Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Lisin

RHoBH in the Media

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, izabella said:

Based on that video, it sounds like that's exactly what he did, except that he was also a partner with the person with the the low-ball offer, so he sold it to himself at the low price without disclosing that he was the buyer and without disclosing the other, higher offers.  Two crimes for the price of one!

Ugh I liked Mauricio, this is terrible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Keep in mind that the property was seized and the sale was approved by the Dept of Justice.  I would liken it to a short sale.  And why is this international thug suing now?  He sold the house in 2016?  Where did these offers suddenly appear from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teodoro_Nguema_Obiang_Mangue

As for the price of the latest sale, see this article.  The home was totally renovated.  The site says there was a $26 mil construction trust taken out.

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/investors-flip-malibu-estate-once-involved-in-corruption-scandal-for-69-9-million-59770

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

Keep in mind that the property was seized and the sale was approved by the Dept of Justice.  I would liken it to a short sale.  And why is this international thug suing now?  He sold the house in 2016?  Where did these offers suddenly appear from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teodoro_Nguema_Obiang_Mangue

As for the price of the latest sale, see this article.  The home was totally renovated.  The site says there was a $26 mil construction trust taken out.

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/investors-flip-malibu-estate-once-involved-in-corruption-scandal-for-69-9-million-59770

The profit doesn't matter - that's not what the problem is.   The problem is that he apparently had better offers originally and didn't advise that information.  Even if the guy was a 'thug' - IF this is true he should never be trusted to sell your house.

Never dismiss the prevailing sinners by pointing to the sins of others. The sins need to be dealt with.

  • Like 17
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TVFANNO1 said:

The profit doesn't matter - that's not what the problem is.   The problem is that he apparently had better offers originally and didn't advise that information.  Even if the guy was a 'thug' - IF this is true he should never be trusted to sell your house.

Never dismiss the prevailing sinners by pointing to the sins of others. The sins need to be dealt with.

I guess I didn't make my point very well and that is this thug IMO has no credibility so I have huge reservations about his claims in the lawsuit including that the house could have been sold for much as $70 mil.  Yeah, after millions were put into a renovation.  I also don't agree the guy 'apparently' had better offers.  Just cause he says so doesn't make it apparent.

One is presumed innocent until proven guilty

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TVFANNO1 said:

The profit doesn't matter - that's not what the problem is.   The problem is that he apparently had better offers originally and didn't advise that information.  Even if the guy was a 'thug' - IF this is true he should never be trusted to sell your house.

Never dismiss the prevailing sinners by pointing to the sins of others. The sins need to be dealt with.

I'm just wondering if there's some legal loophole somewhere that dissolves or alters his fiduciary duty to his client if it's been shown that the source of the client's property is ill gotten gains.  

If he was selling that property because it was part of an overall compensation package, with the sale ordered by the US government, does that change the nature of the realtor-client relationship in some way? For example, was Mauricio actually representing the US government -- like who was the actual client?  To whom did Mauricio owe the fiduciary duty in this transaction?

If there is no special situation here, and this this fellow was just Mauricio's client, and if these allegations are true, then Mauricio definitely looks bad, because both things are absolute ethical violations and breech the agency relationship. At the very least, if true, Maurico could lose his license. '

Were there other offers? Any buyers agent could have brought one, so there could be someone out there who made an offer of say one million more than Maurico's alleged partner, but didn't get the property. (A hypothetical lying realtor could have said his client didn't like the terms of the contract, but in reality, his client never even saw the offer.)

If there is such a buyer, whose offer was not presented, s/he might have some spite motivation to come forward. I don't know if realtors are required by law to keep a copy of every offer they write/present/is rejected though...any Cali realtors out there who could answer? If they are required to keep copies, then there's a paper trail and we'd know if there were in fact any higher offers, or any other offers at all.

Mauricio has money, and is probably well connected, so I'm sure he'll get great representation.

Edited by Jel
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, breezy424 said:

I guess I didn't make my point very well and that is this thug IMO has no credibility so I have huge reservations about his claims in the lawsuit including that the house could have been sold for much as $70 mil.  Yeah, after millions were put into a renovation.  I also don't agree the guy 'apparently' had better offers.  Just cause he says so doesn't make it apparent.

One is presumed innocent until proven guilty

It's not the price of the house after it was renovated though.

It's the fact that when Umansky sold the house there was apparently a better offer on the table of 8M - which was never disclosed and it was  never disclosed that Umansky was actually a partner in the deal.

There's a more detailed article here:

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-umansky-sweetwater-20180930-story.html

  • Like 10
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting article, TVFANNO1, thanks for the link.

Anything over 10.3 million was destined to go to charities benefiting the people of Equatorial Guinea. 

A good comment after too, asking how a one million dollar investment in repairs, in a non-bubble market, doubled the value of the house in six months.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Jel said:

The non-disclosure of all offers (if that happened) is a serious problem. And not revealing that he had an interest in the purchase, (if he did indeed have one) worse.  

The fact that the seller initially bought the property with stolen funds is terrible and illegal of course, but does the seller's crime absolve Mauricio of his fiduciary duty to his client?  

Anyone know the law on this?

It might.  Not an attorney but I do watch a lot of Judge Judy.  There is something called the Clean Hands Doctrine which states that the person coming to court with a lawsuit must be free from unfair conduct  It wouldn't protect Mauricio if he did something illegal but might impact the seller's ability to pursue restitution.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

According to that article, the suit is being brought by Mauricio's insurance company against Mauricio, because he is trying to get them to pay the $8M to the seller (the $8M being the price difference between the sale price and the other offer).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Jel said:

And if Kyle writes it, the very special episode of Maurico on Trial will end with the judge tossing away his gavel and joining in on a courtroom dance party!

With Kyle doing the splits on the Judge’s bench, with either a gavel scrunchie for her high pony or a gavel on her hat.

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 16

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, TVFANNO1 said:

It's not the price of the house after it was renovated though.

It's the fact that when Umansky sold the house there was apparently a better offer on the table of 8M - which was never disclosed and it was  never disclosed that Umansky was actually a partner in the deal.

There's a more detailed article here:

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-umansky-sweetwater-20180930-story.html

There wasn't an offer on the table to the seller.  It was a letter of intent to the buyer under contract.  There's a difference.  Once a seller and buyer sign a contract and it finishes attorney review the seller can't change his mind because of a better offer.  That's why  the offer was made to the Oberfeld.  The guy wanted to buy the buyers bid.  He's a developer and knows how it works.

At the heart of the dispute is an apparent offer from real estate investor Sam Hakim. Sweetwater and Western World allege that, after Oberfeld’s offer of $33.5 million was accepted, Hakim offered to pay Oberfeld $8 million to take over the bid — suggesting Hakim thought the property was worth at least $41.5 million.

“During the time property was under contract with Mr. Oberfeld, a non-binding letter of intent was delivered to Mr. Oberfeld to assign his position in the contract,” Trester said. “Because the letter of intent was non-binding, it had no legal significance. Mr. Oberfeld nevertheless countered the non-binding letter of intent, but the individual never responded with an offer.”

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, breezy424 said:

There wasn't an offer on the table to the seller.  It was a letter of intent to the buyer under contract.  There's a difference.  Once a seller and buyer sign a contract and it finishes attorney review the seller can't change his mind because of a better offer.  That's why  the offer was made to the Oberfeld.  The guy wanted to buy the buyers bid.  He's a developer and knows how it works.

At the heart of the dispute is an apparent offer from real estate investor Sam Hakim. Sweetwater and Western World allege that, after Oberfeld’s offer of $33.5 million was accepted, Hakim offered to pay Oberfeld $8 million to take over the bid — suggesting Hakim thought the property was worth at least $41.5 million.

“During the time property was under contract with Mr. Oberfeld, a non-binding letter of intent was delivered to Mr. Oberfeld to assign his position in the contract,” Trester said. “Because the letter of intent was non-binding, it had no legal significance. Mr. Oberfeld nevertheless countered the non-binding letter of intent, but the individual never responded with an offer.”

I agree with your analysis.

Also Hakim's $8 million letter of intent to Oberfeld to take over Oberfeld's buyer's bid doesn't mean that Hakim thought the property was worth $41.5 million. It suggests that Hakim thought he would realize such profits after he renovated and resold the property that he could afford to part with $8 million to get another buyer out of the way. Considering that Hakim's company owns billions of dollars of property, he probably did have the resources to quickly renovate and resell the property.

As some have mentioned above considering the settlement agreement, it's possible that Obiang was not the fiduciary to whom a duty was owed. It's pretty clear that he had no ability to unilaterally accept offers. If he had, he'd have likely approved a low ball offer to screw people over--just enough to settle what he had to pay to the Department of Justice and $100 to charity. It is quite possible that the party that Mauricio had to keep informed and make disclosures to was the Department of Justice, not Obiang.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, izabella said:

According to that article, the suit is being brought by Mauricio's insurance company against Mauricio, because he is trying to get them to pay the $8M to the seller (the $8M being the price difference between the sale price and the other offer).

This is the second lawsuit regarding the case.  Actually, it might be the third, but it's the second one that was public.  Last year there was a very public suit where Mauricio's insurance company sued him for $8M because there was a claim filed by Sweetwater Malibu and they sued because they felt he had committed fraud in his dealings and therefore they shouldn't be liable to pay out on it.  This was settled out of court in October or November.  In February/March of this year, Sweetwater sued Mauricio for $32M for the fraud situation.  

Among the issues with Mauricio selling the property, he negotiated the $33.5 million sale price, but then convinced the seller to give $1M in credits for repairs.  He neglected to mention that he was an investor in the property until just before the sale at $70M (hence enriching himself with that $1M in credits).  He also pressured the sellers to waive a required $1M deposit, which let the buyers tie up the property without any actually money down.  And then he got the sellers to repeatedly extend the escrow, so that the buyer Mauricio could find the financing he needed (it wasn't an all cash offer), to purchase the house, telling the sellers that the market was softening.  But, he had apparently also told the sellers that buyer Mauricio was an all cash offer, which clearly wasn't the case given the need for the extensions for financing.  

  • Like 4
  • Useful 7

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, smores said:

This is the second lawsuit regarding the case.  Actually, it might be the third, but it's the second one that was public.  Last year there was a very public suit where Mauricio's insurance company sued him for $8M because there was a claim filed by Sweetwater Malibu and they sued because they felt he had committed fraud in his dealings and therefore they shouldn't be liable to pay out on it.  This was settled out of court in October or November.  In February/March of this year, Sweetwater sued Mauricio for $32M for the fraud situation.  

Among the issues with Mauricio selling the property, he negotiated the $33.5 million sale price, but then convinced the seller to give $1M in credits for repairs.  He neglected to mention that he was an investor in the property until just before the sale at $70M (hence enriching himself with that $1M in credits).  He also pressured the sellers to waive a required $1M deposit, which let the buyers tie up the property without any actually money down.  And then he got the sellers to repeatedly extend the escrow, so that the buyer Mauricio could find the financing he needed (it wasn't an all cash offer), to purchase the house, telling the sellers that the market was softening.  But, he had apparently also told the sellers that buyer Mauricio was an all cash offer, which clearly wasn't the case given the need for the extensions for financing.  

The first lawsuit was settled.  Both parties withdrew their lawsuits.  It's already been discussed in this thread.

In the second lawsuit, do you have a link for your second paragraph that Mauricio didn't mention he was an investor until just before the $70mil sale?  Or about no money down or him telling the sellers the market was softening?  Or is all from the seller's lawsuit.   Keep in mind the Department of Justice did approve the sale.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/8/2019 at 10:12 PM, SuprSuprElevated said:

yeah - Camille isn't very likable either, especially since she's feeling herself and showing her season 1 true self - so she should just shush... (I'm ambivalent about Teddi, don't hate her, don't like her really - very meh about her)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/11/2019 at 2:07 PM, smores said:

Last year there was a very public suit where Mauricio's insurance company sued him for $8M because there was a claim filed by Sweetwater Malibu and they sued because they felt he had committed fraud in his dealings and therefore they shouldn't be liable to pay out on it.  This was settled out of court in October or November.  In February/March of this year, Sweetwater sued Mauricio for $32M for the fraud situation.  

Sweetwater Malibu is the shell corporation created by Obiang to buy this property. This is Obiang, who stole from his country and used the funds to buy ill gotten goods including this property, trying multiple times to get back the money he stole. There's no difference between Obiang and Sweetwater Malibu, which is why the Department of Justice was able to pierce the corporate veil and seize Sweetwater's holdings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, breezy424 said:

The first lawsuit was settled.  Both parties withdrew their lawsuits.  It's already been discussed in this thread.

In the second lawsuit, do you have a link for your second paragraph that Mauricio didn't mention he was an investor until just before the $70mil sale?  Or about no money down or him telling the sellers the market was softening?  Or is all from the seller's lawsuit.   Keep in mind the Department of Justice did approve the sale.

I think first they were sued by Sweetwater and they wanted a settlement that was paid partly by Mauricio, partly by the insurance company.  Then it the insurance company sued Mauricio, which is the "first" big lawsuit, which was dismissed last year. (Because Mauricio countersued and then they settled out of court).  Now Sweetwater is suing again for the $32M.  That's why I said there were 2, maybe 3 lawsuits, because I think the lines got blurred on the first one.  

For the current one, yes, I have a few links.  I can't find the exact article I read when I found that info the first time (if you read back in Kyle's specific thread, you'll find posts by me mentioning this when the lawsuit was filed earlier this spring), but, here is some of the information.  Also, the DOJ did approve the sale, however if Mauricio didn't disclose the fact that he was involved with the purchaser, they would have had no reason to object to his double dealing, would they?  From what I've gathered in reading about this, they had to approve the final sale, but weren't totally involved in the back and forth up to the actual sale.

https://pagesix.com/2019/03/14/mauricio-umansky-husband-of-kyle-richards-sued-over-32m-mansion/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=P6Twitter

https://www.floor8.com/posts/kyle-richards-husband-mauricio-umansky-being-sued-for-fraud-01d61c6b9jr5

And this article details a bit more about the original case.  Mauricio didn't just have a signed letter of intent, he was countering offers with the would-be second buyer, but never told the seller about it:

https://realityblurb.com/2018/08/03/rhobh-kyle-richards-husband-mauricio-umansky-accused-of-defrauding-client-in-lawsuit-over-32-million-home-sale/

This one lists the no money down and the market softening:

https://www.yourtango.com/2019322638/who-mauricio-umansky-kyle-richards-husband-sued-for-fraud

3 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

Sweetwater Malibu is the shell corporation created by Obiang to buy this property. This is Obiang, who stole from his country and used the funds to buy ill gotten goods including this property, trying multiple times to get back the money he stole. There's no difference between Obiang and Sweetwater Malibu, which is why the Department of Justice was able to pierce the corporate veil and seize Sweetwater's holdings.

Right, I understand that they are the same.  I'm just bad at spelling Obiang's name, so tend to use Sweetwater instead.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smores said:

I think first they were sued by Sweetwater and they wanted a settlement that was paid partly by Mauricio, partly by the insurance company.  Then it the insurance company sued Mauricio, which is the "first" big lawsuit, which was dismissed last year. (Because Mauricio countersued and then they settled out of court).  Now Sweetwater is suing again for the $32M.  That's why I said there were 2, maybe 3 lawsuits, because I think the lines got blurred on the first one.  

For the current one, yes, I have a few links.  I can't find the exact article I read when I found that info the first time (if you read back in Kyle's specific thread, you'll find posts by me mentioning this when the lawsuit was filed earlier this spring), but, here is some of the information.  Also, the DOJ did approve the sale, however if Mauricio didn't disclose the fact that he was involved with the purchaser, they would have had no reason to object to his double dealing, would they?  From what I've gathered in reading about this, they had to approve the final sale, but weren't totally involved in the back and forth up to the actual sale.

https://pagesix.com/2019/03/14/mauricio-umansky-husband-of-kyle-richards-sued-over-32m-mansion/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=P6Twitter

https://www.floor8.com/posts/kyle-richards-husband-mauricio-umansky-being-sued-for-fraud-01d61c6b9jr5

And this article details a bit more about the original case.  Mauricio didn't just have a signed letter of intent, he was countering offers with the would-be second buyer, but never told the seller about it:

https://realityblurb.com/2018/08/03/rhobh-kyle-richards-husband-mauricio-umansky-accused-of-defrauding-client-in-lawsuit-over-32-million-home-sale/

This one lists the no money down and the market softening:

https://www.yourtango.com/2019322638/who-mauricio-umansky-kyle-richards-husband-sued-for-fraud

Right, I understand that they are the same.  I'm just bad at spelling Obiang's name, so tend to use Sweetwater instead.

This is all stuff from the lawsuit that 'Sweetwater' claims.  That doesn't mean it's fact.  Again, there was no offer from Hakim to Sweetwater.  The sale of $69 mil was after the mansion was remodeled.  The claim that there was no down payment comes from Sweetwater.  In the end,  the Dept. of Justice approved the sale.

All these links are from gossip sites.  I'll go with the LA Times business section. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, breezy424 said:

This is all stuff from the lawsuit that 'Sweetwater' claims.  That doesn't mean it's fact.  Again, there was no offer from Hakim to Sweetwater.  The sale of $69 mil was after the mansion was remodeled.  The claim that there was no down payment comes from Sweetwater.  In the end,  the Dept. of Justice approved the sale.

All these links are from gossip sites.  I'll go with the LA Times business section. 

I mean, isn't that how a lawsuit works though?  One side makes claims, another side makes claims and then a judge/jury decides what is true?  It's fine that you don't agree with it, I'm just saying that this is what the claims against him are, so I'm not sure how you can say they aren't facts.  They are the facts of the case against him.  Whether he wins the case or he loses it remains to be seen, but they are the facts of the case that he is facing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smores said:

I mean, isn't that how a lawsuit works though?  One side makes claims, another side makes claims and then a judge/jury decides what is true?  It's fine that you don't agree with it, I'm just saying that this is what the claims against him are, so I'm not sure how you can say they aren't facts.  They are the facts of the case against him.  Whether he wins the case or he loses it remains to be seen, but they are the facts of the case that he is facing.

I would call it claims, not facts.  For example:  Flipping the mansion a year later and making $30 mil plus but failing to mention that the home was totally remodeled.  Agree to disagree. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, smores said:

I mean, isn't that how a lawsuit works though?  One side makes claims, another side makes claims and then a judge/jury decides what is true?  It's fine that you don't agree with it, I'm just saying that this is what the claims against him are, so I'm not sure how you can say they aren't facts.  They are the facts of the case against him.  Whether he wins the case or he loses it remains to be seen, but they are the facts of the case that he is facing.

Right - the plaintiff alleges the facts and then Mauricio can deny those facts if he pleases and allege any facts he wants. His insurance company suing not to indemnify him speaks volumes about whether or not they think he behaved ethically. The settlement out of court I assume is confidential. It doesn't look good for Mauricio to keep quiet about the other offer or the fact that he was a silent investor. It looks sleazy. It doesn't matter who the original seller was. Equatorial Guinea was trying to recoup the money stolen by selling the house.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

Let them skip the reunion - these two deserve their own special. Just put them in a ring together and let ‘em tear off a few of their faces. 🍿🍿

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, nexxie said:

Let them skip the reunion - these two deserve their own special. Just put them in a ring together and let ‘em tear off a few of their faces. 🍿🍿

For once I agree with you.

Lisa and Camille should both skip the reunion so it can become clear what valid and useless pieces of shit make up the rest of the cast.

A  one hour special Watch What Happens Now with Lisa and Camille would be much preferable.

Make it happen Satan Andy.

Edited by langford peel
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, SuprSuprElevated said:

Lisa looks like Kimberly Guilfoyle there, gorgeous.

Camille and Lisa aren’t getting along great either, otherwise a show featuring the two of them would definitely be entertaining. 

I feel for Lisa but have a hard time feeling sorry for Camille. She’s been awfully rough on everyone.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think that they are in a better place than the relationship Lisa has with the rest of the cast. They can talk out their minor differences without involving shrieking harpies like Rinna and Teddi. 

It can be an alternative classy reunion of sorts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, langford peel said:

It can be an alternative classy reunion of sorts.

I’ll believe it when I see it. Some of the shenanigans I’ve seen on reunions has made my jaw hit the floor. 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, geauxaway said:

Is Camille not going to change her name to her married name?   Odd.

Not really.

Many people don't change their names even if its an ex-husband's. They keep it for various reasons eg. wanting to have the same last name as their kids, keeping with their brand etc. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×