James F.C. Rose review: Fraud 6

James,

I appreciate the response but there are a few factual matters that I wish to address.

1) You failed to meet the terms of the offer to purchase that you signed, namely your responsibility to discharge of all liens and encumbrances. You told my attorney that you wanted me to buy the property with the liens and then contact your debtors (real or potential) to get them to remove it. Yes, you agreed to hold the money aside to cover the cost, but it could potentially be lots of work to find the lien holder and discharge the lien so you fully owned the property. My lawyer advised me not to take on the responsibility / risk as it was clearly marked as your obligation in the signed offer to purchase.

2) Yes, you can represent yourself in civil court, but a simple error could have meant that I may have lost my $10k. I did nothing wrong, as you correctly repeated in your response, but I also could not afford to lose $10k, as I had already stated. I was going up against a "lawyer" who was obviously not 'playing nicely' so as a 26 year old young adult, it was very scary to think of losing all of the money I had saved up in my entire life! I assumed you had a case or an argument for denying the release of my deposit - Would it really make sense that a lawyer, knowing the law, would force a lawsuit for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WITH ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS?!

I assumed incorrectly - and as you and I both pointed out, I should have represented myself as this would have been the easiest case a small claim officer would likely ever have to decide.

3) You had the option to release the deposit. Your real estate agent was instructed, by you, to hold the money because I didn't go forward with your option to buy the house and inherit your lien! That was blatantly UNFAIR and DISHONEST. I've bought a few properties since dealing with you and I know how it works now. I know that you could have easily accepted the circumstances and asked me to delay the transaction and wait for you to sort your matters out OR take back my deposit. That would have been the moral thing to do.

4) I did not mean my comments to be taken as a rude offensive or bullying remark, it was supposed to be more of an observation of your lack of professional image. It wasn't a comment meant to make fun of your weight or something of that matter. You were not well groomed and your clothing looked like something that would have been found at a thrift store. You did not have a 'put together' outfit that was coordinated and you certainly didn't have a 'put together' coordinated case. They say not to judge a book by it's cover but there is something to be said about professional image and in this case, there definitely seemed to be a clear correlation.

5) It was an open / shut case. I will never forget the shock of the hearing officer when she asked you why you didn't release my funds and you just stood there and said that you were just in some sort of a bad situation. Her and I were both completely shocked that you had absolutely no argument, no reason and no case. In spite of your pitiful excuse for your actions and lack of support for your case, you forced me to pursue you in small claims to receive my deposit back as it was CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY agreed that you OWED me the full deposit back for failure to do your part of the agreement you accepted and signed. You did admit in court that I should receive my money back so that meant that you, the 'judge' and myself were all in agreement. There was no reason you needed to waste all of our time - that was extremely disrespectful.

6) I was awarded full costs as small claims offers only $100. Since I sued you for the $10k amount of my deposit, I was already at the maximum amount of money one can pursue in small claims. I lost $3k because I took prudent precaution to receive my deposit back as I, as mentioned before, could not afford to lose my deposit.

In the file it shows that you were penalized with costs - obviously since you had the option to settle the matter outside of court but did not:
RITCHIE, SHEA ARIC In Person Claim For 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA
ROSE, JAMES In Person Claim Against 10, 000.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 NA

(details can be found by searching: SC09-01-14303 RITCHIE, SHEA vs ROSE, JAMES)

You appear to acknowledge my lack of fault in the matter and that is nice of you. What you fail to acknowledge is your total departure from human decency by trying to take advantage of a young kid who did no wrong to you. $3k was still a lot of money for me to have lost and you set me back a long way. You should be ashamed of yourself and I hope you figure out that one day; it is better to do the right thing instead of taking advantage of people to make a quick profit and (ill-gotten) short term gain. You disgrace your profession.

I, James Rose, make this comment with regard to the ‘Winnipeg Guy’ – real name: Shea Ritchie, matter. Mr. Ritchie did not purchase a duplex (or any other property) from me. He did put in an offer to purchase a duplex and a deposit of $10, 000 was paid to the real estate agent(s) – I (at no time) ever had this money. Thus I could not return monies that I did not or ever have, and a court had to give an order that the real estate agent(s) give same to Mr. Ritchie. Mr. Ritchie knew this, as he also included these in his small claims lawsuit.

It is completely untrue that I felt that I had to do nothing about the $150, 000 (actually less) of liens (from the same organization) – it was agreed that these would be paid off from the proceeds of the sale/purchase. In addition to the above – which was not a problem, there was also filed (at the last minute) a Builders’ Lien – this was a problem; and it was not one created by Mr. Ritchie. This is just a lien (not a court judgment) – which is a notice that the contractor feels that he was not fully paid. The matter was with regard to the painting of the said duplex. This painting was never completed and it took the contractor nine months to basically get nowhere – so his services were terminated at the time of the attempted sale. I went to court and got the builder’s lien removed – but due to the court rules, the timing to get it removed went past the date of possession. The lawyer for Mr. Ritchie would not agree to holding monies for the said builders’ lien – until it was discharged; and it was discharged with no further payments to the painting contractor. The judge at the hearing for the removal expressed surprise that Mr. Ritchie’s lawyer would not agree to hold the funds – pending the discharge. There was never a court judgment on the painting matter, and we are still trying to find that painting contractor to sue him.

Mr. Ritchie obtained a lawyer to represent himself in his claim in small claims (as against myself and two others). Small Claims is set up so that individuals can represent themselves in smaller matters. Thus this was Mr. Ritchie’s choice, and if he paid $3, 000 for legal fees on a small claims matter – this seems excessive. Mr. Ritchie never sued for his legal fees of $3, 000 or any sum.

In small claims – it is a hearing officer and not a judge that hears the matter. The hearing officer had a full hearing and considered the situation and gave her decision – she did not ‘immediately order a judgment’. It was a bad situation – that all being with regard to the builders’ lien and nothing else. The lien was not the fault of Mr. Ritchie and was all the fault of the painting contractor. We showed in court (on the lien matter) that the painting contractor lied in his materials.

On the day in court I wore a sports jacket (virgin wool and silk) from Scotland, and also a tie and dress shirt and dress pants and dress shoes and black socks. I have no idea why this is a slob attire – except perhaps Mr. Ritchie is actually making a comment about my weight.

As to the $500 for law society – this was a matter that started in the 1980s with a former law partner who advanced herself monies in a manner that was not agreed upon. Then she was moving to British Columbia, and had no monies to pay me back for her advances. Thus she assigned the monies (possible) from a legal matter to pay for same. She was not co-operative and the lawsuit did not achieve any monies. Her argument was that she assigned the lawsuit and mine was that she advanced the potential monies. The court held that it was the lawsuit and thus as it was my lawsuit – I should pay the costs to the other side. I immediately did this; and the court registry (law society) was merely a note that the monies were due and paid. The law society agreed with the court and reprimanded me for not paying without going through a lawsuit. I still do not agree with the court – however, the original agreement was not in writing.

I have never acted as a lawyer for Mr. Ritchie and thus I do not know upon what basis he can say that I am a terrible lawyer.

I found Mr. Ritchie to be a pleasant and well-mannered individual, and even told him so; and advised him that I was sorry that the sale did not go through.

The law society is not set up to give legal representation to people who do not wish to pay for their own lawyer.

I was more than willing to sell the property to Mr. Ritchie; and the only real problem was the timing of the builders’ lien, and this was not my fault or that of Mr. Ritchie.

I, James Rose, as to the Blair McKibbon matter, state that as the matter is currently before the court - I cannt comment upon Mr. McKibbon's statements at this time. I will when the case is finished.

I can't believe there's actually a forum for this! If I had only known back when I met James Rose that I could have looked this up...

Here's one for you:
I bought a duplex from James Rose in 2009. I gave him a $10, 000 deposit and followed through with every obligation I had to.

James Rose, however, felt that he did not have to do anything about the ~$150, 000 worth of liens against the property - CONTRARY to the standard real estate purchase agreement he signed (this is the standard Offer to Purchase document used here). It was completely his responsibilty to discharge all of the liens so the property could be bought clear and free. The majority of that money was owed to the goverment for unpaid taxes and there was a portion that was due to a contractor who won a judgment against him for not being paid on services rendered to Mr. Rose.

When the purchase did not conclude, Mr. Rose felt that he was entitled to my $10, 000 deposit and refused to return it. I didn't know anything about Mr. Rose at the time, other than that he was a lawyer and I was 26 at the time and could not come close to affording the loss of my deposit, so I hired Pitblado to represent me.

In court, Mr. Rose had absolutely no explanation for why he didn't return the deposit after he failed to discharge the liens and merely stated 'Well, your Honour, I was in a bad situaition' (in reference to the huge amount of outstanding debts he owed). The judge was visibly upset by his comment and immediately ordered a judgement in my favour. If I had known he was such terrible attorney, I would have saved myself $3000 in legal bills, that I never recovered.

I could tell instantly from looking at his unprofessional demeanor and attire that he was not your average lawyer (in my opinion, he really looked like slob). Fortunately for me his eccentricity did not equal genius.

Here are the publicly visible details from Manitoba's Court Registry:
http://www.jus.gov.mb.ca/
SC09-01-14303 XXXXXXXXX vs ROSE, JAMES
If you look up his name in the database search, there are dozens of cases... even the one where the law society sued him for $500 - I think this was the penalty they placed on him for his screw up that they had recorded.
I made a complaint with the Law Society, and he has had other complaints registered with them before, but from my experience, they are utterly useless. They didn't do anything to help me before or after this trial (I contacted them before the case hoping the could intervene or do something to prevent me from having bigger legal bills) and all they did was send him a warning letter - or so I was told.

He should have his licence revoked. He's a terrible lawyer and a very questionable human being. What kind of person tries to take advantage of a young adult trying to make his own way in business?

BEWARE OF JAMES ROSE BIG TIME RIP OFF
James Rose is a cheat and a lier, I hired him to defend me in a case to stop a garnishment that had been made on my father in-laws cheques I met with James one time gave him a 500$ dollar retainer to start a motion he said to get the garnishment stopped or lowered after that was stopped or lowered he said he would need more money which was reasonable if the garnishment was stopped or lowered after 2 weeks of not been able to get a hold of James rose I finally did and he said sorry I went in front of a judge and they said no to stopping the garnishment and if you want me to go back to court and try again I need more money with no paper work or anything to show me and when I talk to him all he wanted was money with no progress for all I know he sat at home watching t.v and said he went to court so I terminated his service after 14 days and hired a new lawyer who is great and now dealing with my case now all the sudden 8 months after I terminated James rose services I get a letter from James rose trying to sue me for 5, 600 hundred dollars for his services 14 days of doing nothing 5, 600 and he wants 5, 600 hundred plus what I gave him 500$ hundred down there was never no such amount ever agreed upon this guy makes lawyers look bad he works out of his house you should know right there hes a broke lawyer trying to make his living off suing his clients cant even afford a office space your a joke you rip off! and i will see you in court with a counter claim for my legal fees you goof! BEWARE NEVER USE JAMES ROSE

I, James Rose, have been a lawyer for over thirty years - mainly doing collection legal work. I also have a cruise travel agency, and have for 18 years. We were retained in this matter under a written and signed contingency agreement dated July 30, 2001. We were approached by the creditor and did sue and obtain judgment as against the debtor . However, contrary to the written agreement, the creditor did not send us the requested funds needed for disbursements and the file was then closed and billed. It was billed as per the signed contingency agreement - which states the matter will be closed and billed if disbursements are not advanced. The creditor did not pay the billing - but 'discussed it' several times. No monies were ever received from the debtor. Thus we sued the creditor upon our unpaid legal billing. He was served by registered mail. The creditor did not attend to the trial (even by telephone) and judgment was obtained on May 20, 2004. This judgment has also gone unpaid by the creditor. Then in 2009 we obtained a Garnishing Order as against a company that the creditor states he does business with - but which the said Garnishee says that they do not do business. We are still unpaid - even after winning at trial. This is a warning to those who might wish to do business with SALCO - they also may never get paid.