Complaint Against Griffith Grant and Lackie Realtors

This is a Formal Complaint Filed with the State of Illinois Against Griffith Grant and Lackie Real Estate

This page is designed to provide prospective home buyers and sellers with information regarding Lori Wagenknecht, a real estate salesperson and the broker/owners of Griffith, Grant and Lackie Real Estate, both located in Lake Forest, Illinois.

The following document is the complaint that we filed against these parties with the State of Illinois for operating, in what we contend, was an unethical and deceptive manner. If you would like more information, please email us.

February 23, 2003

This is a formal complaint filed with the Illinois Office of Banks and Real Estate by Anthony L. Bussard and Heather A. Spence against:

Lori Wagenknecht, a real estate salesperson of Griffith, Grant and Lackie Real Estate, Lake Forest, Illinois; and
The broker/owners of Griffith, Grant and Lackie Real Estate, Lake Forest, Illinois

It is claimed by Mr. Bussard and Ms. Spence that Ms. Wagenknecht and the broker/owners of Griffith, Grant and Lackie operated in an unethical and deceptive manner during their attempt to purchase a single family home located at 720 E. Woodlawn in Lake Forest, Illinois. Moreover, they contend that:

Ms. Wagenknecht had inside knowledge of pertinent facts and issues related to physical and legal issues surrounding the property and failed to disclose that information to the prospective buyers throughout the transaction. This knowledge flows from the fact that Ms. Wagenknect is a blood relative of Samantha Williams, one of the Sellers.

Ms. Wagenknecht negotiated in bad faith by continually concealing adverse factors related to the property.

Ms. Wagenknecht and the broker/owners of Griffith, Grant and Lackie Real Estate continued to lead the buyers to believe that the property would be sold even though they had knowledge the title could not be cleared because of financial and legal reasons.

The broker/owners of Griffith, Grant and Lackie Real Estate allowed Ms. Wagenknecht to operate in an unethical manner and deceptive manner throughout the course of the transaction.

The parties involved in this transaction were:

Anthony L. Bussard and Heather A. Spence (the Buyers);
Marcia Lyman, a real estate sales person of Coldwell Banker, Highland Park, Illinois (the Buyers Agent);
Rick Erickson (the Buyers Attorney);
Samantha and Hugh Williams III (the Sellers). Currently the Williams’ are estranged and Hugh Williams is not currently in residence at the property;
Lori Wagenknecht (the Listing Agent);
The broker/owners of Griffith, Grant and Lackie Real Estate (the Broker/Owners); and
Phil Rotche (the Sellers Attorney).

Following is the summary of events that occurred between December 2002 and January 2003 that substantiates the Buyers claim of malfeasance against the Listing Agent and the Broker/Owners in this transaction.

On December 27, 2002 the Buyers placed an offer to purchase the property from the Sellers at a cost of $XXX,XXX (Exhibit 1). This included the deposit of $1,000 earnest money (Exhibit 2).

Prior to tendering the offer through the Buyers Agent, the Buyers reviewed a Residential Real Property Disclosure Form, dated July 18, 2002 (Exhibit 3). During the review it was noted that Item 8 was answered "no", but an asterisk next to the item referred to a comment by the Sellers that they were aware of an "issue with private sewer line."
In an attempt to gain more understanding about the issue, the Buyers Agent called the Listing Agent and asked for any and all documents and information that clarified the nature of the sewer issue, as well as any estimates for work to resolve the sewer issue.
The Listing Agent told the Buyers Agent that she would provide the requested documentation once the Buyers had signed the offer and she had proof the offer was valid.
The Buyers signed the offer and it was faxed to the Listing Agent along with a loan approval letter from the Buyers lender. The offer contained a contingency that the Sellers would be responsible for the ultimate resolution of the sewer issue, once the true nature of the issues was known.
The Listing Agent provided then provided no information regarding the sewer issue to the Buyers.
The Buyers learned that the Sellers had purchased the property in May 2002 for a price of $250,000 and had taken out a $400,000 mortgage on the property (Exhibit 4).
The Buyers also learned that the house had previously been on the market in October 2002 at a price of $485,000 (Exhibit 5).

On December 28 2002, the negotiations over the purchase began.

The Sellers countered with a price of $XXX,XXX. The Buyers were concerned that there might be problems because the Sellers were estranged, but were informed by the Listing Agent that both parties are "very much in-synch and wish to get the property sold."
The Buyers countered with a price of $XXX,XXX.
The Sellers countered with a price of $XXX,XXX. The Buyers were informed by the Listing Agent, through their agent, that "this property was the best value Lake Forest at this time…there have been lots of showings and the Sellers would not accept a low-ball offer."
The Buyers countered with $XXX,XXX.
The Sellers countered with $ XXX,XXX.
The Buyers countered with $ XXX,XXX.
The Sellers countered with $ XXX,XXX.
The Buyers countered with $ XXX,XXX.
The Sellers countered with $ XXX,XXX.
The Buyers countered with $ XXX,XXX.
The Sellers countered with $ XXX,XXX.
The Buyers countered with $ XXX,XXX.
On December 20, 2002, the Sellers countered with $ XXX,XXX and resolution of the sewer issue by the Sellers or $ XXX,XXX and resolution of the sewer issue by the buyers. At this time the Listing Agent inferred that that "the Sellers would be more apt take your lower offer if you take over responsibility of resolving the sewer issue."
The Buyers countered with $XXX,XXX and informed the Sellers that the sewer issue was non-negotiable and that the Sellers would be responsible for resolving the issue since the Buyers still did not know the total extent and details surrounding the issue.
The Sellers countered with $XXX,XXX.
The Buyers accepted the counter offer and the Contract was signed on December 31 (Exhibit 6). As part of the contract, the Sellers agreed to take responsibility for resolving the sewer issue via money in an escrow account to pay for the work related to the issue.
During negotiations, as well as later in the transaction, the Listing Agent made it very clear to the Buyers and their Agent that the Sellers "were in the process of getting a divorce. And, that her sister (Samantha Williams) really has no money right now so she is very interested in selling the property to you."

On January 2, 2003 the Listing Agent had yet to provide the Buyers with the information regarding the sewer issue. Therefore, the Buyers went to the City Engineer’s Office for the Village of Lake Forest to review the public file on the property in a further attempt to gain information on the sewer issue.

During that review, the Buyers learned that there had been a long-standing and ongoing problem with the location of a sewer line running from the property that dated back at least seven years. Further discovery included a number of documents (Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) regarding the sewer issue. Included was a letter sent by the Village of Lake Forest to Samantha Williams discussing a proposed resolution of the issue and a letter informing Samantha Williams that if she did not resolve the sewer issue she would become a party to a civil action against her.
Following the review of the documents, the Buyers instructed their Agent to immediately contact the Listing Agent to again request all pertinent documents related to the sewer issue.
Later on afternoon of January 2, the Sellers Attorney provided a document to the Buyers Attorney dated November 25, 2001 from the Circuit Clerk of Lake County informing the Sellers that they were named as defendants in civil litigation regarding the sewer issue (Exhibit 13).
The Buyers Attorney notified the Sellers Attorney that it was understood the Sellers would pay for all costs related to the sewer issue (Exhibit 14).

On January 3, 2003 the home inspection was conducted.

During a conversation between the Buyers and the Home Inspector, at which both the Buyers and Listing Agents were present, the Buyers asked the Home Inspector for suggestions on how to resolve the sewer issue. During the conversation, the Listing Agent remarked that, "This sounds much easier and cheaper than the estimate that we got from Strenger plumbing. Our estimate for routing the sewer around the house was near $20,000."

On January 3, 2002, the Buyers Attorney notified the Sellers Attorney that in light of the documentation found regarding the sewer issue an extension of the Attorney’s Review period was requested (Exhibit 15).

On January 3, 2003, the Buyers met with their lender to complete the loan application paperwork which included a fee to lock-in an interest rate of 4.625% for 90 days, as well as a payment for the mortgage application process (Exhibit 16)

On January 6, 2003, the Buyers contacted Strenger plumbing in Lake Forest, Illinois. The office manager verified that the company had been contacted by the Listing Agent "last October " and "asked to provide an estimate for re-routing a sewer line at 720 E. Woodlawn." The overall estimate for completing the work was "somewhere around $20,000." The office manager also agreed to fax a copy of the estimate to the Buyers (Exhibit 17).

On January 7, 2003, the Buyers met with G.W. Mahler, a Lake Forest sewer contractor, to get an estimate to complete the sewer reconfiguration work. On January 10, the Buyers received the estimate, in the amount of $13,970, which was forwarded to the Sellers Attorney (Exhibit 18 and 19).

On January 7, 2003, the Buyers Attorney submitted a list of home inspection issues to be resolved by the Sellers (Exhibit 20).

On January 13, 2003, their Lender notified the Buyers that their loan application had been approved.

On January 14, 2003 the Buyers Attorney notified the Sellers Attorney regarding the Buyers final decision regarding the home inspection issues and verifying the Sellers would provide a $13,900 credit at closing for resolution of the sewer issue. (Exhibit 21)

On January 16, 2003, the Buyers Attorney notified the Buyers there was a possibility the Sellers could be facing foreclosure by their Lender due to lack of payment on the property. According to the Sellers Attorney, the payoff letter received from the Sellers lender on January 2, 2002 (Exhibit 22). The lender indicated that payoff for the property was $422,134.66, which is $22,134.66 more than the original amount of the loan that the Sellers entered into in 1998.

On January 17, 2003, the Buyers Attorney requested another extension in light of the fact that the Seller had to negotiate a short sale of the property to the lender (Exhibit 23).

Over the next two weeks, the attorney’s review period continued as the Sellers Attorney attempted to negotiate a short sale with the Sellers lending institution. During that time frame, the Buyers Agent was in contact with the Listing Agent to determine if the Sellers were still willing to finalize the sale of the property. In at least three instances, the Listing Agent assured the Buyers Agent that "her sister is still very interested in selling the property and wants to do everything possible to hold the deal together."

On January 20, 2003 the Buyers asked their Agent to have her office manager speak to the office manager at Griffith Grant and Lackie. The nature of the conversation was to get insight on how the Listing Agent and her office might be able to work more closely with the Seller to solidify the deal.

On January 22, 2003, the Buyers Lender notified the Buyers that the appraisal of the property was complete. He stated that the property appraised at $435,000.

On January 24, 2003, the Buyers Attorney notified them that he had started to review the property title (Exhibit 24). During that review he learned of a Federal tax lien against the property in the amount of $50,420.74. He determined that the foreclosure proceedings against the Sellers were initiated on November 12, 2002 and verified that there was a lien stemming from the pending civil case against the Sellers in Lake County. At that time the Buyers Attorney requested another extension (Exhibit 25).

On January 25, 2003 the Buyers were informed by their Agent that the Listing Agent had implied "the Seller may not be able to go through with the deal because they feel there isn’t enough money from the sale price to pay off the bank, pay closing costs and provide a credit for the sewer work." The Buyers Agent also informed them that she had learned that someone at Griffith, Grant and Lackie had ordered a copy of the property title.

On January 27, 2003, their Agent informed the Buyers that her office manager had received a voice mail message from the Listing Agent’s office manager. The message implied that the Listing Agent’s manager "was unaware of any difficulties with the sale of the property and didn’t understand why the deal might not go through."

On January 28, 2003 the Buyers Attorney notified the Sellers Attorney that he had been given authorization by the Sellers to assist in any way possible in resolving the financial and legal issues pending with the sale of the property. He also stated that it was imperative that the issues with the mortgage foreclosure payoff and civil suite against the Sellers be resolved (Exhibit 26).

On January 30, 2003, the Buyers Attorney notified the Sellers Attorney that the Buyers were terminating the Contract due to the title defects that currently exist and cannot be resolved (Exhibit 27). Their Attorney told the Buyers that according to the Sellers Attorney, "The husband and wife are too busy fighting over the divorce to come to any agreement on how to handle the short sale negotiations with the lender. Therefore, we cannot resolve the issue of the foreclosure nor can they come to any agreement on how to handle the escrow or credit for resolving the sewer issue."

On February 23, 2003, the Buyer anonymously contacted Griffith, Grant and Lackie to determine the current status of the property. Lisa Trace, an agent for the company told the Buyer, that the house was on the market for $479,000. She went on to say that the house had been off the market for a while because it was under contract, however "the buyers couldn’t get their financing together so the deal fell apart."