The real estate agent represented both the buyer and seller. Marlene Osborn, Senior Escrow Officer for Chicago Title of Colorado's Louisville office, was not supplied with any contact information for the buyer or seller. The real estate agent informed Marlene the buyer and seller were out–of–state and the entire transaction would need to be handled as a "mail out."

Marlene pushed the agent for contact information for both buyer and seller. The alleged agent supplied Marlene with purported email addresses for the buyer and seller. She sent them messages but both messages came back as undeliverable.

On March 9, 2017, Marlene received emails from the real estate agent informing her she would be contacted by a few different commission advance companies. One company decided to advance the commission in the amount of $18,560. This company notified Marlene by sending her all of the necessary documentation to be reimbursed at closing.

Marlene continued to communicate with this emailer, who represented himself as the real estate agent, since he too never provided any other method to reach him. She pushed the agent for phone numbers for the buyer and seller but he never provided them to her.

Marlene explained to the alleged real estate agent the Company had strict underwriting requirements which must be followed. These requirements made it necessary for the buyer and seller to execute their closing documents at one of our offices. If they did not come into one of the offices she could not close the transaction.

Thereafter, the alleged real estate agent emailed Marlene and let her know the transaction had cancelled. She cancelled her file and let the commission advance company know the transaction had cancelled. Per the purchase and sale agreement, the earnest money was being held by the real estate agent so there was nothing further for her to do.

The owner of the property called to find out why Chicago Title was checking on the status of his utilities, which Marlene had done when she received the order, as is customary in Colorado. Marlene explained to him she had been contacted to prepare for the closing of a sale on his property. He informed Marlene his property was not for sale.

Marlene had a bad feeling about this transaction from its inception. It was this feeling that made her continue to push the purported real estate agent for phone numbers of both the buyer and seller. His lack of cooperation made her insist the closing take place in a Company office. Because of her insistence, the transaction cancelled.

The property owner reported the incident to local law enforcement to protect himself from any other fraudulent activity by the fraudster. The owner was concerned about his liability to the commission advance company and any other innocent buyers who made offers on his properties.