defend by attacking
anyone who questions dvc staff....but not once have a regular owner
posted they were granted this type of request. again makes me wonder,
what else is going on ? [ like who keeping track of the dues & how they
are being spend-"kind of stuff" ]

anyway, i think this is a big conflict of interest & results in real trust
issues for dvc. and i think a real alarm for all dvc owners.

 

[JimMIA]

i did not know the dvc relationship to this- until the previous poster. and since it is being done by the "back door" & not up front [ dvc sales & disney image ] ...should shed new light on those
raising issues with dvc managers & workers.

In defense of DVC and Fidelity, there is nothing particularly unusual about splitting real estate commissions for referrals. Nothing was done "back door," and the same thing occurs when any broker sells a listing in another broker's inventory -- they split the commission. It's common practice.

The only difference here is that DVC negotiated a contract with GMAC (now Fidelity) to give them referrals in return for the commission split. They don't refer because they think one broker is better than another -- it's just a very lucrative arrangement for both DVC and Fidelity.

 

[TisBit]

Yes, it's an exclusive referral agreement. Disney refers owners wanting to sell (often in very distressed situations) to Fidelity in return for a 50-50 split of the commission.

And that's all I can say about that.

Unfortunately, this is about as common as it comes. Fidelity gets free referrals and a bulk of contracts to sell off, their customer service can lack because they have this advantage. Other brokers (like TSS) must rely on customer service and creating a positive image in order to convince buyers and sellers that they are a better broker, even if it might take a little longer to find the perfect contract.

Most businesses that become the primary market for any product, usually begins sacrificing customer service in the long run. Now, in their defense, it can also be a by product of business arrangement. If Fidelity is inundated with so many contracts, they will be hard pressed to give each contract due dilligence, which increases the problems.

In the end it is the dog chasing its tale.....