Reviews

I received a water escrow check from REALtech Title LLC. Because of the stipulations in my divorce in regards to the sale of my house (only titled under my name), my ex was to receive the proceeds of the sale and mortgage escrow. I alerted her lawyer so she was aware of the check, being fully transparent. Fast forward a lot of emails that spanned more that 30 days, I received a msg from REALtech's Senior Commercial Underwriting Attorney, threatening litigation if I don't return the water escrow. It's not a mortgage escrow and, once removed, it's no longer a proceed. The check memo said "water escrow". The Senior Attorney actually stated the check was sent in error. Obviously a blatant lie in attempts to deceive and redirect. They also had the gull to say the remaining balance of the escrow is actually a proceed. I guess they can change the memo of a check by just thinking it and saying something to the contrary of what's written. The unprofessional nature of the email and poor structure gives me every indication they hire from the bottom of the graduation class or apply titles to people that shouldn't be in a Senior position. The disregard for a court order clearly shows the underwriter doesn't deal with court proceedings. They didn't even refer to the court order, knowing that's the basis of my ex receiving funds. This company is amateurish at best. Hopefully they provide training to ensure staff gather facts and actually read before making edicts. I'm owed an apology but I'm sure I won't receive one. Unprofessional businesses rarely admit mistakes. -Will C

Mr. ****** is mistaken regarding the real estate transaction. The closing on the Property took place on September 30, 2022. At the time of the closing, the Company held $750.00 (as indicated on Line 1303 of the Settlement Statement) in escrow for the payment of the final water bill, as at the time of closing, the amount of the final bill was not known. After closing, it was determined that the final water bill was $9.66, and the remaining money escrowed for said final water bill was $740.34 (“Water Bill Adjustment”). Pursuant to Section 10-912(a)(2) of the Tax-General Article, Annotated Code of Maryland defines “net proceeds” as “the total sales price paid to the transferor less: 1. debts of the transferor secured by a mortgage or other lien on the property being transferred that are being paid upon the sale or exchange of the property; and 2. other expenses of the transferor arising out of the sale or exchange of the property and disclosed on a settlement statement prepared in connection with the sale or exchange of the property, not including adjustments in favor of the transferee.” Accordingly, once the final water bill was paid, the Water Bill Adjustment then became a net proceed. Pursuant to Section 9.B.(h) of Mr. Curtis’s Marital Settlement Agreement, “[t]he net proceeds of sale shall be and remain Wife’s sole and separate property free and clear from any interest of Husband”. Accordingly, the Water Bill Adjustment was a net proceed that should have been paid to his wife. Finally, Mr. ****** signed a Compliance/Tax Proration and General Closing Agreement whereby he agreed to fully cooperate with the Company and adjust for any clerical errors. Mr. ****** has failed to return the remaining net proceeds of the sale which, pursuant to his Marital Settlement Agreement, is his ex-wife’s property, and has now threatened litigation and further action against the Company, all of which is unfounded under the law.

It’s sad a 2nd lawyer had to be called in to address this issue. The 2nd is from an outside company, proving RealTech hires from the bottom of the graduating class. Now the new “lawyer” has the silver tongue double speak, changing an escrow to a “bill adjustment”. That won’t fly in court especially since the check stated “water escrow”. It’s convenient to change words to fit your narrative, but the fact remains that the Separation Agreement clearly stated my ex would get the mortgage escrow … not the water escrow or solar panel escrow or the natural gas escrow. Weirdly, it didn’t say anything about a bill adjustment either. A bill adjustment is not a proceed … it’s a change in a billed amount. This new “lawyer” referenced Section 10-912(a)(2) of the Annotated Code of Maryland Tax-General Article. Conveniently leaving out the fact that a water bill can fall into the other expenses category but this “lawyer” decided to change the escrow to a bill adjustment, then conveniently changes it to a proceed. I didn’t sell water … so it’s not a proceed Mr. “Lawyer”. THEN this new “lawyer” puts a snippet of the Separation Agreement, conveniently leaving out the part that states …“ The net proceeds of sale shall mean such sum as remains after deducting …” This back and forth makes me laugh. He goes back to the same line the “bottom of the graduating class” Senior Attorney stated concerning the escrow: “was a net proceed that should have been paid to his wife.” Yes, it ~should have been~ if it wasn’t removed for an escrow designated for a utility. Once removed and annotated on the actual check stating it's an escrow, you can’t just say it was changed to a proceed. That’s like me saying the check was a gift to me LOL *****. The new “lawyer” also alluded to this being a clerical error … they want to have it every way imaginable: 1) bill adjustment, then 2) returned as a proceed, now finally 3) clerical error. The best lie is his claim that I, a layman, threatens litigation. Two lawyers have told me “the Company reserves all rights, at law and in equity, to commence legal action” and the 2nd said “If we do not receive the funds within three business days, we shall have no choice but to refer this matter to our legal department for litigation.” I’ll wait patiently and defend myself accordingly. But like I said before, an unprofessional company can’t admit a mistake … so they double down. Sad to see a "lawyer" omit entire sentences; outright lie and peddle the same inaccuracies as the cut-rate staff that sent him this case. All I can say is RealTech and Realogy Title of Mt Laurel NJ are both circling the toilet bowl just like HOUS stock.

I would never work with this Title company. My clients were to do a remote close and the entire process took over 24 hours. The company sent the incorrect documents over and over. They pulled the wrong parcel number and had my clients names incorrect and their email addresses. You had to wait an hour to have them fix the mistake and another hour for them to send the documents. Each time they were incorrect and my clients didn't close on time. Completely unacceptable and unprofessional.

In response to Ms. Carlson's review, she is correct that her client's remote closing was delayed one day due to discrepancies within the documents. We addressed the errors immediately and issued an apology to her clients for the delay in their closing. We regret the mistake and have updated our review procedures for future closings. We have contacted Ms. Carlson to discuss further but not have heard back yet. RTT closes approximately 500-1000 remote closings per month without incident, we apologize to the sellers and Ms. Carlson again this transaction was delayed one day. Thank you.