Customer ReviewsforPremier Sotheby's International Realty

Offense: Negligence - Inaccurate disclosure form I recently bought a residence in Sarasota County. The selling agency was Sotheby's International Realty, Sarasota. Shortly after my purchase, I discovered that about ¾ of the lot, approximately 2,300 sq. ft., is a mesic hammock nature preserve which is strictly regulated by county code. When I say regulated, it must contain only certain native plants, no trimming, mulching, clearing, no grooming of any kind. It must be allowed to grow completely wild. How would you like that sprung on you weeks after you've purchased a home? The disclosure form, Question 9. (d), reads: Are any mangroves, archeological sites, or other environmentally sensitive areas located on the property? That question is answered "No". This is an undisputable fact: The disclosure form I received had this very important question answered incorrectly. Sotheby's selling agent lives in the same neighborhood. One day I approached her about the incorrectly answered question on the disclosure. She said: "Well, I can't check every little thing the seller does." She has never denied knowing that there was a nature preserve on the lot. She had lived in this small neighborhood for about 17 years and knows there are several lots with nature preserves onsite. But she won't take responsibility for the inaccurate disclosure form when in fact, she admitted she didn't even check it. The National Assoc. of Realtors Code of Conduct states that realtors are responsible for maintaining accuracy of documents, and for disclosure of any pertinent information. The former homeowner had illegally cleared much of the vegetation in the preserve area and put it in sod. Sarasota County Environmental department is now requiring me to hire a specially trained and qualified firm to restore the area to mesic hammock specs. I spoke to Sotheby's management to report their agent's negligence and to ask for reimbursement for the restoration. I got excuses, denials and victim blaming.

The complainant's accusation is unfounded and inaccurate. It is true that the individual making the accusation did purchase the property and did experience a problem with protected land he cleared after the purchase, but his placement of blame on the listing brokerage is without merit. The complainant claims he did not receive notice or disclosure from the Listing Broker that the property was on a protected greenbelt preserve and that part of his lot was included in said protected preserve. A review of the publicly available MLS Listing (that was provided before contracting for purchase) evidenced clear notice of "Conservation Area" and "Greenbelt". In addition, the handout brochure he was provided when touring the home clearly stated "preserve" lot. The survey clearly states "Mitigation Preserve Area" on the tract abutting the property. Said survey by a licensed surveyor made no mention or indication that the protected area encroached into the actual lot in question. The seller advised they had no knowledge that the protected area encroached into the lot in question. Yet the complainant claims that the listing broker should have known and disclosed that the protected area encroached onto the lot in question. A Realtor's job includes disclosing any known facts that may impact the value of a property, but it is not a Realtor's responsibility to perform the job of a surveyor or to question the validity of documents provided by a licensed surveyor or to question disclosures provided by an owner of a home or lot. The survey, the seller's disclosure form, and the Homeowners Association documents all indicated protected lands adjacent to the complainant's property, but none of them made any mention or indication of any encroachment of the protected area into the lot. There is no logical reason to expect the Listing Broker would have or should have known anything different, thus they could not disclose what was not known and should not even have been reasonably known. Prior to his purchase, the complainant was provided ample notice of said protected lands adjacent to his property because this was all that was known by all parties involved and indicated in all available documentation. Yet the complainant claims that the Listing Realtor had to have known of the protected land encroachment into his lot because she lives in the same community. The Realtor lives in a different section of the community, not associated with the protected preserve in question. The accusation is irrational, unreasonable and is based on assumption versus evidence or fact. The continued public pursuit of the complainant's argument even after receiving oral and written explanation several weeks ago is bordering slander.