David C Witt

We negotiated purchase of a rural property consisting of a house, outbuilding, and 38 acres of land. The listing agent, David C Witt, suggested my realtor write "subject to survey" in the legal description of the purchase agreement, explaining ONLY that the owner was obtaining a new survey. At the time, I remember feeling grateful that we would not have to pay for the survey ourselves! Anomalies on the disclosure statement such as blank spaces were dismissed as nothing to worry about by Mr. Witt. David Witt assured us there were no insurance claims, no liens other than a mortgage. I discovered the house had a $14K fire claim in addition to a flooding claim. I also discovered, upon receiving 5 pages of title exceptions, that there were major financial and marital concerns which resulted in numerous liens against the property and preventing clear title at transfer. There was some indication that the property was in or close to foreclosure. None of this had been disclosed. In fact, David Witt assured us there was nothing out of the ordinary. The property was listed as having a public water supply, electric, and private sewer in addition to phone lines. My realtor saw there was another parcel of land offered by the sellers but GPS location shown on MLS indicated it was not adjoining, so we were not interested and assumed it did not affect us. During negotiations, we were provided a hand drawn, unrecorded, survey which showed 35 acres instead of 38 acres. We were told that 3 acres were lost to encroachment of a property to the North. A subsequent, unrecorded, survey shrunk it further to just over 34 acres. Vague answers to questions regarding property boundaries, utility lines, etc, as well as the actual legal description and acreage resulted in growing feelings of mistrust. Of particular concern was the fact that it looked as though the survey drawings showed the utility lines running to the house were actually on adjoining property. It was then learned, by contacting the water department, that the water lines to the property we were buying were, indeed, on an adjoining property -- which was also sold by the same seller but not yet closed. This was the FIRST TIME ANYONE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT OUR WATER LINES WERE NOT ON OUR PROPERTY! My realtor found the adjoining property listing online, and it was also said to be sold with WATER. When I asked how this was going to work, David Witt told me, through my realtor, that the buyer of the adjacent property knew he would not be able to use the water, that he knew he would have to run his own line, and that he did not even have any need for water at this time! I hired an attorney to write the utility easement granting us the right to have our utility lines on the adjoining property, and I insisted that the branch to the adjoining property be capped so as not to provide water to any neighbors -- despite much reluctance and little cooperation noted by David C Witt. Our mortgage lender backed out of closing (but not the loan) at the last minute which did not surprise me as they seemed to be getting very anxious about being held liable for this mess, so the title company performed the closing. When we did the walk thru prior to closing, we discovered some light fixtures and the refrigerator were missing as well as some draperies. We requested the refrigerator be returned. We were told the refrigerator would be returned but that the light fixtures would not be returned, and they were not! Neighbor said they were offered on ebay. When we arrived at the house a week after closing, we found the kitchen wood floor flooded with 3" of water. The refrigerator had been returned, the water line opened from the wall, but not connected to the refrigerator. Instead, the water ran for a week through that wood floor, severely damaging the wood floor as well as the ceiling and walls in the finished space below. Meanwhile, David C Witt notified me, through my realtor, that the seller had threatened to come to the property with a wrench to open the water line between the two properties because the buyer of the adjacent land was threatening to sue ... since he had ALSO been sold the water line. The seller then came to our house and said he and the buyer of the adjacent land had joined up to sue me for getting legal access to the water line to the house I bought. The buyer of the adjacent land stopped by to inform me that he was suing David Witt and the seller. At the closing, David Witt tried to get me to sign a contract that I would not sue him. He may claim he did not know that there woudl be title problems, but the fact that he responded to direct questions with lies designed to deceive exposes him. He may claim that he did not know that the seller was intending to sell the utility lines to both properties, but it would be impossible to overlook the obvious intent to deceive. And to suggest that it would be ok to let my water meter serve the adjoining property because the new buyer there did not "even have horses yet" is stupid and insulting. He may claim he did not know the sellers were removing property I bought, but he has no excuse for not returning the property -- or the damage caused by the ensuing flood. David C Witt is unethical, unprofessional, and dishonest. He should have insisted that the seller resolve the "shared" water lines prior to listing rather than offering both properties for sale with a single water line. He should have disclosed that the property was being subdivided. The survey should have also been completed prior to sale since the boundaries had been established months before (according to the water department which advised the seller that he could not sell the water to both properties!). He should have insisted the sellers not remove property that conveyed instead of telling us, " they will bring back the refrigerator, but they are keeping the lights". Who does this?