Complaint Review: Seth Thornsberry - Century 21 - Russellville Arkansas

Linda, your complaint is against Seth is his lack of professionalism - that's the bottom line. You took enough time to cite the Code of Ethics he violated and did it in the original post and subsequent posts. Yet, you want to do nothing to make him pay for the violations he allegedly made against the code. Under the Code of Ethics, if he has done something to warrant the removal of his Realtor's License, then take him to arbitration. I NEVER said you can undo the deal or go to arbitration to undo the deal - you can't. The deal is done and it's over. The only way you'd ever be able to sue for recission is if there was some fraud involved - I don't see that anywhere in any of your posts. On the other hand, you may yet add another nugget to this story....... The rest is a lot of rubbish; involving "poor" (but now talented - another addition of sympathy on your part) little mom (or is it your daughter?) and her exposure to the real side of life. I'm sure you're proud of her, but it has nothing to do with this. There are lots of sad stories out there, certainly ones that garner a great deal more sympathy than you can cook up. But, when sad stories don't have a happy ending in Real Estate, it's not generally a rip-off. The underdog (which is how you're portraying this character) doesn't often win in Real Estate. For every piece of Real Estate for sale, you might have 5-25 interested parties in a piece of property, but ONLY one buyer. That makes for a lot of unhappy people. Yes, I am biased, but not only as buyer. I am also biased as a seller. I buy and sell Real Estate. I can't always buy the lot or house I want - it happens. It's not a rip-off, though sometimes it stinks. If I'm the buyer, I wait for the response from the owner's agent; sometimes it isn't always timely - circumstances sometimes prevent the owner from complying with the time limits (as they did in your story), but I either call, or have my agent call to find out what the deal is. If I'm the seller, everyone runs to my tune and my schedule - bottom line - and if I'm out of town or the cell phone dies, guess what? Time to extend the period out. In the end - here's why your whole story falls flat - and it's in your own words: "...the young mother was told by her agent was that per Seth Thornsberry, the offer was refused but his client would accept it on the condo next door. There was no disclosure as requested, no counter, no chance to discuss anything. The condo that Seth wanted to switch was out of the question due to poor condition....... Bottom line, it appears that the property was put on the market and after a reasonable offer was made, the OWNER decided that he wanted to raise the price with no contract or moral obligation through his agent, thus violating the Code of Ethics." Realtors don't act like that on their own - they can't. They act based on the orders of the owner. So, the Realtor carried out the orders of his client, exactly as intended per your own posting. His client (the owner) raised the price of the condo and refused the deal of our poor young mother. The owner would accept the offer on the condo next door, and the Realtor communicated the offer on the condo - exactly as ordered. She refused the condo next door, and that's fine - that is your right and probably wise. What you had was a bad owner - not a bad realtor. You are taking your anger against the wrong person and then decide you're going to wrap yourself around the cloak of "discrimination". The cloak doesn't fit in this case and if it doesn't fit......

My closing statements (not arguments) are as follows. This case is does not contain elements for Arbitration. It contains more than one "Cause of Action" for Civil Court. The "Law of Agency" would be incorporated for liability determination with regard to agent/seller involvement. Jim's responses are priceless as he exhibits consistently a biased view of the buyer. You will note that she is addressed in the original report as a "young" mother with an ill child. Jim changes this to a "poor" mother and implies that she is basically upset because her offer was not accepted. No blame can be placed on the "prospective" buyer. She followed the rules. No amount of minimizing, hypothesizing or blowing insults and smoke screens, by Jim, changes the facts. I again request that anyone who reads to this point, look up a separate report filed against a Thornsberry from this same Century 21 Agency and decide for yourself. When a buyer's agent presents an offer to a seller's agent for real estate, the CONTRACT (a legal document) presents the seller with a time in which the offer expires. It is reasonable to expect, considering the policies of agencies, and the implied wording of the contract, a response from the seller/agent prior to the time expiration. A response of " offer refused" or "seller makes a counter offer" is certainly acceptable. What is not acceptable is what occurred in this complaint. The buyer's agent was required to make several calls to try and find out, why no response....from the seller....even after the response time has expired. Next is the unbelievable grand finale.... Seller/Agent communicates to the buyer/agent that the seller will accept the bid on a totally separate property which is (l) listed below the offer presented and (2) the buyer has absolutely NO interest in. NOW, how would most people respond to this whole situation. They would say, "WHAT A RIP-off". Well, that's the reason for this report. I don't intend to respond further to "bunk" so Jim can just write all that he pleases. It is absurd to indicate that one or two employees determine the success of a nationwide agency. IF, Jim will EVER stick with the facts, it is clear that the buyer was pleased with her agent (from the same agency as the sellers) and will continue to use her services. As Jim protrayed this young mother as a "poor", disappointed, just wants to blame someone individual, allow me to tell you just a bit more about this young woman. This is factual. She is beautiful both physically and mentally. Her ACT scores were post-college level by the time she was 12 yrs. old. Her desired profession is to be a Radiologist. That is on hold currently due to her (seriously) ill child. Her schooling to date has required her to attain high grade point averages in classes much more difficult than any real estate course. She is an outstanding mother in everyway and has handled more disappointment in her young life that anyone that I have ever known. Not being able to buy the property did not faze her, the substandard treatment did. She has studied abroad, won many awards for classical piano from Wittenberg University and the list of her achievements goes on and on. She is not writing this for two reasons: (1) her job does not allow the time, and (2) when not working her top priority is her child. Lastly, I also know this for certain, she has been well educated in law. Especially, the law of contracts. Her mother made sure of this. My bottom line is this, regardless of ANY buyer's situation, they should be responded to appropriately and with respect, not with an attempt to push onto them a property that is both unsuitable and unwanted which implies to this buyer that since she needs housing and is young, somehow, she should feel lucky to own anything. This is not only degrading to the buyer but also to the adverse parties.

As I said, if you're concerned about whether a realtor intentionally violated the Code of Ethics, take the realtor to arbitration. If he did something wrong, and you can prove it, then come back and share with us that it was done. That's not an unreasonable request to make of someone. Instead you decide you won't or can't because he didn't do anything wrong. I will be happy to change my mind if you decide to push forward and are successful with arbitration. Just to point out more problems with the story: 1. Again, the offer was excellent. Not an opinion....The buyer's offer was made by a well respected sucessful agent from the same office as the seller's. Do you know how many excellent offers are made on real estate every day that are turned down? Hundreds... I would guess that about 80% of the offers I make on pieces of Real Estate get turned down. I don't blame my agent or the owner or anyone. Stuff happens. It doesn't stop me from researching and making an offer on something else. On top of this, you even titled the Rip-Off Century 21 with Sean's name on it - yet this poor mother used an agent from the same office of Century 21? If you're going to bad mouth Sean, that's one thing. But you also just bad-mouthed the agency your little mother character used. Apparently, your Century 21 agent did OK in putting together an offer but it didn't stop you from bad mouthing Century 21, did it? How about next time clarifying WHO you're going to bad mouth? 2. To state that the owner is bound by a Code of Ethics is ludicrous. Read the Code of Ethics Linda; there are situations in which the owner would be bound by them. If the owner and Realtor happen to be the same person, then YES the owner is bound by the Code. Moreover, there are also greater disclosures that have to be made to the other party. So to state that the owner is NOT bound by a Code of Ethics all of the time is also incorrect. In this case, you're right the owner is not bound by the code and since the owner made all the decisions here, guess what? There was no violation of the code anywhere in the process. Sean is nothing more than a stooge in the process from what you describe. What is my interest? You posted an alleged rip-off when there is none. People should see the entire story for what it is and let them judge, since no one can ever remove even the most insane claims from this site. In the end, what you have is a poor mother who got turned down for buying a condo. It's not a story of discrimination, nor is it a story of a rip-off, nor is it a story of incompetence. It is a story of someone who missed out in having what you term an excellent offer (and I don't doubt in your eyes it was an excellent offer - though excellent is subjective and might not be excellent in the eyes of all) being accepted. That is all this is, and to make it more than that is offensive to those of us who deal with this sort of thing each day and know different. That is what the public should take away from reading this.

Jim, I am concerned as to what your immediate interest is in this report and why you refuse to stick to the facts before taking up space with a rebuttal. For me to respond to you is like attempting to teach calculus in Greek to kindergarten student. There is no Sean involved. Again, the offer was excellent. Not an opinion. Possibly asking, I don't have the contract in front of me. To state that the owner is bound by a Code of Ethics is ludicrous. The buyer's offer was made by a well respected sucessful agent from the same office as the seller's. I see no reason to further respond to your attempts to misconstrue facts and intimidate women to mislead readers to your end result. You underestimate the public.

Linda, let's look at what you wrote. "Bottom line, it appears that the property was put on the market and after a reasonable offer was made, the owner decided that he wanted to raise the price with no contract or moral obligation through his agent thus violating the Code of Ethics..." First, that's not a violation of the Code of Ethics - bottom line. There is no way a realtor is going to be penalized for the decision of a property owner. That is an owner making a decision not to accept what you believe was a reasonable offer. Owners are not bound by the Code of Ethics unless the realtor is also the owner. If the realtor is now the owner, then owners are allowed to do what this owner did. Don't blame the Realtor for the decisions of the owner. No way in the world is that going to happen. Second, contractual obligation for this realtor is not to the mother - it is to his client (see Article I of the Code of Ethics). Now, a realtor has moral and other obligations to all parties involved - on that I agree with you - but none of those require that a realtor look out for a mother of an ill child in any greater way than a realtor should look out for anyone else wishing to buy his client's property. To do that would be a violation of the Code of Ethics by favoring the mother over any other buyer. Sean is NOT the mother's client and his main responsibilities do not lie with her. In your story, he communicated issues pertaining to the property and communicated the mother's offer to his client. Those are the MAIN responsibilities this realtor has to the mother in the day-to-day functioning as Realtor. Now, you might not have liked the speed in which that offer was communicated. The question you have (and something else the board might arbitrate) is whether the offer was communicated in enough time for the owner to make a decision, and whether the delay affected the decision the client made? The answer an arbitration board would determine is YES the offer was made within a reasonable amount of time and NO its delay did not affect the final decision of the client. I know what the code says Linda - that's why I wrote. More importantly, let's remember that some things in life happen for a reason. This is one of those things, and there is probably another house out there for the mother. In the meanwhile, if you want to make an issue of this - take this realtor to arbitration and let us know what happened. If there are so many valid complaints against this individual, it should be easy to accomplish. It would also be a matter of public record, so you can also post the license revocation for all to see when it happens.

The response from Jim is remarkable in that it totally disregards the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the National Association of Realtors. If the facts of the complaint had been read with focus Jim would have seen many violations. I recommend that he contact the Arkansas Realtors Association and ask for assistance in understanding Real Estate Law. Perhaps President Debbie Rawls will explain. Also, I suggest that Jim see a prior report filed against a Thornsberry from this same office and follow-up with Century 21's Standard of Representation that is presented to their clients. After doing this, I would be interested in a more informed, less garbled response. The complaint was written because it is of a serious nature, NOT to solicit a "who done it and got by with it in the past" mentality.

As near as I can tell, there doesn't seem to anything indicating discrimination or a rip-off. The bidder attempted to make an offer on a condominium. The owner of the condominium refused the offer and decided that he wanted to raise the price of the condo in question. The owner has the right to refuse even reasonable offers and is not compelled under the law to accept anything except what the owner decides is the best offer, nor is the owner compelled to negotiate with anyone regarding price or terms of the offer. I have even seen situations where the highest offer was not the offer accepted, because the terms of purchase were determined to be unacceptable by the owner. If you want someone to vent anger to, vent it at the owner of the property - he was the one who rejected the offer, not the realtor. You are even incorrect when you state that, "I don't believe for a minute that a buyer of means would have been treated this badly..." The truth is that the mother was not treated badly at all, and a buyer of means would probably have put in a better offer than the mother. That's not discrimination. It's obvious you and the mother had very unrealistic hopes and when they were not fulfilled, you place the blame on the realtor. That's sort of like "killing the messenger" when you get bad news. The realtor asked the mother about an offer on another condo, and she refused. I understand that - mom wanted one particular condo and if she didn't get the one she wanted, she didn't want another one. I'm even certain the realtor felt bad for the mother, hence the switch to the other condo. If the owner REALLY wanted to accept the mother's offer, then the owner would have, time limits or not. The owner did not because he/she thought they could receive better offers. The mother could have had a chance to issue another offer through her realtor - she probably could not because of her limited means. Here is the bottom line: Owners wishing to sell property have the right to reject offers that seem reasonable to a buyer..... It's not a rip-off. It's not discrimination. It's not even the realtor's fault the mother lost out.... If you want to blame someone, blame the owner..... He was the one who said no, not the realtor.