1. The TDS (Transfer Disclosure Statement) and SPQ (Seller Property Questionnaire) are statutory disclosure documents with "representations" of the seller on them. 

2. On 3/18/2021 the seller and seller's salesperson partially signed the Seller's TDS even though there were material questions unanswered.

3. On 3/18/2021 the seller signed the SPQ, even though it was with material questions unanswered. 

4. On 3/18/2021 the person facilitating and controlling the document signature process was a transaction coordinator that was working for the Seller's Salesperson directly, and was NOT affiliated with the seller's Brokerage ( highly illegal...). 

5. On 3/26/2021 we viewed the home for a second time and then indicated we wanted to make an offer.  Our salesperson was provided a pre-sale home inspection report, a pre-sale termite report and responses to questions about utilities.  We were NOT provided the TDS and SPQ. 

   1. 1. We were aware the TDS and SPQ were part of the CA Transaction process, because we had asked to review all transaction document templates before we found a home to purchase.   

      2. During our preliminary document review process, we noted veiled and confusing instructions for delivery of the TDS and SPQ. 

      3. We asked if they would be given to us prior to forming a contract. 

      4. We we were told by Licensed Salespeople and a Broker with decades of experience that CA Law did not require the seller to give them to us before ratifying / forming / creating / making a contract -- yet none could seemingly explain what we were to expect to be delivered at end of escrow without those, now how misrepresentation worked.  

6. On 3/27/2021 we relied on the representations in the pre-sale reports, and we made an offer without the TDS and SPQ. 

7. On 3/30/2021 "Acceptance" transpired in our Transaction when we signed the counter offer from the Seller. "Acceptance" is defined in the contract as the time seller and buyer have both signed an offer or counter offer. Per the CA DRE reference book and common sense, "Acceptance" is defined as the time a contract is "made" and that idea of "Acceptance" seems to be universal to all contract law.  

   1. 1. In our offer,  we opted to retain our condition contingency kick out and the seller agreed to that.  

      2. The condition contingency kickout was/is  a unilateral kick out option for us. 

      3. HOWEVER,  according to Coldwell Banker and Keller Williams, the seller could make or modify representations during  our condition contingency period or even after it,  without misrepresentation consequences.  

      4. Their position was and is that the TDS does not become relevant for reliance until the close of escrow, even though the agreement to contract had to be subject to representations, even though Jue v Smiser states when reliance is relevant and even thought he CA Bar put on seminars in 2011 and 2019 addressing Acceptance as the time relevant for reliance for misrepresentation. 

      5. There's no law or logic that supports their position.  This is simply a hoax that outlived it's protection and now those engaged in commerce are just using a "crime pays" model to continue something that should have been stopped a long time ago. 

      6. Although not needed, the Jue v Smiser case precedent from 1994 reinforces Acceptance as the time representations are due.   Jue v Smiser as a case precedent was unique for supporting  reliance at time of acceptance for a  "non remediable" misrepresentation found during escrow vs a  "remediable" defect that is easy to value.   

8. On 4/1/2021 we were presented the TDS and SPQ with statements of material fact on them that could not and can not be considered representations of the seller, given they were provided after a contract was formed.  

   1. 1. In our case, something that made this all far worse was the fact the TDS and SPQ were delivered patently incomplete, with answers to items related to mold and properly flooding simply blank, as well as other answers to material questions and other missing signatures.  

      2. This is where concerns with the transaction coordinator who was not affiliated with Keller Williams are relevant as well as broker supervision for a non-retained person as the custodian for documents for a $900k transaction.  

9. From 4/3/2021 through 4/82021, we performed our own inspections to "confirm" the "representations" of the seller. 

   1. 1. To be clear, escrow inspections are not intended to "find facts" that  should have been represented by the seller, they are to "confirm" representations of the seller were accurate. The contract formation process is a 'trust but verify" process, with the trust put into the representations. 

10. From 4/3/2021 through 4/82021, we discovered over $80k in misrepresentations that were easy to identify in our inspections. 

    1. 1. The misrepresentations were obvious and it was obvious they had been intentional and coordinated. 

       2. In many cases, the same defects were overlooked by  both of the sellers pre-sale inspectors and also  not disclosed by seller and sellers agent.  

       3. It was obvious the seller, seller's agent and the pre-sale inspectors believed or wanted us to believe that they could induce a high offer with misrepresentations,  and then as as long as we found misrepresentations during escrow we'd either have to accept them or drop out so they could run the scheme again. 

       4. During this discovery process,  all real estate sales people on both sides of the transaction insisted this was just "how business was done in CA" .

11. On 5/13/2021 we closed escrow knowing of about 80k in what we deemed misrepresentation that all professionals suggested was just "part of business in CA". 

    1. 1. In the first few weeks after close of escrow, escrow we found concealed mold, concealed structural defects and misrepresentations related to standing water on the property and utility bills. . 

       2. Those are not part of these class actions directly,  but it's those additional losses that forced us to consider legal remedies to a far greater degree. 

12. From June 2021 through February 2024 we reached out to over 80 attorneys , directly and or in bulk. 

    1. 1. No one would admit this scheme to induce a contract without representations was illegal nor that "faking conditions" in pre-sale reports in a manner that was easy to uncover in escrow was illegal.  

       2. It's unclear how many Attorneys knew it was illegal vs how many were just so confused by the behavior of Coldwell Banker and Keller Williams they simply did not want to make a statement. 

       3. Sometime in 2022 we connected the CA 1102.3 delivery instructions for the TDS with  Contract Clause 13B  and we felt by doing that,  we had proven the brokers were acting illegally,  but several attorneys told us 13B was not in fact a valid clause with seemingly no sound support, however.   

       4. In February 2024 we eventually discovered Jue v Smiser case precedent in the Salinas Law Library on our own and that led to two publishing's related to the SF CA Bar Real Estate Section in 2011 and 2019 that properly address this situation. 

13. In April 2024, after gaining confidence from the Jue v Smiser precedent we started filing lawsuits in Pro Se, because no one would support us.  

    1. 1. We filed 6 lawsuits against 8 people originally and we learned quickly why no attorneys could be confident in the CA Superior Court System with anything other than one page complaints.  

       2. However,  we "figured out" we did not have to make it through pleadings to start discovery and that's how we obtained all emails and documents from most of the defendants.  

Below are a list of the possible class actions we feel we could support as lead plaintiffs give the facts in our transactions combined with the documents we've obtained in Discovery.