What I am trying to find out is; if any part of a real estate Purchase Sales Contract
is fraudulent, does the fraudulent act or acts committed in the written contract render the contract not a lawful contract, not enforceable by law, or avoided contract etc.?
1.In this Purchase Sales Contract the Seller was not the real party in interest, not the owner, having no authority from the owner to inter into a Purchase Sales Contract to sale the property. A Charity is the owner of the property that did not know the Seller or the thieves that were trying to steal the charity’s property and sale it using what the Title Company Report said to be a defective false deed that did not convey the title away from the charity, all parties in the escrow received this information while the escrow was still open. Is this a illegal escrow, or fraudulent escrow?
2.The Buyer did not disclose that he was the owner of the real estate company that was to receive a 5% commission from the sale of the property for representing the Buyer side,
3.The real estate agent representing the Buyer’s side; miss represented himself as being the Broker of the real estate company representing the Buyer side when he signed the Purchase Sales Contract as the Broker representing the buyer side, He was actually only a Salesperson working for the real estate company. The Buyer was the actual registered Broker/Owner of the real estate company. The Buyer was trying to steal thousands of dollars from the Seller by pretending to have a real estate agency representing him in the purchase of the property. I am wondering if this was a fraudulent act by the Buyer against the Seller that would also render the contract fraudulent.
4. What makes a contract Fraudulent? and can a fraudulent contract be lawful?
The property is owned by a California Charity and there was a attempted thief of the Charity's property. The thieves attempted to steal the property from the charity by executing, notarizing, and recording a defective false deed in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as a gift to the Seller in escrow Mr. X. then the thieves were going to execute another gift deed and convey the property out of Mr. X name to a Nevada Corporation
without Mr. X ever knowing the property was in his name. But before they could do it, Mr. X found out the property had been put in his name by one of the thieves that owed Mr. X a large sum of money, so Mr. X decided to sale the property.
Mr. .X listed the property with a real estate agency, the agency located the Buyer, And while Mr. X and the Buyer were in escrow the Title Company Report said that the deed that was recorded to Mr. X as the Grantee was defective and did not convey the title away for the Charity, it was defective because the deed recorded to Mr. X as the Grantee did not recite the same name that the Grantor received title to the property in. Therefore the property did not convey to the Grantee Mr. X. The buyer talked to the president of the charity and ask him to give Mr. X another deed with the correct name the charity received title to the property in. And the president told the Buyer that they knew nothing about the sale or who the person is that was trying to steal and sale the charity's property to him, and that the charity is going to filed a police report and they did. About six months later the charity received court documents that said the charity is being sued by the Buyer and is a defendant in court case BC xxxxx for Quite Title, Specific Performance, Negligence, Declaratory Relief, The charity answered the complaint, and the Court found the Buyer/Plaintiff’s case had No Merit and No Basis In Law against the Charity or its property and the Court said the deed recorded to Mr. X is Null and Void ab initio.