The owners of 657 Boulevard have allegedly tried to sell their home twice, since purchasing it in June of 2014. TFoTM has been unable to uncover any real estate record of any disclosure by the current owners listing "The Watcher" when they attempted to sell the home since purchasing it in June, 2014.
Other news agencies have reported that Derek and Maria Broaddus are filing a lawsuit against the previous owners for, among other issues, failing to disclose "The Watcher" in real eastate disclosure forms typically filed when selling a home.
It appears that Derek and Maria Broaddus are pur"suing" the previous owners for non-disclosure of "The Watcher," while it is believed that they (D. & M. Broaddus) failed to disclose "The Watcher" in their own real estate dealings.
Really dude? These people are living through a nightmare and this is what you come up with on your idiot blog? You should be ashamed of yourself..."the people's advocate" my ass! I know these folks and work in Real Estate, they have been open and honest to a fault. Go find some more kids to stalk crossing the street or another BS lawsuit to file. You're a town joke.
ReplyDeleteThere are many unanswered questions that will hopefully be answered by the ongoing law enforcement investigation and lawsuit.
DeleteYour use of the term "the people's advocate" is not my choosing.
My guess is that the "Go find some more kids to stalk crossing the street" is in reference to pictures and video of civilian crossing guards illegally waving motorists through STOP signs around Westfield with no "kids" in sight.
Your baseless accusation and resentment regarding this site exposing the illegal and dangerous practice of some crossing guards is obvious.
Thank you for your comment.
You can always send a letter to the editor of the local newspaper with your full name and address like others are required to do, or just continue to comment here and remain "Anonymous."
Touche!
DeleteSounds like Mr./Mrs. Anonymous is pissed off he/she hasn't gotten their commission since the house hasn't sold.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first anonymous post. This guy's blog/court appearances are a shout out for attention. He dispicably chooses to question the integrity of people he has never met based on unfounded gossip and speculation. Where's the shame? There's no integrity in that. But no surprise there.
ReplyDeleteI don't "despicably chose to question the integrity" of the people you refer to. Your use of the word "unfounded" is not supported with anything but your opinion. If you have real estate documents that support the disclosure of "The Watcher" to potential buyers when the house was put back on the market for sale by the Broaddus', I'll be happy to make a public apology. Until then, this site stands by the information it has received.
DeleteIf you think his blog is a shout out for attention, why are you giving it to him by commenting?
DeleteYou're doing exactly what you criticize him for.
Doesn't work that way "stalker"...you made the claim, questioning good people's integrity. Where's your documentation for making such a claim? But again...no surprise you tried to turn the tables when called on the carpet for unfounded claims.
ReplyDeleteReal estate Disclosure forms exist to protect a potential buyer. Once again, if "The Watcher" was disclosed by the current sellers, then my public apology offer stands. Based on this sites research and information received, no mention of "The Watcher" in disclosure forms is believed to exist.
DeleteWhen the house was listed, the disclosure or lack thereof, would be on the listing.
DeleteThat is such a lame answer and of course a typical response from baseless reporting. As this is in your district, is this the type of support you would have given to these people had you actually won the council seat? Research...state your research...must be one of your "insiders"? Go ahead and try to publicly disgrace good people who are going through hell based on "believed to exist." I'm done with you. No more time for nonsense. Get a job.
ReplyDeleteThere's not much a sitting councilman can do if the police haven't been able to solve the mystery of "The Watcher."
DeleteYour attack on the messenger is typical and a diversion from the topic, similar to town officials when they don't have an answer.
The proof, or lack thereof, is right under your nose if you choose to do the research. If you are involved in real estate, look at the original listing of the property post June 2014.
That is where your proof, or lack thereof, can be found.
The title of this story has a ? at the end as if the author is asking a question. That question mark would indicate there's a question of whether or not the family filed the truth. It will all come out in the end. Anonymous, you need to take the story for what it's worth, lot of unanswered questions.
DeleteThat's all you got...the house listing? Shame on you. hahahaha. What a desperate fool you are.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what I have.
DeleteI applaud your loyalty to the current homeowners. Is your loyalty based on you seeing the real estate listing disclosures or a baseless attempt to divert from the topic?
Now, if you can't refute the lack of disclosure of "The Watcher" in the real estate listings of the home post-June 2014, I'll have no other reason to believe that you are nothing more than a diversion from the topic.
For what it's worth... I happen to be a big fan of this blog and Greg Kasko (no, I do not know you/him personally). But, I also happen to know the Broaddus family. I don't know them well but well enough that we say hi when we see each other and talk briefly too. They are nice people-- very nice people. Please commenters and TFOTM... please keep that in mind when commenting.
ReplyDeleteThe owners privacy flew out the window when they filed a notice of claim or a lawsuit. They'll make up their real estate loss when/if they sell the right to their story whether true or concocted.
ReplyDeleteSo, to clarify, blog owner...you have seen an actual NJ disclosure form signed by the current owners, and no mention was made of The Watcher in Section 96 where the seller is to disclose material defects of the property that might cause a "reasonable" person to reconsider buying the home?
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, then, other Anonymous poster, the blog owner is not merely looking at the "listing" for the property but the legal forms completed by the seller as part of that listing. Actually, to be perfectly accurate, the current owners should also disclose in Section 91 that the property is the subject of a lawsuit.
So if the owners have failed to mention any of this on the disclosure form, yes, they are doing exactly what they accuse their sellers of doing.
Quite curious, don't you think? But then again, they are such nice people. I'm sure it's all just a misunderstanding, right?
The New Jersey Association of Realtors Standard Form of Seller's Property Condition Disclosure Statement is broken down into sections. The section your are referring to is titled "Miscellaneous."
DeleteLine #91 asks, "Are you aware of any existing or threatened legal action affecting the property or any condominium or homeowners association to which you, as an owner, belong?"
Line #96 asks, "Are you aware of any material defects to the property, dwelling, or fixtures which are not disclosed elsewhere on this form? (A defect is "material" if a reasonable person would attach importance to its existence or non-existence in deciding whether or how to proceed in the transaction.)
The property was purchased 6/6/14 for $1,355,657
The property was listed for sale by the owners on 4/7/15 for $1,350,000 and the price was reduced to $1,250,000 on 5/14/15.
The property was removed from the real estate market on 6/18/15.
This site has fought to protect the identities of its sources of information.
Previously, a grand jury subpoena was issued to The Fact of The Matter to appear before a Union County Grand Jury wanting to know, among other things, how or who this site was receiving information from.
Clearly, town officials, including former police chief Parizeau and current police chief David Wayman are not happy with what has been exposed to the public by TFoTM.
The subpoena was fought by the A.C.L.U. ultimately protecting TFoTM's sources of information.
TFoTM will continue to protect the identity of all sources of information.
TFoTM stands by its story.
Thank you for your comment.
That didn't really answer the question. Have you seen the legal forms completed by the seller as part of that listing? Yes or No?
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to your question, TFoTM will continue to protect the identity of the source of it's information.
DeleteI believe you were only making this statement based on the listing, as you stated above. It's a shame you choose to do this to such good people.
ReplyDeleteYour attempt to elicit an answer from me is obvious. As I have stated before, TFoTM will continue to protect it's sources of information. I'm sure they are "good people" and I don't know what you are referring to when you state, "It's a shame you choose to do this to such good people."
DeleteTFoTM stands by it's story. If you have any evidence to refute the contents of the story, please provide it.
Thank you.
To Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHave you made the same accusations to The Star Ledger, News 12, ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, or any other agency covering "The Watcher?"
Have you told them "It's a shame you choose to do this to such good people?"
Probably not because it's all too easy for you to remain anonymous here.
Some of the comments posted on NJ.com's coverage of this story have raised many of the very same questions that this site has.
What accusations? And funny that you choose to be anonymous. The staff at the TFoTM has made an accusation about this family playing dirty when trying to resell the house...without any substantiated evidence other than the listing...which he admitted to above. And please...this is a gossip rag from a bitter former town employee who was fired for sleeping on the job...please don't compare this blog to real news outlets. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteWhat accusations? And funny that you choose to be anonymous. The staff at the TFoTM has made an accusation about this family playing dirty when trying to resell the house...without any substantiated evidence other than the listing...which he admitted to above. And please...this is a gossip rag...please don't compare this blog to real news outlets. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting the lawsuit. From the document, it appears that the current owners have disclosed this information to prospective buyers. I believe this information is correct, otherwise it would fly in the face of the plaintiffs.
ReplyDelete4. Plaintiffs purchased the home at One Million Three Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Seven ($1,355,657.00) Dollars and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on renovations. But for the threatening letters sent by Defendants, Plaintiffs would have been able to resell the home. However, now Plaintiffs’ are obligated- as were the Defendants- to disclose the conduct and claim of right of ownership and/or possession to the home, and have already lost prospective third party purchasers due to the disclosure of the threatening letter.
You would be correct as long as it was disclosed each time the home was listed for sale.
DeleteAlso, the time/date of "the disclosure of the threatening letters" is key. This statement could refer to the media buzz created as a result of the letters being disclosed or some other point in time when the home was "For Sale" by the plaintiffs.
The key words in the lawsuit statement are "However, now Plaintiff's are obligated...."
This lawsuit was filed before any media buzz. Section 4 of this count does not state "purchaser" but "purchaser(s), so I doubt this lawyer is playing semantics. In addition, to your point of using "However"...it was in reference to the letters received, and because of such letters received, they are now bound to disclose this information given the law which they are basing their suit. This is a very well prepared document, given the stakes, it would be fool hearty to lie about this. I highly doubt plaintiffs were withholding this information from prospective buyers.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight, nobody has ever mentioned "the Watcher" in the past? This has been going on since the 1920's but no evidence of anything prior to the current owners exists right?
ReplyDeleteThe lawsuit mentions a letter received by the previous owners shortly before the house was sold to the current owners. The lawsuit also mentions letters received shortly after the current owners purchased the home. I am unaware of any other letters other than the ones mentioned above.
Delete