view as gDoc

2/5/2025

Dear Class Action Attorney and other interested parties, 

All contracts in California, and the US,  are formed with the same basic consent requirements, in the following order: 

representations - reliance - offer - acceptance  ( RROA )

When that process is followed, torts for fraud to induce a contract , labeled as "misrepresentation", "concealment of fact" or "false promise" are easy to pursue if  facts are discovered during the executory period or after full execution that differ from representations.  All Contract Formation Law and Misrepresentation/Concealment Law is rooted in this simple concept of RROA.

Real Estate Brokers in California, since 1985 have been executing real estate contracts for buyers and sellers with the following protocol:

offer - acceptance - representations   (OAR)

This situation can be described as a "commercial hoax" .   For Cause of Action purposes it might be considered "mistake of law" , or misrepresentation/concealment of legal fact,  racketeering, and anti-trust, among others. 

In 1985, CA CIV 1102 was created, and it mandated statutory seller disclosure documents with seller representations on them. 

CIV 1102.6 defines the prose for the TDS (Transfer Disclosure Statement) and the SPQ (Seller Property Questionnaire).   

When the process was implemented, instead of delivering  the TDS and SPQ to buyers during bid consideration for reliance and proper ascent to contract formation, the documents were delivered after acceptance. 

We can offer numerous possible reasons for the intentional inversion of process at that time, but they are all just speculative. 

We can provide at least two names of licensed real estate professionals today who we feel may know more about the origins and reasons for the original inversion, albeit they may not be co-operative.

In the 1993-1994 time frame, this problematic situation was seemingly recognized by California Courts and the CA Legislature, as evidenced by the prose in CIV 1102.1. The legislature provides a clarifying statement reference to the Loughrin v Superior Court case precedent.  

By 1994, the fraudulent processes had been transpiring for more than 7 years, and the Brokers did not make changes to process to correct the hoax. 

 We can speculate no changes were made by the Brokers due to 1) the exposure they may have had then with years of prior fraud under their belt and/or 2) the benefits it was providing them were simply too attractive to give up.  

At that time there would have been no plan for how they might exit the hoax someday, and it's now 30 years later. 

Nature of Fraud/Hoax

1. CA 1102.6 defines the The TDS and SPQ prose.  

   1. 1. The TDS and SPQ state they have "representations of the seller" on them

2. CA 1102.3 states the TDS is due at a time "practicable and prior to transfer of title".

   1. 1. The Brokers took up a position that "transfer of title" happened at "close of escrow" even though their standard contracts state or suggest transfer of title transpires at time of contract acceptance (beginning of escrow)

      2. The only way for this to "legally fly" in context of RROA would be if no contract was in fact formed at time of acceptance which is not a viable defense

3. Thankfully, CA 1102.8 states parties still must "avoid fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit in the transfer transaction" but that clause has been ignored by brokers and attorneys reprsenting them and sellers. 

4. The CAR (California Association of Realtors) Approved Contracts used by the brokers has a veiled suggestion of process in clause 14A that incorrectly suggests the TDS and SPQ are due to buyers AFTER acceptance, which is properly defined in the contract templates. 

   1. 1. The Brokers and Agents are then using the CAR contracts to justify their behavior

5. The CAR (California Association of Realtors) Approved Contracts used by the brokers have a voidable clause in 14F that suggests a buyer must accept all liability for all conditions known at time of condition contingency removal whether they were properly represented prior to acceptance or not

6. The CAR (California Association of Realtors) Approved Contracts used by the brokers advertise their own mediation company by name directly in the contracts, and thus they can benefit from the confusion (too). 

The Documents wee have to prove this

1. Our TDS and SPQ on page 1 state these are "representations of the seller"

2. Our contract, inclusive of Clauses 14A and 14F

3. Our Transction Documents that show his is how the transction was executed

4. A single training document from Coldwell Banker, obtained during Discvoery of a Civil suite that shows this is the process Coldwell Banker expects new sales people to follow for buyer clients. (discovered in january 2025)

We currently believe over 1 TRILLION $'s in transactions have transpired under this broken brokerage system and commercial hoax. 

In order to make sure there was no other obscure defenses, we engaged Coldwell Banker in a single lawsuit and probed the Anywhere Real Estate Corporate Attorney numerous different ways, in writing only, to see what he could produce. 

He was only able to attempt to confuse and misdirect attention. 

In fact, the office he is operating out of use to be the Coldwell Banker NRT office and we have found facts to support the idea that one of the ex Attorneys from that office has been a "ring leader" in supporting and perpetuating the hoax since the 1990s and this attorney overlapped with her employment there by 6 months or more, so he may have been her replacement. 

We were forced to file that complaint against Coldwell Banker in Pro Se because attorneys initially seemed too confused by their behavior to try to pursue it and/or they were clearly more interested in profiting from the deceit long term and/or keeping the attention away from the legal lobby failure that this represents. 

Statute of Limitations

1. We are currently 3 years and 9 months since our transaction. 

2. Contract disputes in CA have a 4 year statute.  Can this be wrapped into a lawsuit against the seller, because he funded both brokers and the contract template provided for use was from him and benefitted him?  

3. We were actively mislead by Attorneys for almost 3 years and we marek our actual "discovery" of case precedents and facts which refuted legal lobby feedback as 2/14/2024.  Might that work?

4. We were actively mislead by the the Anywhere Real Estate Attorney in the past 6 months,  which we have documented in writing. Might that  work?

5. The discovery of the document that showed it was a policy for Coldwell Banker was in January 2025.  prior to that they could have claimed (and did claim) there were no rules for discovery.  

The purpose of this website is to educate class action attorneys and others on the situation and attempt to obtain representation for one or more of the several class action opportunities we believe are available.  

The opportunities for class action that exist are straight forward.  Below is an expanded introduction to the primary fraud, followed by a full list of the class action opportunities.  

Please reach out if you have interest. 

Bryan and Holly
bryan@bryancanary.com

The only three documents required to prove the class action for fraud against all CA Brokerages, Brokers and Salsepersons since 1985 are:

1. The TDS itself

2. The SPQ itself

3. PW000614, a document obtained via discovery. 

In addition to these , the next level for support documents would seem to be: 

1. Our Transaction Documents to show this is , in fact, the procedure they followed. 

2. Emails with the Coldwell Banker Broker and VP weeks into escrow asking about delivery timing of these documents once a brokerage involved  fix up and disclosure fraud scheme had been exposed. during escrow.  

3. Emails with Coldwell Banker Attorney (Anywhere RE Attorney) attempting to explain the delayed delivery as being the  right of the Seller due to CA 1102.3 , with no consideration for the "practicable" clause in CA 1102.3 , no consideration for CA 1102.8 which stated ~ "nothing about representation requirements changes",  or  CA 1102.1, the addendum in 1994 to try to encourage proper behavior once it was realized people were not behaving properly.  

1. My partner and I were buyers of an $895k home in Spring 2021 in Monterey Bay CA.  

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

3. The TDS is a 3 page document, the SPQ is a 4 page document, and they were brought into being in 1985 via CIV 1102.

   1. 1. The TDS and SPQ should be filled out by a seller and presented to the listing broker prior to engaging in a listing agreement so the listing Broker knows what the seller is selling and so he/she can support proper dialogue about pricing and marketing prior to engaging in a relationship.  

      2. If not filled out prior to creating a listing agreement, they certainly must be filled out prior to finalizing price and listing a home to ensure the broker knows what it is marketing. 

      3. The TDS and SPQ should be given to the Buyers prior to making an offer for consideration and reliance, because "that's what 'seller representations' are for".

4. Coldwell Banker, Keller Williams  and all other Brokers have been engaging in a long standing commercial scheme / hoax,  by holding back the TDS and SPQ from Buyers until AFTER  a contract is formed. Imagine this dialogue and then imagine, it's not far fetched in California...

   1. 1. Potential Buyer - "Does the hot tub out back go with the property and does it work?"  

      2. Buyers Salesperson - "I don't know.  If you make an offer on the property and it gets accepted, we'll find out when we get their TDS"

5. The behavior is "bat-shit-crazy" at face value, but the brokers and salespeople have seemingly been doing it since 1985. 

   1. 1. At this time, we can only presume any honest attorneys who learned of this inverted business practice were simply so confused by it they didn't know how to address it.  

      2. At this time, we can only presume the honest but confused attorneys presumed the brokers must have had some obscure legal support or seriously nefarious defense strategies for the "bat-shit-crazy" behavior, and they realized fighting the largest Brokerages within the constraints of professional legal conduct was a losing battle.   

6. We've engaged in a lawsuit with our Coldwell Banker Transaction Coordinator and 8 other transaction related participants. 

7. We've forced written dialogue with the Coldwell Banker Attorney (an Anywhere Real Estate in-house Attorney), and others which shows they do NOT have any proper legal basis for the company / industry policy related to holding back representations of sellers until after ratifying a contract.   

   1. 1. For support of their inverted practice, the Anywhere Real Estate Attorney has used a debatable statement for delivery in CA 1102.3 related to title transfer timing,  while ignoring a statement of fact in the residential purchase agreement in Clause 13B that clarifies proper delivery timing in context of CA 1102.3 instructions.   

      2. They have also been ignoring instructions for "practicable" behavior in 1102.3 

      3. HOWEVER, the key to unlocking this that avoids the title transfer confusion, is the over-arching instructions in CIV 1102.8 which state nothing about instructions for delivery in 1102.3 should override any requirements to properly "represent" to avoid "misrepresentation". 

      4. Thus, we need to review exactly what "representations" are and exactly when they are due -- in an almost a childlike manner given this has all been so convoluted -- and that's where this behavior by Coldwell Banker and their legal department comes unraveled quickly.  

8. To understand "representation law", "misrepresentation", and the long standing fraud in this scheme, only one question needs to be asked and answered... 

   1. 1. "When was a contract made / formed / created ? "

9. Thankfully this contract has a definition for "Acceptance" that is perfectly aligned with the definition for "Acceptance" in the CA Code and Statutes, which defines contract formation at the time of "Acceptance" which is the time all seller and buyer signatures are on the offer or counter offer and it's clear, that Acceptance must transpire "unconditionally".  

10. Thus for "representations" to be "representations", as opposed to statements of material fact provided after they were useful for understanding what was being contracted on,    the TDS and SPQ had to be delivered to buyers during their Bid Consideration process, just as all who are still thinking clearly would have expected to start with. 

    1. 1. From our perspective, this has been a massive commercial hoax run on the buying public with driving force from the largest corporate brokerages since 1985.  There are numerous possible motives for implementing it and numerous benefits to them today for continuing the practice. 

       2. While this pales in comparison to the vaccine hoax that's been run on the public since the pharma companies were given full immunity in the 1980s and it pales in comparison to the NASA hoax, this one is still not small at all. 

       3. We estimate 1 Trillion $ or more in CA real estate transactions may have transpired with an inverted processes for representation statement delivery , BUT WAIT, theres MORE!!

1. During this exposure process, we have exposed a lot more than just this fraud... 

   1. 1. During this process we have also exposed the use of illegal transaction coordinators, which helped corporate brokerages scale in a manner that was not and is not legal. 

      2. During this process we have also exposed an improper association(s) between Brokers and a national home inspection company who has gone a few steps too far in using the Brokers as salespeople for their organization.  

      3. During this process we have also identified excessive confusion in the three contracts in use in CA. The one we used was "approved" by CAR (the California Association of Realtors) but not warrantied in any transaction -- and in that contract template, CAR advertised their  dispute resolution services to resolve illogical disputes they created, AND those transpire under full confidentiality, so no one knew what was going on. We also identify the only CA Attorney who sits on all three contract review board in CA, and brags of that role. She is an ex Coldwell Banker in house Attorney who worked in the same office as the far younger Anywhere Real Estate Attorney who has been involved in this exposure. 

Please see the other pages on this website. Please reach out with questions or interest.