We hired Dawn Leahy to purchase our property in Point Loma early 2024 and sell our two houses in Carmel Valley. While she was representing the seller as well, we initially felt she is a reasonable person and good realtor. She was enthused by the perspective of commission on three multimillion dollar houses.
During the escrow period we increasingly grew suspicious that she was not acting as a fiduciary for us but was favoring the interests of the seller. Ms Leahy recommended a company to perform the house inspection. The inspector failed to identify a major problem with the furnace which was not up to code. This problem was identified by our HVAC company when they came to provide an estimate for installing AC. The inspector also failed to recognize serious structural issues with to large balconies where the support was eaten by thermites and rotten. When we confronted the inspector he immediately refunded the inspection price asking us to sign a waiver for any other problem we find. We suspect this inspector was chosen by Ms Leahy because she knew he would not identify and report serious problems.
Additional problems occurred when we discovered water damage that had been concealed but the seller and the realtor. When we first saw the house the garage was impeccable with white walls. After a heavy rainstorm on a subsequent visit the garage walls had turned orange and brown and the paint was blistering showing obvious water penetration through the walls. The agent told us that the seller had "waterproofed" the walls by painting a coat of water proofing product on the inside of the garage walls and then repainted all the walls. Obviously, the seller and the agent were aware of the water penetration prompting them to incorrectly waterproofed the walls from the inside, but they failed to disclose this fact to us. If it had not been for the big rainstorm we would only have found out after purchasing the home. As we planned to remodel the home we brought contractors in to the house on several occasions including an electrician how also noticed water drops running down the ceiling in one fo the upstairs bedrooms indicative of a roof leak. When he alerted us of this problem Ms Leahy became very upset telling out contractors they could not roam around the house anymore. After this our relationship with Ms Leahy became tense and uncomfortable. We were trying to have out contractors look at the roof to assess the damage but Ms Leahy was working with the seller rapidly to have the roof "fixed" without keeping us in the loop or allowing us to inspect the roof before repair. A couple of hours before closing Ms Leahy refused access to the property to our gardener who was trying to drop off some flowerpots for us. She had met before but pretended to not know him and forbid him to go to the backyard or leave the pots.
Recently we started heaving heavy termite dropping on the balcony, 10 months after fumigation performed by the seller. Investigating the problem we found out form a neighbor that the tent had a gapping whole while it was fumigated (we have video evidence of that). We called the termite company who came and cut a section of our brand-new facia boards to assess termite activity. They concluded that there are no termites. WE got a second opinion form another company who told us there is termites activity. We have contact Ms Leahy by email and text messages several times as the fumigation was done by her on behalf of the sellers. She never replied or even acknowledged receiving the messages.
Lastly Ms Leahy misrepresented the circumstances of the owner's death in the house. She assured us that he passed away peacefully in his bed of old age surrounded by his children. We learn from our neighbors, who Ms Leahy told us not to talk to because they are "crazy" that the former owner was very sick and died from because of his sickness.
In summary, Ms Leahy has been and continue to be utterly unprofessional and should not be allowed to behave like that. While we understand the inherent conflict of interest of a double agent, we believe it is their duty to keep both parties best interests at heart and not systematically side with one party in the transaction, regardless of her previous relationship with the parties. read more
