Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 1 of 22 NO. DC-14-05936 I-BEAM HOLDINGS LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § PLAINTIFF, § § v. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS BARBARA MATTHEWS, § VIRGINIA COOK REALTORS, § LLC, & MARGARITA SALAZAR, § § DEFENDANTS. § JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION Plaintiff I-Beam Holdings LLC files its First Amended Petition against Virginia Cook Realtors, LLC (“Virginia Cook Realtors”) Barbara Matthews (“Matthews” or “Seller’s Agent”), Shelia Rice (“Rice”), Sherri Baer Wilson (“Wilson”) (collectively, “VC Defendants”), and Margarita Salazar (“Salazar”), and in support shows the following: I. CASE SUMMARY You don’t have to go to law school to understand the basics of contract law because its principles revolve around elementary concepts of morality we learn during childhood: (1) Don’t break promises; (2) Don’t lie; and (3) Don’t cheat others. Virginia Cook Realtors and the individual defendants all defied these basic moral obligations by engaging in a
Siegel Law Group represents I-Beam Holdings in Lawsuit Against Virginia Cook Reators for Fraud and Texas Real Estate Commission Violations
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 1 of 22
NO. DC-14-05936
I-BEAM HOLDINGS LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § PLAINTIFF, § § v. § § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS BARBARA MATTHEWS, § VIRGINIA COOK REALTORS, § LLC, & MARGARITA SALAZAR, § § DEFENDANTS. § JURY DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED PETITION
Plaintiff I-Beam Holdings LLC files its First Amended Petition
against Virginia Cook Realtors, LLC (“Virginia Cook Realtors”) Barbara
Matthews (“Matthews” or “Seller’s Agent”), Shelia Rice (“Rice”), Sherri
Baer Wilson (“Wilson”) (collectively, “VC Defendants”), and Margarita
Salazar (“Salazar”), and in support shows the following:
I. CASE SUMMARY
You don’t have to go to law school to understand the basics of
contract law because its principles revolve around elementary concepts of
morality we learn during childhood: (1) Don’t break promises; (2) Don’t lie;
and (3) Don’t cheat others. Virginia Cook Realtors and the individual
defendants all defied these basic moral obligations by engaging in a
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 2 of 22
campaign of fraud to steal Plaintiff’s residence to sell to a higher bidder.
Defendants had only one justification for their actions: MAKING MONEY
AT ANY COST.
Defendants all played a significant role in cheating Plaintiff out of the
property. Margarita Salazar broke her promise to sell the residence and
shadily entered into a second illegal contract to sell it to a higher bidder.
Her broken promises and shady behavior, however, pale in comparison to
the reprehensible actions of Barbara Matthews and her cohorts over at
Virginia Cook Realtors. Matthews—determined to sell to the highest bidder
to boost her commission—circumvented Plaintiff’s real estate agent and
continually lied to Plaintiff’s face to effectively steal Property rights.
The leaders of Virginia Cook Realtors leadership also took their own
stabs to induce Plaintiff to walk away from the residence. When confronted
by Plaintiff regarding Matthews’ acts, Virginia Cook Realtors leaders
Virginia Cook and Shelia Rice failed to inform Plaintiff about the existence
of the second illegal contract or that Virginia Cook Realtors had unilaterally
and ineffectively filed a termination of sale. Shelia Rice instead attempted
to trick Plaintiff into walking away so her company could collect its profits,
deceptively telling Plaintiff: “I hope that you will soon have a successful
transaction and pleasure in a new home.”
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 3 of 22
While these shady tactics may have worked with past customers,
Virginia Cook Realtors didn’t count on Plaintiff’s determination. Despite
Virginia Cook Realtors’ repeated failures to tell Plaintiff about the second
illegal contract or the unilateral termination, Plaintiff’s President, Steve
Tortolani, uncovered the extent of the company’s deception after days of
diligent search.
Defendants forced Plaintiff into filing the instant lawsuit to protect his
interests and let the world know about Virginia Cook Realtors’ reprehensible
actions. Contract law exists to protect unsuspecting consumers from
predatory businesses that lie, cheat, and steal to profit off others’
misfortunes. Plaintiff files the instant suit to send a message to Virginia
Cook Realtors: You will never again victimize Dallas citizens to make a
quick buck.
II. DISCOVERY LEVEL
Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of the Texas
Rules of Civil Procedure.
III. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Plaintiff I-Beam Holdings LLC is a limited liability company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Individual Defendant Margarita Salazar entered into the contract at
entitling Plaintiff to buy the real estate located at 2218 Moser Lane, Dallas,
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 4 of 22
TX 75225, (“Property”) that serves as the basis of this suit. On information
and belief, Salazar resides in Prosper, TX and may be served at 5701
Colchester Drive, Prosper, TX 75078, or wherever she may be found.
On information and belief, Defendant Barbara Matthews is an
individual residing in Dallas, Texas, who may be served at her place of
business, 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 110, Dallas, TX 75225.
On information and belief, Defendant Shelia Rice is an individual
residing in Dallas, Texas, who may be served at her place of business, 5950
Sherry Lane, Suite 110, Dallas, TX 75225.
On information and belief, Defendant Sherri Baer Wilson is an
individual residing in Dallas, Texas, who may be served at her place of
business, 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 110, Dallas, TX 75225.
Defendant Virginia Cook Realtors, LLC (“Virginia Cook”) is a
limited liability company headquartered in Texas. Virginia Cook Realtors,
LLC may be served with process through its registered agent Virginia Cook
at 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 110, Dallas, TX 75225.
Subject matter jurisdiction and venue exists in this Court because
Plaintiff seeks damages that exceed this Court’s jurisdictional limits and the
incident in question occurred in this County.
IV. FACTS
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 5 of 22
A. Plaintiff and Salazar Form Original Contract
On Friday April 18, 2014, Plaintiff’s real estate agent Debra Ford
(“Plaintiff’s Agent”) submitted an offer to Seller’s Agent to buy Salazar’s
Property using Texas Real Estate Commission contract form #20-11. The
tentative contract included a May 9, 2014 closing date and a buyer-side
termination option period of 8 days from the Contract’s effective date.
On Monday April 21, 2014, Seller’s Agent sent Plaintiff’s Agent an
executed copy of the contract. (“Contract”) At the same time, Matthews
asked Plaintiff’s Agent whether Plaintiff intended to close on the property
because other parties had submitted offers following Contract execution.
Plaintiff’s Agent reassured Matthews that Plaintiff intended to close on May
9, 2014.
B. Relevant Contractual Terms The Contract contains two provisions at issue. Seller’s Agent heavily
on these two provisions in her attempts to induce Plaintiff to break the
Contract. The first provision, entitled “Termination Option,” states the
following:
23. TERMINATION OPTION: For nominal consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by Seller, the Buyer’s agreement to pay seller $80.00 (Option Fee) within two days after the effective date of this contract, seller grants the buyer the unrestricted right to terminate this contract by giving notice of termination within 8 days after the effective date of this
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 6 of 22
contract (Option Period). If no dollar amount is stated as the Option Fee or if buyer fails to pay the Option Fee to Seller within the time prescribed, this paragraph will not be a part of this contract and Buyer shall not have the unrestricted right to terminate this contract. . . .
(emphasis added). The second provision, entitled “Earnest Money,” states as follows:
5. EARNEST MONEY. Upon execution of the contract by all the parties, Buyer shall deposit $2,000 as earnest money with HexterFair, as escrow agent, at 11661 Preston 200 214 987-3328 (address). . . .
C. Plaintiff Remits Earnest Money and Termination Option Fee
On April 23, 2014 at 8:30 a.m., Plaintiff paid the contractually
required $2,000 in earnest money (“Earnest Money”) to Hexter-Fair First
American Title (“Title Company”), and in return received a receipted, fully
executed copy of the contract from Title Company.
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff drove to the offices of Virginia Cook
Realtors to remit the discretionary, buyer-side $80 option fee. (“Option
Fee”) Plaintiff presented the Option Fee, but Matthews refused to accept
Plaintiff’s payment. Matthews instead surprised Plaintiff by indicating that
seller had decided to “terminate the contract” because Plaintiff option fee
and earnest money payments had arrived “too late.”
D. Matthews’ Specific Fabrications and Misrepresentations When She Denied the Allegedly Tardy Option Fee Payment
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 7 of 22
Matthews made the following fabrications and misrepresentations
when she denied the allegedly tardy Option Fee payment on April 23, 2014
to induce Plaintiff to break or walk away from the contract:
• Matthews indicated that her client had decided to terminate the Contract because Plaintiff failed to pay the Termination Option Fee within two days of Contract effective date
• Matthews claims that the Contract effective date is April 19, 2014 and that Plaintiff’s payment of the termination option fee was more than two days late and therefore grounds for Seller to terminate the Contract
• Matthews informs Plaintiff that the earnest money payment is
also unacceptably late, and therefore grounds for Seller to terminate the Contract.
• Tortolani argues with Matthews’ assertions, but Matthews
responds by stating Tortolani is mistaken. She indicates reiterates that the Seller has the right to terminate the contract and she is refusing the option fee payment.
Tortolani, respecting the real estate expert’s analysis, eventually stopped
refuting her claims and ultimately responded with silence. Tortolani then
advised his agent of the developments. Plaintiff’s Agent indicated that she
had no idea about the termination because Seller’s Agent had not contacted
her since receiving the executed Contract only two days earlier.
E. Seller’s Agent Files Termination Notice Despite Plaintiff’s Payment of the Earnest Money
Despite prompt payment of both the Option Fee and Earnest Money
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 8 of 22
on the morning of April 23, 2014, Seller’s Broker filed a “Notice of Seller’s
Termination of Contract” later the same day.1 The Notice suspiciously
indicates, “Buyer has not submitted Earnest Money in accordance with the
contract,” despite payment of the same before normal business hours.
Seller’s Agent, at no time whatsoever, advised Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s Agent
about this Notice. She instead left Plaintiff to discover the document’s
existence after Seller had sold off Plaintiff’s property through the second
illegal contract.
F. Plaintiff Takes Action Following His Conversation with Seller’s Agent to Protect His Property Interests
In response to Matthews’ claims and in an effort to protect Plaintiff’s
interests, Tortolani took the following actions on April 23, 2014:
• He emailed the Title Company to advise it of the recent developments, express his belief that Matthews inappropriately interfered with the Contract, and inquire about whether the Title Company had already received a second contract on Plaintiff’s purchased Property.
• He emailed Matthews to inform her of his position: (1) the Property remains under contract, and (2) he did not deliver the Option Fee or Earnest Money too late. He indicates his frustration over her attempts to force him out of contractual compliance.
• He emailed Matthews’ bosses at Virginia Cook realtors,
including Virginia Cook and Shelia Rice, to inform them 1 Plaintiff has suspicions that VC Defendants fraudulently entered the execution date of April 23, 2014 indicated on this Notice of Termination.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 9 of 22
of the developments and indicates that he would pursue legal action if necessary
• Later that evening, he attempted to drop off the
Termination Option Fee to the Seller at the Property. A neighbor advises that Salazar no longer lives at the Property and phone her. Tortolani speaks with Salazar, advising that he was attempting to deliver the termination option fee; Salazar indicated that she would inform Ms. Matthews about his desire to make the payment.
• Around 9 o’clock that night, Matthews contacted
Tortolani by phone and reiterates that Tortolani had delivered the Termination Option Fee and Earnest Money too late, that this constituted lack of performance, and that Seller had a right to terminate the Contract. Matthews expresses that her client has received other offers.
Tortolani concluded the phone call believing that Matthews—a real estate
professional with many years of experience—had conveyed the truth about
Plaintiff’s rights under the contract, including that: (1) Seller had the right to
terminate the contract; and (2) Plaintiff’s Contract no longer had any lawful
effect. The real reason behind Matthews’ deceptive statements soon became
clear: She needed to induce Plaintiff to break the Contract after selling the
Property to another party in a second illegal contract.
G. Tortolani Uncovers Matthew’s Lies
On April 25, 2014, Tortolani called a knowledgeable friend to inquire
about his rights and whether Seller’s Agent had again attempted to
wrongfully induce him out of the deal. The friend indicated that Seller’s
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 10 of 22
agent had in fact given him legally false information and had taken
advantage of his limited TREC contract knowledge. Armed with new
information, Tortolani spoke with the Title Company who concurred with
his friend’s assessment: the Contract still had legal force because the parties
could not terminate the agreement without mutual consent.
Tortolani proceeded to email Matthews to relay the information.
Matthews—likely deciding to keep the conversation off the “record”—
phoned Tortolani to discuss the issue. Matthews’ conveyed that she had
received an offer significantly higher than the Plaintiff’s Contract price and
claimed: “I thought we had resolved this issue and agreed this contract was
terminated.” Tortolani—fed up with Matthews’ antics—finally accuses
Matthews of lies. Matthews never—at any time—indicated that she had
actually sold the property to another party or formally filed a unilateral
Notice of Termination. She instead, left Plaintiff in the dark: Tortolani only
later found out that she had already entered the property into the second
illegal contract at the time of the conversation.
H. VC Defendants Band Together To Induce Plaintiff to Break the Contract
As previously mentioned, Steve Tortolani contacted the leaders of
Virginia Cook Realtors, Virginia Cook and Shelia Rice, on April 23, 2014 to
inform them about the developments. In response to Plaintiff’s plea for help,
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 11 of 22
Shelia Rice simply and covertly Contract’s validity, concluding her email
response by indicating: “I hope that you will soon have a successful
transaction and pleasure in a new home.” Wilson took a different approach
by informing Plaintiff that she would work with a mutual friend to
ameliorate the situation. Wilson, however, took no action and instead stood
by Matthews’ actions. On information and belief, she made the false
indication that she would provide help as a ploy to distract Plaintiff and
cause it to breach the Contract through non-performance.
Plaintiff communicated with at least four individuals at Virginia Cook
Realtors who knew about the second illegal contract and the unilateral
termination notice. These individuals—including individuals who compose
the supposed leadership of the company—never divulged the existence of
either document. They instead stood by Matthews, left plaintiff in the dark,
and provided Plaintiff with misleading information in a concerted effort to
induce Plaintiff to break his contract.
I. Tortolani Fulfills his Obligations
On April 28, 2014, the Title Company advises Plaintiff that it received
Sellers’ Notice of Termination dated April 23, 2014. It, however, also
informed Plaintiff that it would not honor the termination because it lacked
mutual consent of the parties. Based on the Title Company’s assessment,
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 12 of 22
Tortolani continued to prepare for the May 9, 2014 closing date. In order to
preserve Plaintiff’s legal rights, Tortolani filed a tender of performance on
May 5, 2014 and on May 6, 2014 informed the title company working on the
second illegal contract about the his Contract’s existence.
Despite always playing by the book, Plaintiff continues to bear the
harsh ramifications of Defendants’ deceptive actions. Defendants have left
Plaintiff without the Property, caused Plaintiff to lose a valuable investor
due to the failed deal, and have caused the second buyer to threaten Plaintiff
with lawsuits.
V. CAUSES OF ACTION A. Breach of Contract: Salazar
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs. Plaintiff alleges that: (1) Plaintiff and Salazar
entered into the Contract; (2) the parties never terminated the Contract
through conduct or language, and (3) Salazar breached the Contract by not
fulfilling her contractual obligations.
Defendants’ breach caused injury to plaintiff, resulting in damages,
including lost profits and damage to the Plaintiff’s business
reputation/goodwill damages.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 13 of 22
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks a judgment for specific
performance of the Contract and a Court Order requiring Seller to execute
and deliver the Property to Plaintiff pursuant to the Contract.
Plaintiff will make his elect between the remedy of specific
performance and damages following a verdict on the merits of this case.
Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent applicable to his claims for
relief.
B. Tortious Interference with Existing Contract: Matthews and Virginia Cook Realtors
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs.
Plaintiff alleges that Matthews acted in her individual capacity. In the
alternative, Plaintiff alleges that Matthews served as the agent, servant and
employee of Virginia Cook Realtors. Further, she took the actions
complained of in this Petition within the scope of their employment in
furtherance of Virginia Cook Realtors’ business interests.
Pleading further, and in the alternative if necessary, Plaintiff alleges
that Matthews had full awareness of the contractual relationship between
Plaintiff and Salazar, (“Relationship”) including that the contract obliged
Salazar to sell the Property to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 14 of 22
Despite her awareness of the Relationship, Matthews willfully and
intentionally interfered with the Relationship by inducing Plaintiff to breach
the Contract and hindering Plaintiff’s ability to fulfill its contractual
obligations. Matthews had no legitimate right, justification, or excuse for her
interference. Matthews’ actions proximately injured Plaintiff and caused
damages, including lost profits, loss of goodwill, and loss of reputation
damages.
Moreover, Matthews committed the above actions intentionally,
knowingly and with callous disregard for Plaintiff’s legitimate rights. Her
principal, Virginia Cook Realtors, ratified and/or approved these actions,
entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages against Matthews and Virginia
Cook Realtors.
C. Aiding and Abetting Matthews’ Tortious Interference with Existing Contract: Wilson, Rice, and Virginia Cook Realtors
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs.
Plaintiff alleges that Wilson and Rice acted in their individual
capacities. In the alternative, Plaintiff alleges that they served as the agents,
servants and/or employees of Virginia Cook Realtors. Further, Wilson and
Rice took the actions complained of in this Petition within the scope of their
employment in furtherance of Virginia Cook Realtors’ business interests.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 15 of 22
Further, and in the alternative if necessary, Wilson and Rice (1) knew
that Matthews’ tortious interference with the Relationship constituted a tort;
(2) intended to assist Matthews in committing the tort; (3) gave Matthews
assistance and/or encouragement in committing the tort; and (4) the
assistance and/or encouragement constituted a substantial factor in causing
the tort.
Wilson and Rice’s actions proximately injured Plaintiff and caused
damages, including lost profits, loss of goodwill, and loss of reputation
damages.
Moreover, Wilson and Rice committed the above actions
intentionally, knowingly and with callous disregard to Plaintiff’s legitimate
rights. Their principal, Virginia Cook Realtors, ratified and/or approved
these actions, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages against Rice, Wilson
and Virginia Cook Realtors.
D. Tortious Interference with Prospective Contract: Matthews and Virginia Cook Realtors
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in
the preceding paragraphs.
Pleading further, and in the alternative if necessary, Plaintiff alleges
that a reasonable probability existed that it would have entered into a fully
enforceable contractual relationship with Salazar for the Property, but for
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 16 of 22
Matthews’ intentional interference with the Relationship, which
(21), and (27). Most glaringly, all VC Defendants violated Section (b)(21),
which disallows real estate brokers and agents from “induc[ing] or
attempt[ing] to induce a party to a contract of sale . . . to break the contract
for the purpose of substituting a new contract.”
RELA is intended to protect to protect the public and specifically
residential real estate purchasers from the types of actions taken by the VC
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 20 of 22
Defendants. Plaintiff, as a residential real estate purchaser, belongs to the
class of persons the RELA statute seeks to protect. VC Defendants’
violations of RELA constitute negligence per se, which proximately caused
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, including damages for lost profits, loss of
goodwill, and loss of reputation.
Moreover, all individual VC Defendants made took the above
referenced actions intentionally, knowingly and with callous disregard for
Plaintiff’s legitimate rights. Their principal, Virginia Cook Realtors, ratified
and/or approved these actions, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages
against all the VC Defendants.
VI. ATTORNEY’S FEES
Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees
under the provisions of the Contract as set out in section 17, which provides:
The Buyer, Seller, Listing Broker, Other Broker, or escrow agent who prevails in any legal proceeding related to the contract is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and all costs of such proceedings.
Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 38.0001(8) of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code in regards to its breach of
contract claims against Salazar.
VII. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 21 of 22
Defendants disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the
information or material described in Rule 194.2.
VIII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a jury trial and will tender the applicable jury fee
following the filing of this Petition.
IX. PRAYER
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court cite Defendants to appear
and award Plaintiff judgment against the Defendants for the following:
a) Specific Performance;
b) Monetary Relief of over $200,000, but no more than $1,000,000 for
the cumulative damages and other monetary relief provided for below;
c) Actual damages, including lost profits, damage to good will, costs of
delay in performance, and loss of business opportunity;
d) Exemplary damages not less than the maximum amount permitted by
applicable law based on the allegations state above;
e) Attorneys fees;
f) Pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate of interest permitted by
law;
g) Court costs; and
h) All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled.
Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition | Page 22 of 22
Respectfully submitted,
THE SIEGEL LAW GROUP
By: /s/ Jack L. Siegel Jack Siegel Texas Bar No. 24070621 [email protected] Kavish Wazirali Texas Bar No. 24088613 [email protected] 10440 N. Central Expy