Village of Deerfield Files Suit versus ComEd

Nothing like a city getting angry over the quality of power that it receives...
This is one thing to consider if you are planning on buying a home in Deerfield.
Perhaps it will get fixed due to the suit..... Time will tell.... Excerpt -

The Village of Deerfield filed a class action lawsuit today against Commonwealth Edison charging the utility company with gross violation of its agreement to provide reliable service to its 18,000 residents.

Deerfield officials say that during the period from 2000 until 2007, the village suffered 82,347 individual customer power outages during 1,377 separate electrical failures. They said "Only 13% of these outages were weather-related."

Steve Harris, Mayor of Deerfield said - "ComEd has given us no other option than to seek a legal remedy to their gross and willful dereliction of duty." "After years of patience while listening to ComEd's unfulfilled promises to fix these problems, we now turn to the courts to adjudicate our claims."

Reportedly - several Deerfield residents have been told by ComEd employees that the infrastructure in the Deerfield area "absolutely needs to be updated."

Judith Adamson, a Deerfield resident for thirty years said, "ComEd tells us that the problem is that our utilities are underground and connect to old above ground poles and switch boxes and it would be too costly to revamp the system."

The class action lawsuit filed in Lake County Circuit Court on Thursday charges that ComEd violated the Illinois Public Utilities Act and their franchise agreement with Deerfield and its residents by failing to provide adequate and reliable electric service and failing to maintain infrastructure necessary to provide that service. It calls for compensation for actual damages as well as punitive damages for ComEd's willful refusal to repair and maintain its electrical systems and circuits.

From 2000 to 2007, ComEd's Franchise Reports confirm Deerfield suffered 1,377 total outages that lasted 5,576 hours. The reports show only 13% were attributed to weather related causes. The Franchise Reports also show that the total amount of outages have increased steadily during the last three years. During this period, outages due to failure of ComEd's electric underground equipment have risen dramatically.

ComEd's Annual Reliability Reports cite ten circuits that serve Deerfield as appearing on their list of top 1% worst performing circuits in its Northeast service area from 2001-2006. In addition, these reports show at least one circuit serving Deerfield has been included as a top 1% worst performing circuit for ComEd's Northeast service area in every year from 2001 to 2006. Moreover, the report proves there are other circuits serving Deerfield that are performing even worse than those on ComEd's 1% worst performing list, but they do not appear on that list.

"I have been told by ComEd workers that the feeder to our area of the Village is very old and worn out and that is one reason for the outages," said Deerfield resident Richard Beaton.

Real Estate Brokerages and Their Agents "Steer" People to Their Affliated Entities - and They Are Now Getting Sued For it...

Was the Realtor you used to purchase you home truly acting as a true fiduciary in protecting your home buying and financial interests?

Click on this link to read about one lawsuit about this.

A lender cannot give a kickback to real estate licensees for referring customer and clients - just as licensee's cannot pay an unlicensed person for a referral.

But apparently - there is a loophole in the (lender (in my personal observation noted below) or title company "affiliates" (in the case of the article)) and Real Estate company relationship - whereby - corporate structures or LLC joint ventures can get around that - by funneling money through the corporate ownership structure.

The article goes on to say... "When real-estate brokers or sales associates knowingly steer clients to higher-cost services that benefit the broker financially, they might violate the fiduciary responsibilities owed to those consumers."

The article states: "Real-estate brokerages increasingly rely on income from their affiliates and often seek to maximize their "capture rates" — the percentage of all home-sale transactions that use the affiliates’ services. They also argue that even if the affiliates’ fees or mortgage rates are not the lowest available, the quality and dependability of the affiliates’ services more than compensate for any price differences."

I've usually heard agents tell their buyers - "Hey - use Joe in our office - it will be more convenient for you." Well - that convenience could cost you thousands! Rather than help you "shop" for the best loan when you buy - most agents steer you to a "preferred lender" - perhaps one in their office.

Relocation Advisors Group helps you "shop" lenders. We analyze their Good Faith Estimates for you - so that you can have a lender that has low rates and fees. We have no hidden ties to any of them.

I was at a traditional Realtor meeting a few months ago - and ran into a "Large Lender" person at lunch who stated that Company X (I won't name them for their sake - but they are large) locally – had done a joint venture with them – creating an LLC – where there will be revenue sharing between Company X and "Large Lender" through the LLC -- with the revenue to Company X going up - if their agents pushed their clients to "Large Lender."

I was shocked. Apparently – that must be legal --- as Company X and "Large Lender" wouldn’t do something that is illegal - would they?

Such an arrangement though - to me - does not seem to be in the consumer's best interest. It puts the Company X's financial interests above that of their client 's financial interests. (Perhaps "Large Lender" would be the best loan in some cases - and in others - perhaps not.)

The article that is linked to above - goes on to say... "In the case of a broker-client relationship, fiduciary duty means that a real estate broker is bound to put a client’s best interests ahead of the broker’s and must not profit from the fiduciary relationship unless the client consents."

The relationship I learned about between mega-broker Company X and "Large Lender" does not appear to do that. I would assume that they have some form of disclosure to each client about the Company X and lender LLC profit sharing relationship - but I wonder about the font size..


Rick Hauser, ABR, GRI, Broker-Owner, Relocation Advisors Group Inc.

Home Buyers Aren't Properly Educated or Informed About The Different Forms of Representation in Real Estate and Their Implications

Did you Know That 77% of Buyers Pick the Listing Agent of a Home They are Interested in (many times, on the Internet) to represent them for their purchase?
This is one of the WORST things a buyer could do! The buyer is typically raked over the coals by the listing agent. The agent gathers all the information they can about the buyer and their situation to give their seller the upper hand.

Listing agents are represent THE SELLER - not the buyer. Unfortunately - "agency disclosure" (letting the buyer know how they are really being represented (or not)) is being provided less than 12% of the time by agents across the USA.

The Consumer Federation of America states that the public needs to be more informed. I couldn't agree more..

And worse yet - only a couple states - Ohio and California - let buyers know that there is another option for them -- Exclusive Buyer Agency representation. A distinctly different form of representation than "buyer agency" (where the agent and their company list property for sale.) Here is the definition of an Exclusive Buyer Agent.

Joel Stern of Silver Spring, Maryland, filed a lawsuit against Weichert Realtors, reportedly one of the largest independent brokerage firms in the country, for failing to properly disclose that they represented the seller in connection with his recent aborted home purchase. Stern believes he was induced to sign a contract to buy the house at an excessive price because the agent that Stern thought represented him as a buyer's agent was in fact functioning as an agent for the seller.

Recent data released by the National Association of Realtors indicates that real estate agents are failing to disclose whom they represent in transactions at an alarming rate, even where state laws (such as Illinois' agency disclosure law) require them to do so in writing at their first substantive meeting with a potential client.

According to the author of this article, Kenneth Harney of the Washington Post, "You as a buyer or seller need to be alert. Demand a formal disclosure of representation before beginning any substantive discussions with an agent. Do not assume that you are working with a buyer's agent whose sole loyalty is to you."

Harney further cautions, "If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist. In the absence of a signed buyer-agent agreement or other disclosure to the contrary, your agent is almost certainly working for the seller and will squeeze the highest price possible out of you on the seller's behalf."