The administrative assistant for a real estate agent made an offer to purchase a home for $200,000. As part of the contract negotiations, the seller agreed to pay for the owner's policy of title insurance in exchange for being able to select the title agent. The buyer normally pays for the owner's policy in Miami where the property was located.

The administrative assistant making the offer consulted with her real estate agent, who encouraged her to pay for her own policy and take the order to someone they worked with regularly, Mary Gonzalez at Emerald Title Group. The real estate agent told his assistant there were too many criminals in the world and Emerald Title Group would help protect the biggest investment of her life.

That is how the order ended up with Mary. She ordered a title report which came back with some probate documents and conditions concerning the probate. Mary questioned the seller about the probate.

The seller said he knew nothing about a probate; that his parents had died a long time ago and their estate was not in probate. The title report was amended to remove the probate conditions and the transaction moved forward.

The buyer and seller came to the signing appointment at Emerald Title's offices. Everyone produced identification, so their signatures could be notarized. The seller's identification card was recently issued within the last 30 days. Mary had always been taught to take a closer look at identification issued so close to the signing date and to ask for a second out–of–wallet identification card from the signer. A closer examination by Mary revealed the seller's identification did not contain all his names.

The seller of the property was from Venezuela where often times a man's last name is followed by his mother's maiden name. The only identification the seller could produce did not have the mother's maiden name, although the title to the property was held in his mother's maiden name. Mary asked for another form of identification reflecting the maiden name.

The seller pulled out his wallet and even said out loud, "Oops! Not that one," when rifling through it for a previously issued identification card. He found the card issued prior to the most recent.

Mary copied it along with the current card, but could not use either as the cards only contained his first name, middle initial and last name — but not followed by the maiden name of his mother.

Mary finished the signing but instructed all parties that she would not be able to complete the closing without proper identification from the seller. The seller left the office promising to return with acceptable identification. He returned the next day with a piece of paper reflecting the location of the filing of his birth certificate in Venezuela, but no other identification.

Mary was suspicious of the seller after the signing appointment and began to examine the copies of the identification cards in her file. One of the identification cards contained an address, other than the property address, that looked strangely familiar.

Mary searched for the probate documents the title underwriter had provided earlier in the transaction. When she found them she discovered the address on the identification card matched the address of one of the properties that was the subject of a probate. In fact, it matched the decedent's principal place of residence! How could the man sitting right in front of her at the signing be dead?

Mary researched the other properties included in the probate, including running a chain of title. She discovered one of the properties had recently been sold. Mary called the title agency that closed on the original purchase of the property by our Venezuelan principal back in 2009. She asked if they retained a copy of the identification used at the signing and if so, what was the birth year of the buyer. The title agency confirmed the identification showed a year of birth as 1962.

Mary called the title agency that closed the recent sale of that same property by the Venezuelan principal. She asked if they retained a copy of the identification presented at closing and if so, could they verify the year of birth for the seller as 1962. The title agency pulled their file and stated the birth year for the seller was 1985! Mary knew it! The son was posing as his father.

Mary took a closer look at the deeds from those two transactions. She discovered the initial sale of the property was with the real estate agent she had been working with all along. He sold the property to the father. He had to have known the son, who was a junior, was forging his father's signature.

Mary contacted the listing agent and presented the facts and asked him why he was allowing the son to forge his father's name. The agent back–peddled quickly and claimed he knew nothing of it and that he never met the father.

Mary notified the buyer and the buyer's agent of the most recent events. The buyer was disappointed she lost the home of her dreams and was angry she had just paid money to terminate the lease early on the property she was currently occupying. However, she was happy Mary had saved her from having bought the property from someone other than the rightful owner.

Next, Mary contacted the attorney probating the estate. The attorney indicated the real seller died on November 18, 2013 with a valid will. He was survived by a spouse and five children, two of who are minors.

The attorney said it was a difficult probate which involved six properties that became exceedingly more complicated when the wife died five months later, without a valid will. The attorney stated during the conversation she intended on withdrawing as the attorney for the probate, as it was evident the son was working to defraud his family and steal proceeds from the sale of his parents' properties.

The attorney added that she was working with the siblings to stop the actions of their brother and after her most recent conversation with the siblings, left the office only to discover her car had been vandalized. She was afraid to continue as the attorney. Before Mary hung up the phone the attorney verified the son perpetrating the fraud was born in 1985.

Can you believe it? Mary went above and beyond the call of duty to discover the criminal acts of the son. Internal notices were placed to try to prevent similar schemes involving these properties from occurring.