luxury realty group, bruce hiatt and simon chen trump las vegas condo hotel fraud complaint filed

-1-

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Michael Bourff and Tabitha Cote : : Plaintiffs :

: : v. : CASE NO.: 2009CV173815 : Luxury Realty Group, LLC; Bruce : Hiatt; and Simon Chen : : Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED :

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT1

COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Michael Bourff and Tabitha Cote, and file this

Amended Complaint against the above named Defendants, showing the Court as

follows:

INTRODUCTION

1.

This case involves a Georgia couple, Michael Bourff and Tabitha Cote, who

were duped by unscrupulous, yet sophisticated, Las Vegas real estate brokers

Luxury Realty Group (hereinafter LRG) and its owner/agents Bruce Hiatt and

Simon Chen. These Defendants contracted with the Plaintiffs and agreed to be

1 This Amended Complaint is filed pursuant to the Court’s directive in its December 17, 2009 Order requiring that the Plaintiffs re-plead their fraud, fraudulent inducement to contract, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation, and Georgia Securities Act claims with more particularity. Plaintiffs show below that this Amended Complaint adequately addresses the deficiencies noted by the Court.

-2-

their buyers’ agent and represent their interests in the purchase of a condo/hotel

unit in the then still yet to be complete Trump International Las Vegas building. It

turned out however that the Defendants’ ultimate interest was to make a profit at

the expense of the Plaintiffs. Indeed, the degree to which LRG and its owners and

agents sold the Plaintiffs down the river in order to make a quick buck has just

recently been discovered when LRG, pursuant to its discovery obligations in this

case, produced documents proving that LRG has been operating as an undisclosed

dual agent under a secret contract with Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC., the seller of

the condo-hotel unit that is the center of this dispute. Indeed, this undisclosed

agreement between LRG and Trump provided that in exchange for accelerated

payment of the commissions LRG could expect to receive for sales that closed,

LRG agreed in writing that it and its owners and agents would act as Trump’s

sellers’ agent and represent Trump’s interests. Defendants even agreed that they

would not do or say anything that could be seen as casting Trump in a bad light.

2.

The Defendant’s actions as alleged throughout this complaint show that at

every turn they honored their agreement with Trump at the expense of the

Plaintiffs. That is, in their insatiable desire to sell condo-hotel units, LRG

fraudulently misrepresented to the Plaintiffs the most basic material facts about the

Trump units. These misrepresentations concerned such matters as what floor of

-3-

the building the unit was located on, the square footage of the unit, the purported

existence of a rental management pool whereby owners could join together and

pool their individual rent returns on the lease of their units with that of other

owners so as to reduce the risk that their individual unit might experience periods

of low or no rental demand.

3.

Furthermore, in addition to lying to the Plaintiffs in an effort to induce them

into purchasing a unit and then into making periodic escrow payments while the

building was under construction, LRG and its owner/agents took their misdeeds a

step further and sought to trick Plaintiffs into signing a document that would have

resulted, if executed, in the Plaintiffs waiving all their legal claims not only against

LRG but also all those legal claims they had against Trump, the seller of the

condo-hotel unit. There exists no set of circumstances under which a buyer’s agent

should ever recommend that his clients voluntarily and without any consideration

waive any legal claims they might have against the seller in a real estate deal. Yet,

LRG, through deceit and trickery, attempted to accomplish just that by burying

release language deep within a rather lengthy document that LRG represented was

a disclosure statement, not a release of claims.

-4-

THE PARTIES

4.

Plaintiff Michael Bourff was, at all times relevant hereto, a party to one or

more agreements with Defendant or Defendants relating to the offer, purchase and

sale of investment property located in Clark County, Nevada, commonly identified

as unit #4900 in the Project known as Trump International Las Vegas.

5.

Plaintiff Tabitha Cote was, at all times relevant hereto, a party to one or

more agreements with Defendant or Defendants relating to the offer, purchase and

sale of investment property located in Clark County, Nevada, commonly identified

as unit #4900 in the Project known as Trump International Las Vegas.

6.

Luxury Realty Group, Inc. was a Nevada corporation owned and controlled

by Defendants Hiatt and Chen. Luxury Realty Group, Inc. , at all times material

hereto, was not registered or licensed to do business in the state of Georgia, yet

they engaged in the act of offering or selling real property and unregistered

securities to Georgia residents. Luxury Realty Group, Inc. was dissolved on

December 23, 2008 and the successor corporation is Defendant Luxury Realty

Group, LLC.

-5-

7.

Defendant Luxury Realty Group, LLC (along with Luxury Realty Group,

Inc. is collectively referred to as “LRG”) is the successor company to Luxury

Realty Group, Inc. which continues to be owned and controlled by Mr. Hiatt and

Mr. Chen, and is a Nevada foreign limited liability company that is also not

registered or licensed to do business in the state of Georgia as a real estate broker,

real estate agent or to sell securities.

8.

Defendant LRG may be served with process by service upon its registered

agent, the Law Offices of Gary L. Fales & Associates, located at 900 Westcliff

Drive, Suite 705, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145.

9.

Defendant Bruce Hiatt is and was at all times relevant hereto an owner of

LRG Inc. and managing member of LRG, LLC. and a party to one or more

agreements with the Plaintiffs relating to the offer, purchase and sale investment

property located in Clark County, Nevada, commonly identified as unit #4900 in

the Project known as Trump International Las Vegas. Defendant Haitt may be

personally served at 3753 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV

89169.

-6-

10.

Defendant Simon Chen is and was at all times relevant hereto an owner of

LRG Inc. and managing member of LRG, LLC. and a party to one or more

agreements with the Plaintiffs relating to the offer, purchase and sale of investment

property located in Clark County, Nevada, commonly identified as unit #4900 in

the Project known as Trump International Las Vegas. Defendant Chen may be

personally served at 3753 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV

89169.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11.

Jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Superior Court of Fulton County as

the named plaintiffs’ reside in Fulton County. The Plaintiffs retained the services

of the Defendants by signing the brokerage agreement in Fulton County, Georgia

and the offer, purchase and sale of the investment property that is the center of this

dispute occurred in Fulton County, Georgia.

12.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C § 1719, the Interstate Land Sales Act, any such suit or

action may be brought where the offer or sale took place, if the defendant

participated therein, process in such cases may be served in any other district of

which the defendant is an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found.

-7-

13.

Additionally, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91, the Georgia long-arm statute provides, in

pertinent part, that a court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident

defendant who:

(1) Transacts any business within this state;

(2) Commits a tortious act or omission within this state ... [or];

(3) Commits a tortious injury in this state caused by an act or omission

outside this state if the tort-feasor regularly does or solicits business, or

engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial

revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this state.

14.

Through their actions as alleged herein, the Defendants have engaged in the

requisite acts necessary for the establishment of minimum contacts with the state

of Georgia for Georgia courts to have jurisdiction over this dispute.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15.

Plaintiffs’ Bourff and Cote are Georgia residents who in March 2005 had an

interest in purchasing a condo-hotel investment property in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Plaintiffs decided on Las Vegas, and in particular a Trump condo-hotel, because

the Plaintiffs wanted all the benefits of having a Trump entity manage the condo-

-8-

hotel investment for them. Plaintiffs’ two (2) main reasons for investing in a

condo-hotel were (i) receiving a monthly rental check from the rental of the unit

(preferably as a part of the rental pool and with other owners sharing returns as

rent) and (ii) capital appreciation.

16.

In researching the viability of investing in a Las Vegas condo-hotel,

Plaintiffs would frequently review the website www.realtytimes.com. This was a

website where local Las Vegas real estate agents posted their opinions on real

estate matters and related facts about the Las Vegas real estate market.

17.

It is through this website that Plaintiffs first became aware of Luxury Realty

Group, Inc (now dissolved and succeeded by Luxury Realty Group, LLC) and Mr.

Hiatt and Mr. Chen.

18.

LRG’s owners and agents would frequently post self serving articles on the

realtytimes.com website about the Las Vegas real estate condo-hotel market in an

effort to induce prospective buyers into retaining LRG and/or its owners and

agents to act as a buyer’s agent for the prospective buyer. 2 (Exhibit A is one such

submission LRG’s owners submitted to realtytimes.com. It is incorporated herein 2 As discussed below, Plaintiffs later discovered the some of the most basic information LRG posted on the realtytimes.com website turned out to be false and/or deceptive.

-9-

by this specific reference.) The Plaintiffs viewed Exhibit A for the first time on or

about March 20, 2005 and several times throughout April, May and June 2005.

19.

On March 15, 2005 as part of an effort to induce potential buyers into

retaining the services of LRG as a buyer’s agent, Defendant posted an article on

the website www.realtytimes.com that stated, inter alia: “Trump International Las

Vegas continues on its roar! With Tower One sold out at 1282 units and Tower

Two waiting to launch, you don't want to wait too long before registering with us

to get into Tower Two.” (See Attached Exhibit A incorporated herein by reference

page 3 para. 3).3

20.

LRG admits that it has marketed itself generally as an expert in the condo-

hotel market in Las Vegas, Nevada. (See, Answer Para. 24). Furthermore, LRG

has even held itself, and its owners and agents, out as buyer’s agents with “expert”

knowledge of the condo/hotel market in Las Vegas, Nevada.

3 As will be discussed with more particularity later, Plaintiffs factored this important, but false, information concerning the sell out status of Tower I and the imminent construction of Tower II into their decision making related to the purchase of the condo/hotel unit, including but not limited to the decisions to make substantial payments to escrow while the unit was being constructed.

-10-

21.

Plaintiffs in reviewing Defendants website www.luxuryvegascondos.com, in

early June 2005 read the information contained on the web page, which included

the following statements:

“We are proud to say that we are considered very VIP by this project and we were the first agents in Las Vegas to be able to sell any Trump units in Tower One. No one else can claim that statistic but us due to the close developer relationships we form with every high rise developer. This means you as a buyer are typically buying in the very early phase of projects we sell IF you have completed our interest form prior to the first release of units for sale.”

“The latest plans call for a 1.6 million-square-foot tower that would house more than 1,000 condominium-hotel units ranging in size from 636 square feet to 1,057 square feet, with combinations of 1,693 square feet. Another 50 "residential homes" would range in size from 3,000 square feet to more than 10,000 square feet. Each use will have a separate lobby.”

“People can purchase units in a condo-hotel and can use them at-will and can opt to place the units in a rental pool that will rent out the units like a hotel when they are not in use by their owners…” (See attached Exhibit D incorporated herein by reference).

22.

Plaintiffs, after reading the information above, realized they have no

knowledge of first day pricing of units and LRG’s knowledge and being the first

agents in Las Vegas to sell any Trump units in tower one would be very helpful in

deciding whether or not to invest in a condo-hotel. Plaintiffs, also being impressed

with the sales activity and with what appeared to be a demand for the Trump

-11-

condo-hotel product, decided to contact Luxury Realty Group by registering on

their website and requesting more information about Trump.

23.

On or about June 6, 2005 Plaintiff Bourff, received a phone call from

Mr. Chen and specifically informed Mr. Chen that the existence of a rental pool

was very important to their purchasing decision and would not purchase a unit that

did not have a rental management scheme that would handle everything for the

Plaintiffs.

24.

On or about June 7, 2005 Plaintiff Bourff received a telephone call from

Defendant Hiatt. Defendant Hiatt stated they were “experts” on Las Vegas condo-

hotel market. Defendant Hiatt further stated they had thoroughly investigated the

Trump International Las Vegas development and would not recommend buying a

unit in Trump International Las Vegas if any issues were uncovered during their

thorough investigation. Defendant Hiatt further stated that Plaintiffs could rely on

their knowledge and expertise with respect to any condo-hotel purchase because

Trump International Hotel & Tower was sold out.

25.

Mr. Hiatt, during this above-referenced phone call represented to Plaintiff

Bourff that there were no units available for purchase at that time but that Plaintiffs

-12-

should engage the services of the Defendants anyway as Mr. Hiatt further stated

that some units would come available due to cancellations and the inventory would

be placed back on the market for sale to new purchasers and that LRG would get

access to “pocket inventory” due to their special “very VIP” connections at Trump

International Las Vegas.

26.

During the same conversation Mr. Hiatt made it clear to Plaintiff Bourff

that under no circumstances should the Plaintiffs communicate directly with

anyone at the Trump sales center until after the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract

was signed.

27.

On June 7, 2005 Plaintiffs also visited LRG’s web site and read on

Defendants website located at www.luxuryvegascondos.com, the following:

“PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE LUXURY CONDO BUILDER DIRECTLY, VISIT THEIR LOCATION OR REGISTER ON THEIR WEBSITE without talking to us first. If you have done so then no real estate agent can represent you and ask the important questions needing to be asked for your benefit. Our buyer services are free to you.

ONLY HIRE THE BEST & MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE LUXURY CONDO

REAL ESTATE AGENTS to represent you. Verify agents who claim to have day one pre-construction pricing access or they are #1 on the Strip for luxury condos. We do not know of many agents who have been working in luxury condos on the Strip for over 1.5 years, featured on ABC Channel 13, FOX Channel 5, KLAV radio or in the Review Journal as luxury condo experts and personally considered

-13-

friends and family by many developers like we are. We sell a significant number of luxury condos per tower in Las Vegas, we know of few individual agents who can claim that record. As your agents, our expertise is your gain.”

28.

On Friday June 17, 2005 Mr. Chen contacted the Plaintiffs telephonically

and through email stating that two studio units had suddenly become available, one

on the 44th floor for $890,000 and on the 49th floor also $890,000.

29.

Defendant Chen verbally stated to Plaintiff Bourff on Friday June 17, 2005

that unit #4900 was on the 49th floor overlooking Las Vegas Boulevard, that the

unit was 636 square feet, that the purchase price was $890,000 and that Trump

rental management would handle all aspects of the rental program, that there would

be a rental pool as stated on Defendants website on June 17, 2005 and Plaintiffs

would only be responsible for a payment of $890,000 payable in four (4)

installments that consisted of (i) a payment of $20,000 due immediately and that a

check must be sent overnight payable to the escrow agent (ii)69,000 when the

Condo-Hotel Investment Contract was signed, (iii) a payment of $89,0000 within

one (1) year of signing the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract and (iv) the final

payment of $712,000 at the closing of the unit which was anticipated to be the 4th

quarter of 2007.

-14-

30.

Defendant Chen admits he stated to Plaintiff Bourff on Friday June 17, 2005

unit 49 (sic) was on the 49th floor overlooking Las Vegas Boulevard (compl.

answer ¶ 39).

31.

Defendant Chen also verbally stated to Plaintiff Bourff on Friday June

17, 2005 that unit #4400 had the exact same terms and conditions as stated for unit

#4900 except that unit #4400 was on the 44th floor overlooking Las Vegas

Boulevard.

32.

Mr. Chen advised Plaintiff Bourff to purchase the unit on the 49th floor

because it was five (5) floors higher for the same price as the unit on the 44th floor.

Mr. Chen further advised during the same telephone conversation referenced above

that the Trump International Las Vegas would be a good investment and that all

the Plaintiffs would have to do is collect the monthly checks from the rental

income and sell the unit for a profit when Plaintiffs were ready to liquidate the

investment.

-15-

33.

Plaintiffs reasonably relied on all of the above representations to be true when,

on June 17, 2005, Plaintiffs hired LRG to act as a buyer’s agent and act on behalf

of Plaintiffs best interests with respect to the negotiation and purchase of a condo

hotel unit in Trump International Las Vegas. On this date the Plaintiffs signed a

document provided by the Defendants titled “CONDO COOPERATIONG

BROKER REGISTRATION AGREEMENT” which states “The undersigned also

agree to work with this broker exclusively for this condo project and agrees no

other Broker is representing the undersigned for this project.” The document is

signed by Defendant Bruce Hiatt as the broker. The document is also signed

Defendant Simon Chen as a salesperson. The document is signed by Plaintiff

Bourff as the client. The agreement requires that Defendant act in the best interests

of the Plaintiffs when representing them with respect to the purchase of a unit in

Trump Towers.

34.

On June 17, 2005 the Plaintiffs also agreed to reserve unit #4900 and signed

a reservation agreement and paid a $20,000 good faith deposit by overnight check

sent directly to the Defendants in Las Vegas.

-16-

35.

In deciding to reserve a unit and pay the $20,000 deposit the Plaintiffs

relied on the representations that Defendants had investigated the Trump

International Las Vegas project, that they were experts on Las Vegas condo-hotels,

that they were considered “very VIP” at Trump International Las Vegas and that

the building was “Sold out” as Defendant Hiatt stated in the attached Exhibit A.

36.

The plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants representations to be true was

reasonable given that there was no Unit to inspect at the time, the Plaintiffs were

located in Georgia and the property was in Nevada, Defendants’ statements

concerning their experience, knowledge, and reputation, the Defendants warnings

not to speak directly with the developer, as well as the fact that the economy was in

a growth mode at that time.

37.

The above representations, which were designed to induce the Plaintiffs to

reserve a unit and make an initial deposit toward the purchase of a unit, were false

and Defendants knew them to be false when they were made.

38.

Mr. Hiatt’s representation that no units were available for purchase on or

about June 6, 2005 was false statement. Plaintiffs learned on or about March 2008

-17-

the building was never sold out and there were units available for purchase on June

6, 2005 through present. There are approximately 1,000 units available for sale at

this time.

39.

During the June 17, 2005 telephone conversations wherein Defendant

Chen contacted Plaintiff Bourff to attempt to sell a Trump unit, Plaintiff Bourff

specifically asked Mr. Chen how much, if any increase $890,000 was over the first

day pricing for unit #4900. Defendant Chen said he was not sure if there had been

an increase in price but would ask Defendant Hiatt and either Defendant Chen or

Defendant Hiatt would get back to Plaintiffs with the answer to the question.

40.

On or about July 20, 2005 Defendant Hiatt responded telephonically to

Plaintiffs inquiry concerning whether there had been an increase in the price of

Unit 4900 from the first day pricing. Hiatt, knowing it to be a false statement,

stated that unit #4900 had been increased in price “by about $25,000” above the

first day pricing.

41.

Defendants knowingly misrepresented the amount of price increase over first

day pricing for Unit 4900. They did so because they knew it was likely that

-18-

Plaintiffs would not proceed with the purchase of unit #4900 if they knew the price

was increased $175,000 from the first day pricing of $715,000.

42.

Mr. Hiatt and Mr. Chen willfully and wantonly misled the Plaintiffs by

not disclosing the true price increase in an effort to make a sale.

43.

Mr. Hiatt and Mr. Chen as broker/agents were given “First day pricing

sheets” like the one attached as Exhibit E incorporated herein by reference. One

can easily see the first day price for unit #4900 was $715,000.

44.

Also in an attempt to induce the Plaintiffs into continuing on with the

purchase process and to induce the plaintiffs into signing a purchase agreement and

tendering another payment into escrow, the Defendants continued to misrepresent

the size of Unit 4900 and the stature of the building itself. They did so by way of

a July 19,, 2005 email communication they sent to Plaintiff Bourff. The email, sent

by Defendant Chen to Plaintiff Bourff contained a link to an article that confirmed

what the Defendants websites stated and what Defendants Hiatt and Chen orally

stated and that their website sated, that the studio unit would be 636 square feet

and that the Trump Las Vegas tower would be 64 stories tall.

-19-

45.

Defendant admits that they may have emailed Plaintiffs an article that

originated from another source with information about the Trump Tower (compl.

answer ¶ 57).

46.

Again, LRG and its owners and agents were well aware at the time they

were representing the size of unit 4900 (a typical studio unit) to be 636 square feet

that the actual square footage of a studio was going to be much smaller at only 526

sq.ft. Defendants were well aware the model studio unit at the sales center for

Trump International Las Vegas contained a studio unit that measured

approximately 526 square feet in size.

47.

On or about July 20, 2005 a package arrived at Plaintiffs home in Fulton

County, Georgia that contained inter alia, a Condo-Hotel Investment Contract,

floor plans for the studio unit and one-bedroom unit. The floor plan for the studio

unit stated 636 square feet. (See attached Exhibit F incorporated herein by

reference).

48.

When contemplating whether to sign the purchase agreement and whether to

make a substantial escrow payment of $69,000 Plaintiff Bourff had oral

-20-

communications with LRG and its owners and agents wherein they made

additional misrepresentations that defendants knew were untrue but which were

designed to induce the Plaintiffs into signing the purchase agreement and making

the escrow payment.

49.

Plaintiff Bourff spoke telephonically with Defendant Hiatt on or about July 20,

2005 and questioned:

(a) Why real estate was priced at $1,400 per square foot (636 square feet X

$1,400 = $890,400) ;

(b) How much Plaintiffs could expect in monthly income from the rental pool;

(c) What unit #4900 would be worth when the building was complete.

50.

Defendant Hiatt attempted to educate Plaintiff Bourff on the “Time Value of

Money” as he put it and as to why he thought the condo hotel unit was not only

worth $1,400 per square foot today but that the contemplated condo-hotel

investment would be worth at least $2,000 a square foot when the unit was

complete.

51.

On July 20, 2005 during the same conversation Mr. Hiatt stated to Plaintiff

Bourff that a 2nd identical tower would be built next to the first one and the

-21-

identical unit to the Plaintiffs would be priced at approximately $1,200,000

therefore, Defendant Hiatt reasoned, anybody who purchases in the first tower

would be able to sell their unit for at least $1,200,000 when Tower I was complete

because the identical unit in the alleged Tower II was on the market for

$1,200,000.

52.

During the same conversation Defendant Hiatt assured Plaintiff Bourff

that Trump International Las Vegas was to be the finest condo-hotel in Las Vegas.

53.

During the same conversation Defendant Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff

that unit #4900 would rent for approximately $300-$350 per night.

54.

During the same conversation Defendant Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff

that Trump would handle all aspects of the rental pool, that Plaintiffs could expect

to have the studio rented out approximately 20 days a month, that Trump would

keep 50% of the income for managing the studio unit and the only efforts that

would be required of the Plaintiffs would be to cash the monthly checks from the

rental income.

-22-

55.

During the same conversation Defendant Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff a

rental contract would be forthcoming that conformed to the Defendants oral and

written statements.

56.

During the same conversation Defendant Hiatt recommended to Plaintiff

Bourff that Plaintiffs keep the condo-hotel investment for a minimum of one (1)

year and a day to minimize the tax consequences on the profit that was to be

realized.

57.

Plaintiff Bourff liked the idea of a rental pool because it would offer steady

monthly income rather than only receiving income from the rental of unit #4900.

As Mr. Hiatt stated the unit would be rented for approximately 20 days the Plaintiff

thought they would receive a higher return on their investment by participating in a

rental pool. The Plaintiffs expected to receive income of approximately $3,000 per

month based on Defendant Hiatt’s representations as stated above during the July

20, 2005 telephone conversation.

58.

Relying on all of the above statements and representations LRG and its

owners and Agents made to the Plaintiff, Plaintiffs signed the purchase agreement

-23-

to buy the yet to be constructed condo-hotel unit 4900 in Trump Towers on July

21, 2005.

59.

LRG and its owners and agents were well aware at the time the Condo-

Hotel Investment Contract was signed that the alleged 2nd Trump International Las

Vegas Tower was merely a marketing strategy used to sell units in the first

building and that there were never actually any plans to construct the building.

60.

Mr. Hiatt’s false statements, which he made knowing them to be false, with

respect to the alleged second tower was one of the primary reasons for the

Plaintiffs purchasing a unit in Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas and

the Plaintiffs would never have purchased a unit had the known there was not

going to be a 2nd Trump Tower with 35% higher pricing then in Tower I.

61.

Mr. Hiatt’s false statement with respect to the alleged rental pool was

another one of the primary reasons for the Plaintiffs purchasing a unit in Trump

International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas and the Plaintiffs would never have

purchased a unit had the known there was not going to be a rental pool.

-24-

62.

Defendant Chen misquoted the price of the unit on the 44th floor to induce

the Plaintiffs into buying a unit on the 49th floor.

63.

Plaintiff’s discovered on or about February, 2008 prices increased $5,000-

$7,500 per floor for the identical unit directly above it in the Trump Tower.

64.

Plaintiff’s agreed to buy unit #4900 on the 49th floor of Trump

International Las Vegas for $890,000.

65.

Upon completion of the building in March 2008, Plaintiffs were asked to

close on a unit identified as #4900 on the 41st floor of the building.

66.

Defendants never disclosed unit #4900 was actually on the 41st floor of

Trump International Las Vegas.

67.

Contrary to Defendants representation that the building was to be 64

stories high, Defendants were well aware that the Tentative Map (building plans)

for Trump International Las Vegas were already filed and was approved by the

-25-

Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning on or about February 28,

2005.

68.

The Tentative Map clearly depicts plans for a 56 story building.

69.

The Tentative Map also depicts a studio unit that is approximately 526

square feet in size, not 636 square feet that was stated on Defendants website,

written communication and oral communications and the Condo-Hotel Investment

Contract.

70.

The signing of a purchase agreement is but one of the many steps involved

in this process of buying preconstruction. After paying the good faith deposit by

check sent to the Defendants per their request and after the signing of the purchase

agreement Plaintiffs were required to make two substantial payments toward the

purchase into escrow. One payment of $69,000 was made upon the execution of

the purchase agreement. The remaining payment was for $89,000 and was made

on September 25th 2006. A final payment of $712,000 was due at the closing of

the unit and was estimated by the Defendants to occur sometime in the fourth

quarter of 2007.

-26-

71.

A buyer’s agent has a duty to represent the buyers throughout this lengthy

purchase process and is paid his/her commission upon the closing on the unit.

72.

Plaintiffs relied upon LRG to represent their interests and to provide

accurate and true answers to questions and issues that might arise between signing

the purchase agreement and the closing of the unit so that they could make

informed judgments on issues as to whether they would decide to move forward

with purchase or whether they would request their money back and walk away

from the purchase by exercising their right to cancel as stated in the Condo-Hotel

Investment Contract.

73.

As Plaintiffs had never purchased a condo/hotel unit before, they had

many questions they needed answers to and they looked to their buyer’s agent,

LRG, to provide them information and answers. As LRG had agreed to be their

agent and were to be paid handsomely for representing the Plaintiffs (3% at

closing), Plaintiffs expected LRG to be honest and forthright with them and that

the information which LRG was providing them about Trump would be accurate

and true and that it would be the result of independent verification or confirmation

-27-

or LRG would inform the Plaintiffs that certain information could not be relied

upon as true.

74.

It turns out though that Defendants lied to the Plaintiffs about some of the

most important and fundamental specifications as concerned both the unit and

tower. They also intentionally or negligently failed to disclose important

information to the Plaintiffs about the unit and the tower. The Defendants

misrepresentations and failures to disclose included, but were not limited to, the

following:

A) Defendants falsely claimed to the Plaintiffs that there were no units

available for purchase at the time Plaintiffs engaged the services of the Defendants.

However Plaintiffs were informed by the Defendants that some units would come

available due to cancellations and the inventory would be placed back on the

market for sale to new purchasers and that LRG would get access to “pocket

inventory” due to their special connections at Trump Las Vegas Tower I,

B) Misrepresented the floor number of the floor that would contain the

unit that Plaintiffs were purchasing,

C) Misrepresented the amount of square feet (or size) of the unit that the

Plaintiffs were purchasing,

-28-

D) Misrepresented the manner in which the units would be managed and

falsely claimed that the unit that the Plaintiffs were purchasing would be part of a

rental pool,

E) falsely claimed that the Unit pricing had only increased by $25,000

from the first day pricing when the unit price had actually been increased by over

$175,000 above first day pricing,

F) misrepresented that the building was to be 64 stories high when

Defendants were well aware that the Tentative Map (building plans) for Trump

Tower I were already filed and was approved by the Clark County Planning

Commission on or about December 28, 2004 which depicted plans for a 56 story

building,

G) failed to review such basic documents as the Condo Hotel Investment

contract,

H) failed to disclose that the Developer received an exemption from a

very important Nevada consumer protection statute, Nevada Revised Statute 119

and Nevada Administrative Code 112,

I) misrepresented the expected return on the Plaintiffs’ investment by,

inter alia, overstating the expected rental rate of the unit and the expected return on

their investment,

-29-

J) misrepresented that Trump had firm plans to erect a second Tower

which would have much higher per unit pricing such that the value of the unit

Plaintiffs were purchasing would increase correspondingly, when they were aware

that there were no firm plans to erect a second tower,

75.

Plaintiffs believed LRG’s owners Hiatt and Chen’s when they made all of

above stated representations and each Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Defendants

false representations to their detriment when they made each of the following

important decisions in this case: (1) to sign, on June 17, 2005, a condo reservation

agreement; (2) to tender, on or about June 17, 2005, $20,000 toward the purchase

of the unit to be held in escrow; (3) to sign a condo purchase agreement on June

21, 2005 to purchase a unit; (4) to tender, on or about July 25, 2005, $69,000

toward the purchase of the unit; (5) to tender $89,000 toward the purchase of the

unit in September 25, 2006; and (6) to hire a lawyer to pursue claims and enter into

discussions with Trump for the return of the $179,000 paid in escrow.

And Plaintiffs would have taken action to rescind the purchase agreement and

obtain a return of their escrow payments much earlier than they did had LRG and

its owners and agents not knowingly provided false and misleading information to

the Plaintiffs as part of an effort to induce them into making the required escrow

payments and to not back out of the purchase and to close on the unit.

-30-

76.

The false representations by LRG and its owners and agents did not stop

upon the Plaintiffs’ signing of the purchase agreement or even upon the September

2006 escrow payment. Closing dates on the Unit would not occur until completion

of the building and both of those events were still many months away.

77.

Thus, LRG and its owners and agents continued to intentionally conceal the

truth about the specifications of the unit the plaintiffs were trying to purchase and

LRG and its owners and agents continued to keep secret and hide from the

plaintiffs the fact of their agreement to be Trump’s sale agent and represent their

interests during the same time LRG was purporting to be plaintiffs’ buyers agent

78.

Defendants stated on 9/15/2007 on their website:

“There’s no doubt that prices per square foot for Strip located Las Vegas luxury condos are averaging $1600 a square foot with prices exceeding $3000 a square foot for top floor penthouses. The recently contracted sale of a $12 million MGM MIRAGE City Center penthouse illustrates the point at $3000 a square foot.”

79.

Plaintiff Bourff contacted Defendant Hiatt on or about 9/16/2007 to confirm

the figures on the website and discuss an interview Hiatt had recently given on the

television network CNBC.

-31-

80.

Defendant Hiatt confirmed to Plaintiff Bourff that the numbers were correct and

stated to Plaintiff Bourff during the same conversation that unit #4900, Plaintiffs

unit, was worth approximately $1,200,000.4

81.

Plaintiff Bourff then conveyed this false information to Plaintiff Cote.

Plaintiffs relied on Defendant Hiatt’s false statements with respect to estimated

value of unit #4900 and the written statement “There’s no doubt that prices per

square foot for Strip located Las Vegas luxury condos are averaging $1600 a

square foot…” and arranged a loan from Countrywide Home Loans to pay for the

last payment of 712,000 that was to be due in the next 3 months.

82.

All of the statements, representations, information and non-disclosure of

information that LRG and its owners and agents made or failed to make in the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint were intentional on the part of LRG. They

were knowingly false when made and for those matters that were not disclosed to

Plaintiffs, they were intentionally not disclosed and all actions were taken or not

taken with the intention of inducing the Plaintiffs into: (1) signing a unit

4 It was Bourff and Cote’s arrangement that Bourff would interact with their buyer’s agent and the seller and whatever information Bourff obtained about the development he would then convey to Cote. Both had equal say in the decision making process.

-32-

reservation agreement and making an initial $20,000 deposit on June 17, 2005; and

then (2) signing a Condo Purchase Agreement on July 21, 2005 and making

another $69,000 payment; and then (3) into tendering another $89,000 into escrow

on September 25, 2006. Indeed the ultimate goal of LRG and its owners and

agents in making all of these knowingly false representations was to induce the

Plaintiffs into closing on the unit so they would get paid a commission.

83.

Plaintiffs would have never have transferred the escrow payments had they

known any of the above statements and information they had been provided were

false or otherwise misleading and/or had they known these things, such as LRG’s

duel agency status, that was kept from them.

84.

Indeed, it was not until right after the ringing in of 2008 that the Plaintiffs

first began to receive information that undermined the representations that have

been identified herein which were made by LRG and its Owners and Agents

85.

On or about January 1, 2008 Plaintiffs received a copy of the rental

management agreement for condo-hotel unit #4900 and there was no rental pool

agreement. Not only was there no rental pool but the rental contract stated that by

entering the rental program, owners would have to give up all rights to their

-33-

property, including the right to use and enter the property for the duration of the

contract, 2 years, yet owners would still have to pay the mortgage payment and

monthly dues associated with the unit.

86.

This fact is completely opposite of the statement on the LRG’s website in

July 2005 that stated:

“People can purchase units in a condo-hotel and can use them at-will and can opt to place the units in a rental pool that will rent out the units like a hotel when they are not in use by their owners…”

87.

Plaintiffs had reasonably relied upon the above representation to be true

when executing the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract. They were now learning

that the information that had been provided to them by Defendants was not

accurate.

88.

After numerous conversations with Defendants concerning their

representation of the Plaintiffs, it became clear to Plaintiffs they were lied to and

that the Defendants continued to lie to Plaintiffs about the condo-hotel investment.

89.

By letter dated January 20, 2008, Plaintiffs rescinded the Condo-Hotel

Investment Contract between Plaintiffs and Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC.

-34-

90.

On January 25, 2008 after being convinced Plaintiffs would not close on the

unit, Defendants attempted to sever all communications and terminate the agency

relationship the Plaintiffs entrusted with Defendants.

91.

Defendant Hiatt stated on the advice of counsel Defendants would not

provide any more information to Plaintiffs.

92.

From this point forward Plaintiffs and Defendants became adversaries.

Defendants refused to co-operate with Plaintiffs counsel unless Plaintiffs released

Defendants from any and all liability.

93.

On January 29, 2008 Defendants stated again the agency relationship was

terminated and sent the following email to that effect:

“Until we receive a written document from you that is dated and signed showing you have rescinded your cancellation of Trump Las Vegas #4900 dated Jan 18, 2008, have communicated this to the Trump corporation, have received confirmation they are allowing you to close escrow and you state you are committed and financially able to close escrow with full loan approval then any real estate agency relationship we had with you was terminated effective Jan 18, 2008. This is a repeat of a prior notification of same.”

-35-

94.

After rescission of the investment contract, Plaintiff Bourff continued to

have discussions with Mr. Hiatt and confronted him with their misrepresentation of

the square footage of unit #4900 in Trump International Las Vegas.

95.

On February 7, 2008 Plaintiff Bourff sent to Mr. Hiatt the following email:

“Bruce just so we are clear, I saw 636 Square Feet as the smallest unit offered by Trump on your website and I confirmed this with you before the purchase. I was given an information sheet by Trump with stated exactly what your website stated and what you confirmed. This is my recollection of the events. Does yours differ?”

96.

Defendant Hiatt, not knowing that Plaintiff Bourff had archived the

Defendant’s website from prior years , lied and denied the square footage figures

were on his websites in March 2005 or at any time subsequent to that and sent the

following email to Plaintiff Bourff on February 8, 2008.

Michael “Just to be clear. Your statement "Bruce just so we are clear, I saw 636 Square Feet as the smallest unit offered by Trump on your website and I confirmed this with you before the purchase." is totally false. We never had such information on our website and you know that to be true. Any such square footage data you are now describing came directly from information supplied to you by Trump, not us or some other source than our brokerage. Your conversations with our brokerage at

-36-

time of reservation and purchase was solely about a high floor South facing studio and you wanted to know what units were available and the prices. We supplied that to you and you selected the unit you wanted. There was no discussion about square footage at any time until the past few weeks when you raised it as an issue.”

97.

Mr. Hiatt lied because the square footage was on his website when the

Plaintiffs registered for more information on the website

www.luxuyvegascondos.com on June 5, 2005 (See Attached Exhibit D)

98.

The square footage was on the website when the Plaintiffs hired LRG to act

as their buyer’s agent on June 17, 2005 and paid 20,000 as a good faith deposit.

99.

The square footage was on their website when the Plaintiffs executed the

Condo-Hotel Investment Contract on July 21, 2005 and paid $69,000 per the terms

of the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract.

100.

Instead of acting in good faith the Defendants attempted to conceal the true

facts of Trump International Las Vegas, including, but not limited to, the units

being located on floors lower than the floors which the purchasers had been

informed that they would occupy, the unit size, and the alleged rental pool and as

-37-

discussed below, attempted to obtain a complete waiver for any and all liability the

Defendants have with respect to the material misrepresentations that Plaintiffs

relied upon to their detriment.

101.

On December 13, 2007 Defendant Chen sent an email to Plaintiff Bourff

which stated “Attached is the condo hotel disclosure form for our brokerage file,

and please sign the last page, then fax it back to 702-920-8160 (no cover needed).”

102.

The document is titled “BUYER DISCLOSURE, ACKNOWLEDGMENT –

CONDO-HOTEL NEW CONTSTRUCTION & RESALE” (See attached “Exhibit

H” incorporated herein by reference).

103.

Although titled “BUYER DISCLOSURE, ACKNOWLEDGMENT –

CONDO-HOTEL NEW CONTSTRUCTION & RESALE” the document was, and

is, a release of any and all claims the Plaintiffs have or had against not only LRG

and its owners and agents but also Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC., the seller of the

condo-hotel unit.

104.

In presenting the buyer disclosure document to the Plaintiffs, LRG did

nothing to explain or alert the Plaintiffs to the existence of the release in the

-38-

document and furthermore, no explanation has ever been provided as to why LRG

would, while purporting to be the Plaintiffs’ buyer’s agent attempt to have the

Plaintiffs sign a release absolving Trump of any liability. Furthermore, no

explanation has ever been provided as to why LRG would attempt to have the

Plaintiffs release Trump from any liability.

105.

The Plaintiffs, as part of the discovery period in this case, have now learned

why their buyer’s agent would do such an underhanded thing as to try to trick your

own client into signing a document that releases the developer of the building they

had just bought into from all liability. The reason LRG wanted the release was

because they knew that there were major legal problems coming down the pike and

because they had secretly contracted with Trump to be its seller’s agent with

respect to the purchase and sale of units in Trump International Las Vegas and in

doing so even went so far as to agree to defend and indemnify Trump in the event

Trump got sued over anything related to the building.

106.

Defendant Luxury Realty Group (hereinafter “LRG”) was commissioned by

the Plaintiffs to be their buyers’ agent and represent the Plaintiffs’ interests with

respect to their purchase of a condo/hotel unit in the yet to be constructed Trump

Towers – Las Vegas development. LRG was to be the Plaintiffs Buyers Agent

-39-

throughout the lengthy 3 year purchase process that was attendant to this

preconstruction purchase of a condo-hotel unit in Trump Towers – Las Vegas.

LRG’s representation commenced on June 17, 2005 when LRG informed

Plaintiffs that, contrary to their previous statements that the Trump Towers

development was sold out, there, in fact, were units available for purchase. LRG

was to represent the Plaintiffs interests, not just through the execution of the condo

“purchase agreement,”5 but also until and through the date the Plaintiffs closed on

the unit. The closing was not to occur until the building was completed. The

building received its certificate of occupancy in February 2008 and was opened for

use on or about March 31, 2008.

107.

As the Plaintiff only came to discover after they signed a purchase

agreement for a unit in Trump Towers, and only after they paid three escrow

payments totaling $178,000 toward the purchase of the unit, instead of representing

the Plaintiffs as their buyer’s agent, LRG had embarked on a campaign of lies and

deceit which was designed to first induce the Plaintiffs into committing to purchase

a unit (i.e. sign the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract and put down a $20,000

deposit) and then to keep the Plaintiffs from changing their minds and exercising

their right to rescission granted to all buyers in 15 U.S.C. § 1703 (c) and induce

-40-

them to making another escrow payment on or about July 21, 2005 of $69,000,

another payment of $89,000 on or about September 25, 2006. The Plaintiffs’ belief

has been that LRG was motivated to lie and deceive so as to induce the Plaintiffs

into making the escrow deposits and closing on the unit because they wanted to be

paid a full commission (3%) on the transaction.

108.

Now that LRG has responded to Plaintiffs first round of written discovery

requests, it turns out that the Plaintiffs belief was more than accurate. It is now

beyond dispute that during the period LRG owed a duty to the Plaintiffs as their

buyer’s agent LRG, in consideration for advanced payment of its commission,

secretly contracted with Trump to act as a seller’s agent for Trump.

109.

The contract proves that in order to be paid its expected commissions years

earlier than it otherwise would have been entitled to be paid commissions that

flowed from the Plaintiffs’ Trump purchase, as well as those that flowed from

Trump purchases involving other LRG buyer clients, LRG literally traded away the

legal and contractual obligations that it owed, as a buyer’s agent, to the Plaintiffs

and its other Trump clients in exchange for immediate payment of its commission.

-41-

110.

This despicable (and fraudulent and deceptive) act on the part of LRG

cannot be disputed because LRG produced in discovery the written seller’s agency

contract that it secretly entered into with Trump that spells out this unlawful

agreement.

111.

This contract obligated LRG to represent Trump’s interests in selling units in

the Tower and it explicitly prohibited LRG from providing any information or

making any statements that disparaged Trump, negatively described Trump, or

which cast it in a negative light. Indeed, this agreement even applied to statements

that could be viewed as disparaging, negatively describing, or failing to cast in a

positive light.

112.

Absent LRG’s secret side deal with Trump, the payment of commissions was to

be at closing, after the Plaintiffs paid for the condo-hotel unit in full, some three (3)

years after the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract was executed. In order to avoid

this delay and to ensure early payment, LRG clandestinely and contractually

agreed to release Trump from any and all claims and liability, to be employed as an

agent for Trump and also contractually obligating itself not to take any action that

was disparaging, or which could be viewed as disparaging, to Trump.

-42-

113.

By so contracting with Trump, LRG effectively concomitantly agreed that it

would not honor its obligations as a buyer’s agent to the Plaintiffs and its other

Trump clients. Indeed, under the terms of the agreement if LRG ever conveyed

information that Trump believed violated the above covenants then Trump could

withhold all commissions for all sales that occurred in the building.

114.

Trump Sales and Marketing (Trump’s Agent) produced documentation in

discovery that shows LRG made thirty two sales in the building and has been paid

advanced commission under the illegal contract of approximately $170,000.

115.

Defendants never disclosed until on or about November 9, 2009 to Plaintiffs

they were the agent of Trump or would represent Trump in any way, shape or

form.

116.

Plaintiffs have never agreed for Defendant to operate as a dual agent.

117.

In addition to all of the fraudulent acts described above LRG and its owners

and agents failed to adequately represent plaintiffs because they failed to review

such basic documents as the condo-hotel purchase agreement and they failed to

-43-

disclose to the plaintiffs that they were not reviewing the fundamental documents

associated with this transaction

118.

Indeed LRG’s owner and agent Hiatt admitted through telephone and written

communication that Defendants did not obtain a copy of the Plaintiffs Condo-Hotel

Purchase Agreement until on or about January 19th, 2008, two years and 6 months

after Plaintiffs signed the condo hotel purchase agreement and after the Plaintiffs

exercised their right to rescission of the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract.

119.

Defendant Hiatt informed Plaintiff Bourff by email on January19, 2008 they

have never seen the Condo-Hotel Purchase Agreement and stated:

“As we never saw what Trump sent to any of our clients we were not included in the contract and document process. This is very typical of new high rise construction as the developers handle everything with documents and contracts from their side and do not include in the process. We have no idea when they send contracts or what’s in them until a client contacts us about them. We just want you to understand how different it is for new construction versus resale.”

120.

Mr. Hiatt lied because LRG produced a copy of the Condo-Hotel Purchase

Agreement in discovery along with a letter that stated “Attached is a copy of the

Purchase Agreement for unit #4900” that is dated September 21, 2005, sent from

Trump Sales and Marketing to the Defendant.

-44-

121.

In addition to lying about never seeing the Condo-Hotel Investment

Contract, LRG and its owners and agents never disclosed they were excluded from

the contract process until January 19, 2008.

122.

Additional facts evidencing a failure to adequately represent the Plaintiffs

concerning the purchase of unit #4900 include the following:

(a) Defendants failed to disclose Trump applied for and received and an

exemption from the Nevada consumer protection statute, N.R.S. 119 and

N.A.C. 119;

(b) On or about August 27, 2006 Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff Bourff

that contained the following two (2) misrepresentations:

(i) “Trump International Las Vegas Tower One is SOLD OUT.” (ii) “Tower Two is about to launch its reservation sales late this fall…” ;

(c) Defendants misrepresented their knowledge of condo hotels by

calling themselves “experts”.

123.

Trump International Las Vegas was not sold out on August 27, 2006 or at

any time previous or subsequent to August 26, 2006.

-45-

124.

Plaintiffs would not have wire transferred the 2nd escrow payment of

$89,000 on or about September 25, 2006 if Plaintiffs had knowledge of any of the

material false misrepresentations, including the email stated above sent to

Plaintiff’s Bourff and Cote on August 27, 2006.

125.

Plaintiffs would have cancelled the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract had

they had knowledge of any of the above material false statements as alleged

thought the complaint and promptly did so upon discovery in January 2008.

126.

As a result of the all the above referenced actions of the Defendants, the

Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the form of unrefunded escrow deposits and

pain and suffering including mental and emotional distress, and anger and sadness.

Additionally, because Plaintiffs were never informed of the existence of this

relationship between LRG and Trump, Plaintiffs incurred tens of thousands of

dollars in attorney’s fees in their battle to recover the escrow monies which Trump

refuses to authorize the release of.

127.

The Defendants above described actions were done willfully, wantonly and

with a complete disregard for the consequences such that the Plaintiffs are entitled

-46-

to an award of punitive damages against Defendants to punish and deter defendants

and others from similar conduct in the future.

128.

The Defendants have acted in a stubbornly litigious manner which has

caused Plaintiffs to incur unnecessary trouble and expense such that Plaintiffs are

entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11.

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE INTERSTATE LAND SALES ACT

129.

By way of this specific reference Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations

contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if stated fully herein.

1. Employment of a scheme or device to defraud

130.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1703(a)(2), it is unlawful for any developer or agent,

directly or indirectly, to make use of any means or instruments of transportation or

communication in interstate commerce, or of the mails –(2) with respect to the sale

or lease, or offer to sell or lease, any lot not exempt under section 1702 (a) of this

title— . . .(A) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;

-47-

A. The Refusal To Disclose that LRG Was A Seller’s Agent for Trump At The Same Time It Was Representing the Plaintiffs As Their Buyers Agent.

131.

As alleged previously, LRG and its owners and agents Hiatt and Chen

entered into an agreement to become an agent for Trump Sales and Marketing and

Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC as evidence by the attached Exhibit C.

132.

Defendant had a duty under O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-12(a) to obtain written

consent from Plaintiff Bourff and Plaintiff Cote before entering into a brokerage

engagement with the Seller (Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC.) and Seller’s agent

(Trump Sales and Marketing).

133.

Plaintiffs never gave written or verbal consent for the Defendants to act a

dual agent.

134.

Defendant’s failure to obtain the written consent and failure to otherwise

disclose the agency agreement with the Seller and Seller’s agent until on or about

November 9, 2009 constitutes the tort of fraud.

-48-

135.

Defendant actively concealed the material fact of their dual agency from the

Plaintiffs until they were forced to produce the agreement through discovery, on or

about November 9, 2009.

136.

The Defendants knowingly failed to disclose this fact because they knew the

information would be negatively received by the Plaintiffs and might cause them to

decide not to make additional escrow payments or otherwise not close on the unit.

137.

In knowingly refusing to disclose its dual agency status with Trump, LRG

was falsely representing to the Plaintiffs that it was acting solely as the Plaintiffs

buyer’s agent.

138.

Plaintiffs reasonably relied, to their detriment, upon Defendants false

representations that LRG was acting solely as a buyer’s agent when Plaintiffs made

each of the following important decisions in this case: (1) to sign, on June 17,

2005, a condo reservation agreement; (2) to tender, on or about June 17, 2005,

-49-

$20,000 toward the purchase of the unit to be held in escrow; (3) to sign a Condo-

Hotel Investment Contract on or about June 21, 2005 to purchase a unit; (4) to

tender, on or about July 25, 2005, $69,000 toward the purchase of the unit; (5) to

tender $89,000 toward the purchase of the unit in September 25, 2006; and (6) to

hire a lawyer to pursue claims and enter into discussions with Trump for the return

of the $179,000 paid in escrow.

B. LRG, Knowing that the Representation was false, Represented to Plaintiffs that Trump International Las Vegas was “Sold Out” or “Fully Reserved.”

139.

LRG stated on March 15, 2005 that Trump International Hotel & Tower was

sold out. LRG knew this representation to Plaintiff Bourff was false and not true.

There had not been a single unit sold yet by the Developer because the

entity, Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC was not formed until April 13, 2005 (See

Attached Exhibit B). Furthermore, Plaintiffs learned that the Housing and Urban

Development did not give approval for Trump to sell unit across states lines

pursuant to ILSA until on or about July 12, 2005.

140.

Defendant stated Trump International Hotel & Tower was sold out on March

15, 2005 (see attached Exhibit A).

-50-

141.

Defendant website www.luxuryvegascondos.com stated Trump International

Hotel & Tower was fully reserved on June 16, 2005 when Plaintiffs hired the

Defendant to represent them in the purchase of a unit at Trump International Hotel

& Tower Las Vegas.

142.

On or about July 20, 2005 Defendant Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff that

Trump Tower was sold out and LRG has “Vip access” to the last units available.

143.


Hotel & Tower was fully reserved on July 21, 2005 when Plaintiffs executed the

Condo-Hotel Investment Contract for a unit at Trump International Hotel & Tower

Las Vegas.

144.

On October 23, 2005 Defendant posted an article online at

www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about November 1, 2005

-51-

(See attached Exhibit I incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump

International Hotel & Tower was sold out.

145.

On November 2, 2005 Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff Bourff and to

Plaintiff Cote (See attached Exhibit G incorporated herein by reference) that stated

Trump International Hotel & Tower was fully reserved.

146.

On November 2, 2005 Defendant posted an article online at


(See attached Exhibit J incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump

International Hotel & Tower was fully reserved.

147.

On December 1, 2005 Defendant posted an article online at

www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about December 5, 2005

(See attached Exhibit K incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump


-52-

148.

On January 28, 2006 Defendant posted an article online at

www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about February 1, 2006(See

attached Exhibit L incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump Inferential

Hotel & Tower was fully reserved.

149.

On March 16, 2006 Defendant posted an article online at

www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about April 1, 2006 (See

attached Exhibit M incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump Inferential

Hotel & Tower was fully reserved.

150.

On July 25, 2006 Defendant posted an article online at

www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about August 1, 2006(See

attached Exhibit M incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump

International Hotel & Tower is “SOLD OUT.”

-53-

151.

On August 28, 2006 Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff Bourff and

Plaintiff Cote (See attached Exhibit O incorporated herein by reference) that stated

Trump International Las Vegas is “SOLD OUT.”

152.

Any reasonable condo/hotel unit purchaser similarly situated to the Plaintiffs

would be justified in relying on their buyer’s agent representation concerning the

sales status of a development.

153.

Plaintiffs’ main reason for contacting LRG was because LRG said Trump

International Hotel & Tower was sold out or 90% sold out on March 15, 2005.

154.

Defendants knowingly made this false representation in order to build up a

feeling in the Plaintiffs that if a unit became available they would have to act

quickly and accept the offer. Defendants made this false statement to induce the

Plaintiffs into purchasing a unit and transferring $178,000 in escrow payments.

-54-

155.


representations that Trump International Las Vegas was “Sold out” or “Fully

reserved” when Plaintiffs made each of the following important decisions in this

case: (1) to sign, on June 17, 2005, a condo reservation agreement; (2) to tender,

on or about June 17, 2005, $20,000 toward the purchase of the unit to be held in

escrow; (3) to sign the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract on or about June 21,

2005 to purchase a unit; (4) to tender, on or about July 25, 2005, $69,000 toward

the purchase of the unit; (5) to tender $89,000 toward the purchase of the unit in

September 25, 2006; and (6) to hire a lawyer to pursue claims and enter into


156.

Plaintiffs did not learn until on or about August 1, 2008 from Trump Sales

and Marketing (the Seller’s agent) that Trump International Hotel & Tower Las

Vegas was never sold out and all the above referenced statements with respect to

Trump International Hotel & Tower being sold out were false.

-55-

C. LRG, Knowing Made the False Representation to Plaintiffs that the Unit #4900 Was On The 49th Floor.

157.

LRG, through Mr. Chen stated on June 16, 2005 to Plaintiff Bourff that unit

#4900 was on the 49th floor when in fact it is on the 41st floor of the tower. LRG

knew at the time this statement was made that it was false. LRG made these false

statements in an effort to induce Plaintiffs into purchasing a unit.

158.


representations that their Unit 4900 was located on the 49th floor when it was

actually on the 41st floor when Plaintiffs made each of the following important

decisions in this case: (1) to sign, on June 17, 2005, a condo reservation

agreement; (2) to tender, on or about June 17, 2005, $20,000 toward the purchase

of the unit to be held in escrow; (3) to sign the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract

on or about June 25, 2005 to purchase a unit; (4) to tender, on or about July 25,

2005, $69,000 toward the purchase of the unit; (5) to tender $89,000 toward the

purchase of the unit in September 25, 206; and (6) to hire a lawyer to pursue claims

and enter into discussions with Trump for the return of the $179,000 paid in

escrow.

-56-

159.


would be justified in relying on their buyer’s agent representation concerning what

floor of the tower the unit would be located on.

D. LRG Knowingly Falsely Represented to Plaintiffs that the Unit Was To Contain 636 Square Feet

160.

Defendant Chen stated on June 16, 2005 to Plaintiff Bourff that unit #4900

was to contain 636 square feet when in fact the plans were for only 526 square feet.

This reduction in size immediately reduced the Plaintiffs investment value by

approximately $154,000.(110 square feet X $1,400 a foot = 154,000).

161.

Defendant Chen’s representation on June 17, 2005 that Unit 4900 was 636

sq/ft was just one of several occasions (previously identified herein) that

Defendants made this false representation.

162.

Defendant’s website disclosed the inaccurate square footage on June 5, 2005

when the Plaintiffs registered for more information (See Attached Exhibit D).

-57-

163.

Defendant’s website disclosed the inaccurate square footage on June 17,

2005 when the Plaintiffs decided to send the Defendants a check by overnight mail

from Atlanta to Las Vegas for a good faith deposit for unit #4900.

164.

Defendant Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff that unit #4900 contained 636

square feet on or about June 20, 2005 prior to Plaintiffs signing the Condo-Hotel


165.

Defendant’s website disclosed the inaccurate square footage on July 21,

2005 when the Plaintiffs signed the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract in Atlanta,

Georgia (See Attached Exhibit D).

166.

Defendants knowingly made this false representation in order to induce the

Plaintiffs into purchasing a unit.

-58-

167.


representations concerning the square footage of the unit when Plaintiffs made

each of the following important decisions in this case: (1) to sign, on June 17,

2005, a condo reservation agreement; (2) to tender, on or about June 17, 2005,

$20,000 toward the purchase of the unit to be held in escrow; (3) to sign a condo

purchase agreement on or about June 21, 2005 to purchase a unit; (4) to tender, on

or about July 25, 2005, $69,000 toward the purchase of the unit; (5) to tender

$89,000 toward the purchase of the unit in September 25, 206; and (6) to hire a

lawyer to pursue claims and enter into discussions with Trump for the return of the

$179, 000 paid in escrow.

168.


would be justified in relying on their buyer’s agent representation concerning

square footage .

-59-

E. LRG Knowing Falsely Represented to Plaintiffs That Unit #4900 Had Been Increased In Price by $25,000.

169.

On June 17, 2005 Plaintiff Bourff specifically asked Defendant Chen how

much unit #4900 had been increased in price. Defendant Chen stated was not sure

how much if any increase $890,000 was over first day pricing for unit #4900.

Defendant Chen lied because he had already sold approximately thirty (30) units at

the first day pricing and was already in possession of the first day pricing sheets for

Trump International Hotel & Tower, as Plaintiffs have just only learned through

discovery.

170.

On or about July 20, 2005 Mr. Hiatt telephoned Plaintiff Bourff and stated

unit #4900 was increased in price” by about $25,000.” . Mr. Hiatt lied because he

had already sold approximately thirty (30) units at the first day pricing and was

already in possession of the first day pricing sheets for Trump International Hotel

& Tower, as Plaintiffs have just only learned through discovery.

-60-

171.

Defendant has admitted to supplying this false information but claim they

relied on Trump Sales and Marketing for the first day pricing information and they

were only the conduit of information.

172.

Defendants sold approximately (thirty) 30 units prior to the Plaintiffs unit

and were given or had access to the first day pricing sheet identical to the one

attached as Exhibit E.

173.

Even if the Defendants did not have access to the pricing sheets they could

easily deduce that the price of unit #4900 had been substantially increased

compared to units they had previously sold in the Trump Tower.

174.


Plaintiffs into purchasing a unit.

-61-

175.

Plaintiffs would never have purchased unit #4900, nor transferred any monies

had they known the true price increase was $175,000 over the first day pricing of

$715,000 for unit #4900.

176.

Plaintiffs for the first time learned on or about May 1, 2008 of the true first

day pricing for unit #4900 as stated above.

177.

Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon Defendants false representations of the

price increase when Plaintiffs made each of the following important decisions in

this case: (1) to sign, on June 17, 2005, a condo-hotel reservation agreement; (2)

to tender, on or about June 17, 2005, $20,000 toward the purchase of the unit to be

held in escrow; (3) to sign a Condo-Hotel Investment Contract on or about June 21,

2005 to purchase a unit; (4) to tender, on or about July 25, 2005, $69,000 toward

the purchase of the unit; (5) to tender $89,000 toward the purchase of the unit in

September 25, 206; and (6) to hire a lawyer to pursue claims and enter into


-62-

178.


would be justified in relying on their buyer’s agent representation concerning price

increases.

F. LRG Knowingly Falsely Represented to Plaintiffs that the Construction of a Second Tower was Eminent

179.

Mr. Hiatt stated on or about July 20, 2005 to Plaintiff Bourff, prior to

Plaintiffs executing the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract, that there was going to

be a 2nd Trump Tower located next to the first one and unit prices would be 35%

higher than in Tower I.

180.


www.realtytimes.com (See attached Exhibit I incorporated herein by reference)

that stated Trump International Hotel & Tower was sold out and that there was

going to be a 2nd Trump Tower with pricing 35% higher than the first tower.

-63-

181.

On November 2, 2005 Defendant sent an email (See attached Exhibit J

incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump International Hotel & Tower

was fully reserved and that there was going to be a 2nd Trump Tower with pricing

35% higher than the first tower.

182.


www.realtytimes.com (See attached Exhibit K incorporated herein by reference)

that stated Trump International Hotel & Tower was fully reserved and that there

was going to be a 2nd Trump Tower with pricing 35% higher than the first tower.

183.


Plaintiffs into purchasing a unit and then to ensure escrow payments were made in

a timely fashion so as to get paid their commission 1% commission with each

payment under the terms of the secret agency contract with Trump.

-64-

184.


representations concerning a second tower when Plaintiffs made each of the

following important decisions in this case: (1) to sign, on June 17, 2005, a Condo-

Hotel reservation agreement; (2) to tender, on or about June 17, 2005, $20,000

toward the purchase of the unit to be held in escrow; (3) to sign a Condo-Hotel

Investment Contract on June 21, 2005 to purchase a unit; (4) to tender, on or about

July 25, 2005, $69,000 toward the purchase of the unit; (5) to tender $89,000

toward the purchase of the unit in September 25, 2006; and (6) to hire a lawyer to

pursue claims and enter into discussions with Trump for the return of the $179,000

paid in escrow.

185.



future development plans.

-65-

G. LRG Knowingly Falsely Represented to Plaintiffs That There Would be a Rental Pool Available.

186.

Plaintiff Bourff specifically stated to Mr. Chen on June 5, 2005 the

existence of rental pool was very important to the Plaintiffs purchasing

decision and would not purchase a unit that did not contained a rental pool

option.

187.

Defendant Chen represented to Plaintiff Bourff on June 5, 2005 and

again on June 17, 2005 that there was going to be a rental pool as was stated

on the website at the time.

188.

Defendant Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff on or about July 20, 2005

that there was going to be a rental pool.

189.


Plaintiffs into purchasing a unit and then to ensure escrow payments were made in

a timely fashion so as to get paid their commission 1% commission with each

payment under the terms of the secret agency contract with Trump.

-66-

190.


representations concerning the availability of a rental pool when Plaintiffs made

each of the following important decisions in this case: (1) to tender, on or about

June 17, 2005, $20,000 toward the purchase of the unit to be held in escrow; (2) to

sign the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract on or about June 21, 2005 to purchase a

unit; (3) to tender, on or about July 25, 2005, $69,000 toward the purchase of the

unit; (4) to tender $89,000 toward the purchase of the unit in September 25, 2006;

and (6) to hire a lawyer to pursue claims and enter into discussions with Trump for

the return of the $178,000 paid in escrow.

191.



rental pool plans .

192.

Plaintiffs learned for the first time on or about January 1, 2008, after

receiving the rental contract, there was no rental pool offered.

-67-

H. Defendants Misrepresented Themselves As “Experts”

193.

Mr. Hiatt and Mr. Chen stated on Mach 15, 2005 the following that the

Plaintiffs relied upon to their detriment:

“Do you know the important due diligence questions to ask? We do. Have you researched the builder and know of possible concerns to ask? We do. Do you know the statistics of similar unit pricing or trends that could affect your purchase decision? We do. We are recognized as experts in the luxury home and condo market in Las Vegas so please contact us first.” (See attached Exhibit A Page 1)

194.

Defendant Chen stated to Plaintiff Bourff on June 5, 2005 that Defendants

Hiatt and Chen were experts on the Las Vegas condo-hotel market.

195.

Defendant Chen stated to Plaintiff Bourff on June 17, 2005 that Defendants

Hiatt and Chen were experts on the Las Vegas condo-hotel market.

196.

Defendant Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff on or about July 20. 2005 that

Defendants Hiatt and Chen were experts on the Las Vegas condo-hotel market.

-68-

197.

Plaintiffs relied on the above statement when executing the Condo-Hotel

Investment Contract. Plaintiffs had no experience in purchasing a condo-hotel and

indeed have never heard the term “Condo-Hotel” unit until in or around February

2005.

198.

Plaintiff’s only learned through discovery that Luxury Realty Group asked

no due diligence questions of Trump, conducted no research into the building.

Indeed the Defendant even admitted to having never even read the contract that

governs the sale for unit #4900.

199.

Plaintiffs would never have executed the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract

nor transferred any monies had they known the Defendants misrepresented their

knowledge of real estate and the Las Vegas condo-hotel market.

200.

Further, Plaintiffs have since learned in discovery that the Defendants

possess no special skill set, have no knowledge of consumer protection statutes

related to real estate and do not even bother to read the contracts that govern the

-69-

sale and completely rely on the developer/seller for all material information related

to sale and falsely claim to be experts when they are merely sales personnel for the

Developer.

201.

Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied upon all of the Defendants’ false and

fraudulent representations as stated in Count I and prevented the Plaintiffs from

exercising their right to cancel the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract under 15

U.S.C. § 1703(c)6

202.

The earliest the Plaintiffs could have discovered that the information that

LRG was providing to them was false, under any set of facts, was January 15, 2008

when Plaintiffs first had notice of the 18% reduction in square footage. It was on

this date that Plaintiffs attempted to reserve a unit using Trump’s online

reservation system. Plaintiffs tried to book a unit at the earliest possible time when

Trump first starred accepting bookings for the still yet to be completed building.

This was even before anyone, including an owner was allowed to tour the building.

As these facts show that the Plaintiffs could not have discovered that LRG’s

representations to them were false until January 15, 2008,

6 Plaintiff Cote never received the statutory y required “Property Report”, thus Plaintiffs had 2 (two) years to cancel the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract and receive a refund of all monies paid toward the purchase of unit #4900.

-70-

2. Unlawful Representations of Property Value Increases to Induce

Sales

CFR § 1715.20 Unlawful sales practices—regulatory provisions.

203.

The ILSA also makes it unlawful for any developer or agent, directly or

indirectly, to: … (h)Use, as a sales inducement, any representation that any lot has

good investment potential or will increase in value unless it can be established, in

writing, that: (1) Comparable lots or parcels in the subdivision have, in fact, been

resold by their owners on the open market at a profit, or; (2) There is a factual

basis for the represented future increase in value and the factual basis is certain,

and; (3) The sales price of the offered lot does not already reflect the anticipated

increase in value due to any promised facilities or amenities. The burden of

establishing the relevancy of any comparable sales and the certainty of the factual

basis of the increase in value shall rest upon the developer.

204.

On or about July 20, 2005 Defendant Hiatt, telephoned Plaintiff Bourff

while in the State of Georgia and stated to Plaintiff Bourff there was going to be a

2nd Trump Tower and that pricing would be 35% higher than Tower I which would

-71-

cause the Plaintiffs unit to increase in value by at least 35%. Plaintiffs signed the

Condo-Hotel Investment Contract the next day in large part due to the fraudulent

statement made by Defendant Hiatt to Plaintiff Bourff.

205.



and relied upon as true when making the next escrow payment on September 25,

2006 (See attached Exhibit I incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump

International Hotel & Tower was sold out and that there was going to be a 2nd

Trump Tower with pricing 35% higher than the first tower.

206.

On November 2, 2005 Defendant sent an email (See attached Exhibit G

incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump International Hotel & Tower

was fully reserved and that there was going to be a 2nd Trump Tower with pricing

35% higher than the first tower. Plaintiffs relied upon the email statements as true

when making the next escrow payment on September 25, 2006

-72-

207.


www.realtytimes.com com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about December 20,

2005 and relied upon as true when making the next escrow payment on September

25, 2006 (See attached Exhibit K incorporated herein by reference) that stated

Trump International Hotel & Tower was fully reserved and that there was going to

be a 2nd Trump Tower with pricing 35% higher than the first tower.

208.

At the time the above statements were made Defendants knew that they were

false and were used as fraudulent sales strategy to market units in Tower I. This

strategy worked on the Plaintiffs all the until on or about January 15, 2008, when

the Plaintiffs discovered unit #4900 could have substantially less square footage

then what was represented to them by the Defendants and what the Condo-Hotel

Investment Contract stated.

209.

Plaintiffs learned on or about March 1, 2008 that there was never going to be

a 2nd Trump Tower, that there were no regulatory filings made with the HUD (as

required by ILSA), Nevada Division of Real Estate, Clark County Planning

-73-

Commission or even the FAA to obtain clearance for building such a high

structure.

3. ILSA Makes it Unlawful to make Repetitive Announcements of

Sales to Induce Sales

C.F.R. § 1715.25 Misleading sales practices.

210.

The ILSA makes it an unlawful sales practice to make repetitive

announcements of the same lot being sold when in fact this is not the case.

211.

Defendant’s acts or omissions as alleged throughout this Amended

Complaint, including those listed immediately below, constitute misleading sales

practice as defined by the ILSA and thus constitute violations of the ILSA which

violations have proximately caused harm to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

212.

Defendant stated Trump International Hotel & Tower was sold out on March

15, 2005 or was 90% sold out, Plaintiffs relied on the statement as true when

-74-

contacting LRG and executing the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract (see attached

Exhibit A)

213.

Defendant website stated Trump International Hotel & Tower was fully

reserved on June 17, 2005 when Plaintiffs hired the Defendant to represent them in

the purchase of a unit at Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas.

214.

On June 5, 2005 Defendant Chen orally stated to Plaintiff Bourff Trump

International Hotel and Tower was sold out.

215.

On or about July 20, 2005 Defendant Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff that

Trump Tower was sold out and that LRG has special access to inventory that was

not on the market and only available to their buyers.

216.


Hotel & Tower was fully reserved on July 21, 2005 when Plaintiffs executed the

-75-

Condo-Hotel Investment Contract for unit #4900 at Trump International Hotel &

Tower Las Vegas.

217.


for unit 4900 had they know the Defendants were conveying false information as

Trump International Hotel and Tower Las Vegas was never sold out.

218.



(See attached Exhibit I incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump

International Hotel & Tower was sold out.

219.

Plaintiffs relied on the Exhibit I as true when transferring their next escrow

payment on or about September 25, 2006 and would not have transferred $89,000

had they known the Defendant was conveying false information with respect to

unit sales.

-76-

220.

On November 2, 2005 Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff Bourff and to

Plaintiff Cote viewed by both Plaintiffs on November 2, 2005 (See attached

Exhibit G incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump International Hotel

& Tower was fully reserved.

221.

Plaintiffs relied on the email as true when transferring their next escrow



unit sales.

222.

On November 2, 2005 Defendant posted an article online at


(See attached Exhibit J incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump


-77-

223.

Plaintiffs relied on the Exhibit J as true when transferring their next escrow



unit sales.

224.


www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about December 20, 2005

(See attached Exhibit K incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump

Inferential Hotel & Tower was fully reserved.

225.

Plaintiffs relied on the Exhibit K as true when transferring their next escrow



unit sales.

-78-

226.

On January 28, 2006 Defendant posted an article online at

www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about February 1, 2006

(See attached Exhibit L incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump

Inferential Hotel & Tower was fully reserved.

227.

Plaintiffs relied on the Exhibit L as true when transferring their next escrow

payment on September 25, 2006 and would not have transferred $89,000 had they

known the Defendant was conveying false information with respect to unit sales.

228.

On March 16, 2006 Defendant posted an article online at

www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about March 20, 2006(See

attached Exhibit M incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump


229.

Plaintiffs relied on the Exhibit M as true when transferring their next escrow


-79-


unit sales.

230.

On July 25, 2006 Defendant posted an article online at

www.realtytimes.com viewed by Plaintiff Bourff on or about August 1, 2006 (See

attached Exhibit N incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump


231.

Plaintiffs relied on the Exhibit N as true when transferring their next escrow



unit sales.

232.

On August 28, 2006 Defendant sent an email to Plaintiff Bourff and Plaintiff

Cote (See attached Exhibit O incorporated herein by reference) that stated Trump

International Las Vegas is “SOLD OUT.”

-80-

233.

Plaintiffs relied on the Exhibit O as true when transferring their next escrow



unit sales.

234.

Plaintiffs learned on or about August 1, 2008 from Trump Sales and

Marketing (the Seller’s agent) that Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas

was never sold out and all the above referenced statements with respect to Trump

International Hotel & Tower being sold out were false.

235.

Plaintiffs’ main reason for contacting LRG was because LRG said Trump

International Hotel & Tower was sold out and/or 90% reserved on March 15, 2005.

236.

Plaintiffs learned on or about March 1, 2008 that Trump Ruffin Tower I,

LLC, the seller of the condo-hotel units, was formed on April 13, 2005 (See

-81-

Attached Exhibit B) and did not receive approve from the Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to sell units across state lines unit on or about June 12, 2005.

237.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1703 (a)(2) (B) it is a violation of the ILSA to obtain

money or property by means of any untrue statement of a material fact or any

omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made (in

light of the circumstances in which they were made and within the context of the

overall offer and sale or lease) not misleading, with respect to any information

pertinent to the lot or subdivision.

238.

Defendant obtained at least $17,800 in commissions from Trump Ruffin

Tower I, LLC by means of the untrue statements of material fact, or omission of a

material fact that were identified in Section 1 of Count I of this amended complaint

239.

Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied on the Defendants untrue statements

of material fact to their detriment and have been damaged by an amount to be

determined at trial.

-82-

240.

Defendants also violated the ILSA when they represented themselves as a

buyer’s agent when they are also an agent for Trump Sales and Marketing and

Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC as evidence by the attached Exhibit C. Defendant

concealed this material fact from the Plaintiffs unit they were forced to produce the

agreement through discovery, on or about November 9, 2009.

241.

They also violated ILSA when on or about December 13, 2007 Defendants

attempted to obtain a compete release for any and all violations of the law for itself

and also the developer (See Attached Exhibit H incorporated herein by reference).

242.

Pursuant to 15 USC § 1709(a), a purchaser may bring an action at law or in

equity against a developer or agent if the sale was made in violation of 15 USC §

1703(a). As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and

conduct Plaintiffs have been damaged to the extent to be determined at trial and are

entitled to pursue a claim in equity.

-83-

COUNT II

BREACH OF CONTRACT

243.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of

this Complaint, and incorporate the same herein by reference as though set forth

herein in full.

244.

Defendants have breached duties and obligations that it owed to Plaintiffs

under the terms of the brokerage agreement.

245.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breaches under the brokerage

agreement, Plaintiffs have been damaged and have suffered compensable damages

to the extent of an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT OF 1975

246.



herein in full.

-84-

247.

Plaintiffs are individual members of the consuming public who have suffered

damages as the result of unfair or deceptive acts or practices of the Defendants

which had or has potential harmful effects on the general consuming public.

248.

Defendant represented themselves as a buyer’s agent on the website

www.realtytimes.com and also on their websites www.luxuryvegascondos.com as

alleged throughout the complaint. Defendants have actively concealed the fact

they are also the agent for Trump Sales and Marketing and Trump Ruffin Tower I,

LLC as evidence by the attached Exhibit C.

249.

Defendant concealed this material fact from the Plaintiffs until they were

forced to produce the agreement through discovery, on or about November 9,

2009.

250.

Defendants have violated the Interstate Land Sales Act as alleged in Count I

251.

Defendants have committed fraud upon the Plaintiffs as alleged in Count IV

-85-

252.

Defendants have violated The Brokerage Relationships in Real Estate

Transaction Act as alleged in Count X.

253.

Defendants have attempted to sell real estate to Georgia residents and do not

possess a Georgia license to sell real estate within the State of Georgia

254.

Defendants have attempted to sell an investment contract to Georgia

residents and do not possess a securities license to sell investment contracts within

the State of Georgia.

255.

Defendants have violated the Georgia Securities Act as alleged in Count IX.

256.

Defendants have committed legal fraud upon the Plaintiffs as alleged in

Count XI.

257.

By reason of the conduct alleged herein and incorporated by reference,

Defendants violated O.C.G.A § 10-1-393 and are liable to the Plaintiffs as

provided by applicable law.

-86-

258.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399 states any person who suffers injury or damages as a

result of a violation of this chapter as a result of consumer acts or practices in

violation of this part or whose business or property has been injured or damaged as

a result of such violations may bring an action individually against the person or

persons engaged in such violations under the rules of civil procedure to seek

equitable injunctive relief and to recover his general and exemplary damages

sustained as a consequence thereof in any court having jurisdiction over the

defendant; provided, however, exemplary damages shall be awarded only in cases

of intentional violation.

259.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have the right to recover their general and exemplary

damages sustained as a consequence thereof, treble damages pursuant to § 10-1-

399(c), reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation incurred in connection

with said action.

-87-

COUNT IV

FRAUD

260.

As for the specific instances of fraud which this Amended Complaint

addresses and for which Plaintiffs seek to recover for the damages caused thereby,

they are stated in Count I of this Amended Complaint. By this reference the

Plaintiffs incorporate the same as though set forth herein in full.

261.

As additional factual support for the fraud claims stated in Count I of this

Amended Complaint and restated herein by reference the Plaintiffs also

incorporate by this reference all of the allegations contained in all of the preceding

paragraphs of this Amended Complain as though set forth herein in full.

262.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-6-2(a) A willful misrepresentation of a material

fact, made to induce another to act, upon which such person acts to his injury, will

give him a right of action.

(b) In all cases of deceit, knowledge of the falsehood constitutes an essential

element of the tort. A fraudulent or reckless representation of facts as true when

they are not, if intended to deceive, is equivalent to knowledge of their falsehood

even if the party making the representation does not know that such facts are false.

-88-

263.

Defendants actions as stated herein violated the express provisions of

O.C.G.A. § 51-6-2(a) and (b) and constitute the tort of fraud and Defendants are

liable to the Plaintiffs for all damages caused thereby.

COUNT V

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO CONTRACT

264.

As for the specific instances of fraudulent inducement to contract which this

Amended Complaint addresses and for which Plaintiffs seek to recover for the

damages caused thereby, they are stated in Count I, Section I, Subsections A=H of

this Amended Complaint. By this reference the Plaintiffs incorporate the same as

though set forth herein in full.

265.

As additional factual support for the fraudulent inducement to contract

claims stated in Count I, Section I, Subsections A=H of this Amended Complaint

and restated herein by reference the Plaintiffs also incorporate by this reference

all of the allegations contained in all of the preceding paragraphs of this Amended

Complain as though set forth herein in full

266.

-89-

But for the fraudulent material misrepresentations by Defendant as alleged

herein, including, without limitation the following statements, the Plaintiffs would

not have executed the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract on July 21, 2005.

267.

Defendant is an agent of the Seller as evidenced by the agency agreement

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

268.

Plaintiffs would never have hire LRG nor would they have executed the

Condo-Hotel Investment Contract had they known LRG would enter into a secret

contract with Trump.

269.

Mr. Hiatt and Mr. Chen stated on March 15, 2005 that Trump International

Hotel & Tower was sold out when there had not been a single unit sold. (See

attached Exhibit A)

270.

Plaintiffs would not have executed the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract

had the known there above referenced statement was completely false and or

fraudulent.

-90-

271.

Mr. Hiatt and Mr. Chen stated on Mach 15, 2005 the following that the

Plaintiffs relied upon when executing the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract.

“Do you know the important due diligence questions to ask? We do. Have you researched the builder and know of possible concerns to ask? We do. Do you know the statistics of similar unit pricing or trends that could affect your purchase decision? We do. We are recognized as experts in the luxury home and condo market in Las Vegas so please contact us first.” (See attached Exhibit A Page 1)

272.

Plaintiff’s only learned through discovery, on or about November 9, 2009,

that Luxury Realty Group asked no due diligence questions of Trump, conducted

no research into building and finally misrepresented the pricing of similar units to

induce the Plaintiffs into executing the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract.

273.

Plaintiffs would never have hired Luxury Realty Group nor would they have

executed the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract had they known the statements

above were false and/or fraudulent.

-91-

274.

Defendant’s website www.luxuryvegascondos.com stated that Trump

International Hotel & Tower was fully reserved when Plaintiffs registered for more

information on the Trump Tower on June 6, 2005.

275.


executed the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract had they known the above

statements were false and /or fraudulent.

276.

On June 17, 2005, the date the Plaintiffs hired the Defendant to represent

them the Defendant’s website www.luxuryvegascondos.com/condos/trump, stated,

inter alia:

“People can purchase units in a condo-hotel and can use them at-will and can opt to place the units in a rental pool that will rent out the units like a hotel when they are not in use by their owners…”

277.

Plaintiffs would never have hired LRG nor would they have executed the

Condo-Hotel Investment Contract had the known there was not going to be a rental

-92-

pool that pooled the profits of all the unit owners and divided them equally among

all owners.

278.

On June 17, 2005 Mr. Chen misrepresented the existence of a rental pool to

Plaintiff Bourff when he contacted him telephonically in Georgia to offer two (2)

units for sale in the Trump Tower.

279.

Mr. Chen, in his efforts to get the Plaintiffs to part with $890,000

affirmatively stated to Plaintiff Bourff there was going to be a rental pool.

280.



above were false and or fraudulent.

281.

Plaintiffs only learned the truth with respect to the rental pool on or about

January 1, 2008 when the Plaintiffs received the contract for the management of

the condo-hotel unit. The contract was and is substantially and materially different

-93-

then was stated by Mr. Chen on June 17, 2005 and Mr. Hiatt stated on July 20,

2005. There was no option for a rental pool that pooled the monies together and

divided the profits equally among all owners, rather each unit would only be paid

monies when the unit was actually rented by a hotel guest. Plaintiff Bourff

specifically told Mr. Hiatt and Mr. Chen that a rental pool was very important to

the Plaintiffs decision to purchase a unit and would not purchase a unit that did not

contain a rental pool.

282.

On June 17, 2005 Mr. Chen misrepresented the square footage of unit #4900

to Plaintiff Bourff when he contacted him to offer two (2) units for sale. Mr. Chen

stated unit #4900 would contain 636 square feet of space. Unit #4900 contains

approximately 526 square feet.

283.


purchased a unit had they known the statements above were fraudulent statements

that caused them to execute the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract.

-94-

284.

On June 17, 2005 Mr. Chen misrepresented the floor level of unit #4900 to

Plaintiff Bourff when he stated is was on the 49th floor when in fact unit #4900 is

on the 41st floor.

285.



above were false and or fraudulent.

286.

On June 17, 2005 Mr. Chen misrepresented the price of the unit on the 44th

floor to Plaintiff Bourff when he stated the price was $890,000 and fraudulently

induced the Plaintiffs into purchasing unit #4900.

287.


executed the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract had they known the statement

above were fraudulent statements that caused them to

-95-

288.

Mr. Chen did not disclose true price increase of unit #4900 when asked

specifically asked by Plaintiff Bourff on June 17, 2005 how much unit #4900 was

increased in price from first day pricing. Defendant Chen stated he was not sure if

there had been a price increase with respect to unit #4900. Defendant Chen lied

because he sold approximately 30 units in Trump International Hotel & Tower and

had access to the confidential price list from Trump Sales and Marketing (See

Attached Exhibit E).

289.

Plaintiffs learned on or about May 1, 2008 that unit #4900 had actually been

increased by 175,000.

290.

The first day pricing for unit #4900 was 715,000 (See attached Exhibit E)

291.


had they known the true price increase for unit #4900 was $175,000.

-96-

292.

On June 17, 2005 Mr. Chen stated to Plaintiff Bourff that unit #4900 would

be a good investment.

293.




294.

The investment has turned out to be horrible. The Plaintiffs have been in

and out of litigation for two years. The Plaintiffs have been threatened with

financial ruin by Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC, have been threatened with a civil

suit for $10,000,000 in damages by Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC and finally told

that if the Plaintiffs ever plan on suing Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC and loose,

Plaintiffs would be responsible for Trumps fees and that was quoted to be

$2,500,000.

-97-

295.

On June 17, 2005 Mr. Chen stated to Plaintiff Bourff that all the Plaintiff

would have to do is cash the monthly checks from the rental income and sell the

unit for profit when the Plaintiffs were ready to liquidate the investment.

296.


purchased a unit had they known the statements above were false and/or fraudulent

statements that caused them to execute the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract.

297.

On June 17, 2005 Defendant’s website www.luxuryvegascondos.com stated

that Luxury Realty Group were the first agents in Las Vegas to be able to sell any

Trump units in the tower.

298.



above were false and/or fraudulent statements that caused them to

-98-

299.

On June 17, 2005 Defendant’s website www.luxuryvegascondos.com stated

that Luxury Realty Group was considered very VIP by this project.

300.



above were false and/or fraudulent.

301.

On June 19, 2005 Mr. Chen sent an email with a link to an article about the

Trump Sales Center opening. The article stated the tower was to be 64 stories tall

and the studio was to be 636 square feet.

302.



above were false and/or fraudulent. The Trump Tower is 56 stories high and the

studio unit is approximately 526 square feet.

-99-

303.

The Plaintiff only learned on or about March 1, 2008 that the tower is only

56 stories in height causing all the units to be 8 floors below the actual unit number

because the tower was sold as having 57-64 floors that actually do not exist so the

floors are presently numbered 1-8 and then 16-64.

304.

On or about July 20, 2005 Defendant Hiatt, responding to Plaintiff Bourff’s

inquiry about the price increase for unit #4900, stated to Plaintiff Bourff that unit

#4900 had been increased in price by about $25,000. Defendant Hiatt lied because

unit #4900 had been increased in price by $175,000 over first day pricing.

Defendant Hiatt sold approximately 30 units in the tower and had access to the

confidential first day pricing sheet (See attached Exhibit E).

305.

Plaintiffs would never would they have executed the Condo-Hotel

Investment Contract had they known the Defendant misrepresented the true price

increase of $175,000 that caused them to execute the Condo-Hotel Investment

Contract.

-100-

306.

On or about July 20, 2005 during the same conversation Mr. Hiatt conveyed

the false price increase, Mr. Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff that unit #4900 would

rent for approximately $350 a night.

307.




308.


the false price increase, Mr. Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff that unit #4900 would

rent for approximately 20 days out of the month .

309.




-101-

310.


the false price increase, Mr. Hiatt stated to Plaintiff Bourff that unit #4900 was

already worth at least 35% more because there was going to be a second identical

tower next to the first one with 35% higher pricing.

311.




312.

Plaintiffs relied on the Defendant’s website www.luxuryvegascondos.com

when executing the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract to be true when it claimed

on July 21, 2005 the smallest unit offered was 636 square feet, when in fact the

studio unit was to be approximately 526 square feet. The reduction in square

footage amounts to an immediate loss of approximately $154,000. (110 square feet

less X $1,400 square foot = $154,000)

-102-

313.

Plaintiffs would never have purchased a unit had they known the statements

above were fraudulent statements that caused them to execute the Condo-Hotel


314.

Plaintiffs relied on the Defendant’s website www.luxuryvegascondos.com

when executing the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract to be true when it claimed

there was to be a rental pool, when in fact there were never any such plans.

315.

Defendants knew the above statements were false and/or fraudulent and

were made to induce the Plaintiffs to contract.

316.

Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied upon Defendants’ false and/or

fraudulent representations when Plaintiffs signed the Condo-Hotel Investment

Contract on July 21, 2005.

-103-

317.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants fraudulent inducement to

contract, Plaintiffs have been damaged and have suffered compensable damages to

the extent of an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT VI

VIOLATON OF NEVADA REVISED STATUTE 645

318.



herein in full.

319.

Defendants violated express provisions of NRS chapter 645, including,

without limitation, the following:

Pursuant to NRS 252(1)(d), Defendants were required to disclose to

Plaintiffs that they is acting for more than one party to the transaction or he must

obtain the written consent of each party to the transaction for whom he is acting

before he may continue to act in his capacity as an agent.

-104-

320.

Defendants failed to disclose they were agents and or legal representatives

for Trump until December 13, 2007 and did not obtain written consent from the

Plaintiffs to engage in the alleged conduct.

321.

Pursuant to NRS 252(1)(e), the Defendants were required to disclose to

Plaintiffs any changes in his relationship to a party to the transaction.

322.

Defendants failed to disclose until December 13, 2007 they were agents and

or legal representatives for Trump and no longer an exclusive agent for the

Plaintiffs.

323.

Pursuant to NRS 645.252(3) A licensee shall provide the appropriate form

prepared by the Division pursuant to NRS 645.193 to the client.

324.

Defendants failed to provide the appropriate form, prepared by the Division

pursuant to NRS 645.193, to the Plaintiffs.

-105-

325.

Pursuant to NRS 645.254(1) A licensee shall exercise reasonable skill and

care to carry out the terms of the brokerage agreement and to carry out his duties

pursuant to the terms of the brokerage agreement.

326.

By reason of the conduct alleged herein and incorporated by reference the

Defendants failed to exercise reasonable skill and care while carrying out the terms

of the brokerage agreement and Defendants duties pursuant to the terms of the

brokerage agreement including, without limitation, the following:

327.

Defendants never disclosed the accurate square footage of unit #4900.

328.

Defendants never disclosed unit #4900 was on floor 41 of Trump

International Las Vegas Tower.

329.

Defendants failed to disclose the alleged Tower II was a marketing tactic and

there were never any plans to actually construct the building.

330.

Defendants falsely claimed the existence of rental pool to induce Plaintiffs

into investing in a condo-hotel unit.

-106-

331.

Pursuant to N.R.S. 645.254(5) a licensee shall disclose to the client material

facts of which the licensee has knowledge concerning the transaction.

332.

By reason of the conduct alleged herein and incorporated by reference the

Defendants refused or otherwise failed to disclose to Plaintiffs material and

relevant facts in connection with their solicitation to invest in an interest in land in

the state of Nevada in violation of NRS chapter 645. .254(5)

333.

Pursuant to NRS 645.255 A licensee is prohibited, except as otherwise

provided in subsection 4 of NRS 645.254, of waving any duty of a licensee set

forth in NRS 645.252 or 645.254.

334.

Defendants attempted to waive duties set forth in NRS 645.252 or 645.254 in

the attached Exhibit “H” incorporated by reference.

335.

Pursuant to NRS 645.3205, a licensee is prohibited from dealing with any

party to a real estate transaction in a manner which is deceitful, fraudulent or

dishonest.

-107-

336.

By the conduct alleged herein and incorporated by reference the Defendants

have dealt with Plaintiffs in a manner that was deceitful, fraudulent or dishonest.

337.

Pursuant to NRS 645.257 A person who has suffered damages as the

proximate result of a licensee’s failure to perform any duties required by NRS

645.252, 645.253 or 645.254 or the regulations adopted to carry out those sections

may bring an action against the licensee for the recovery of his actual damages.

338.

By a direct and proximate result of a licensee’s failure to perform duties

required by NRS 645.252, 645.253 or 645.254 or the regulations adopted to carry

out those sections, Plaintiffs have been damaged and have suffered compensable

damages to the extent of an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT VII

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

339.



herein in full.

-108-

340.

Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care and competence in their

dealings with Plaintiffs.

341.

Defendants, in the course of their business, supplied false and fraudulent

information for the guidance of Plaintiffs as stated with particularity in Count I of

this Amended Complaint and restated by reference herein and in Count IV

FRAUD and restated by reference herein . The allegations stated therein also make

up the specific instances of Negligent Misrepresentation which this Amended

Complaint addresses and for which Plaintiffs seek to recover for the damages

caused thereby, By this reference the Plaintiffs incorporate the same as though set

forth herein in full.

342.

Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or

communicating the false and fraudulent information to the Plaintiffs

343.

Defendants conveyed the false and fraudulent information with the intent

and for the purpose of inducing the Plaintiffs to enter into the Condo-Hotel

Investment Contract and to induce the Plaintiffs into making the required escrow

payments for unit #4900.

-109-

344.

Plaintiffs actually and justifiably relied upon Defendants’ false and

fraudulent representations to their detriment.

345.

As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’

negligent misrepresentations, Plaintiffs have been damaged to the extent of an

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT VIII

INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION

346.



herein in full.

347.

Defendants, in the course of their business, intentionally supplied false

and fraudulent information for the guidance of Plaintiffs as stated with particularity

in Count I, Section I, Subsections A-H and restated by reference in Count IV –

FRAUD. The allegations stated therein also make up the specific instances of

Intentional Misrepresentation which this Amended Complaint addresses and for

-110-

which Plaintiffs seek to recover for the damages caused thereby, By this reference

the Plaintiffs incorporate the same as though set forth herein in full.

348.

Defendant knew that the above-referenced statements and

representations were false and fraudulent when made, or that they had an

insufficient basis for determining the truth of those representations at the time the

representations were made.

349.

Defendant made the false and fraudulent representations with the intent and

for the purpose of inducing Plaintiffs reliance thereon, and to induce Plaintiffs to

execute and enter into the condo-hotel investment contract and then to tender the

required escrow payments for unit #4900.

350.



Contract and in making the escrow payments

351.

As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’ false

and fraudulent representations, Plaintiffs have been damaged to the extent of an

amount to be determined at trial.

-111-

COUNT IX

VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA SECURITIES ACT OF 1973

352.



herein in full.

353.

This Claim is brought by Plaintiffs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-5-12(a) and

O.C.G.A. § 10-5-14 against the Defendants.

354.

The offer, purchase and sale of the hotel condominium unit #4900 in Trump

International Las Vegas constitute, inter alia, an “investment contract” and

otherwise fall within the definition of a “security” in O.C.G.A. § 10-5-2(a)(26)

because, among other facts:

a. Both the substance and the economic reality of the investment in the

condominium hotel project offered to Plaintiffs by Defendants indicate the

investment is and was a “security”;

b. The Plaintiffs invested in the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract primarily

for investment purposes, and not primarily for their own use;

-112-

c. The Plaintiffs invested in the Condo-Hotel Investment Contract with the

expectation and emphasis on profits, primarily from the representations of

Defendant Hiatt and Chen, to be derived from the managerial efforts of the

Trump International or other Trump entities, through the rental of the

Condominium Hotel Units;

d. Defendants offered Plaintiffs an opportunity to invest their money in a

common enterprise managed by Trump International or other Trump entities.

A common enterprise managed and staffed with adequate trained personnel

was essential to the paramount aim of the Plaintiffs, which was to achieve a

return on their investment;

e. The success of the investment by Plaintiffs depended upon the expertise or

experience of Trump International or other Trump entities and their agents

for managing a hotel, not the Plaintiffs’ expertise or experience;

f. Individual management of the Hotel Condominium Units would not be

economically feasible because Plaintiffs reside in Atlanta, Georgia and the

investment property is located in Las Vegas, Nevada;

g. Defendants website (See attached Exhibit D) stated there was to be a rental

pool in conjunction with the offer to purchase a unit. Mr. Bourff stated to Mr.

Chen on June 6, 2005 the existence of rental pool was very important to the

Plaintiffs purchasing decision and would not purchase a unit that did not

-113-

contained a rental pool option. Mr. Chen represented to Plaintiff Bourff on

June 6, 2005 and again on June 17, 2005 that there was going to be a rental

pool as was stated on the website at the time. Mr. Hiatt stated to Plaintiff

Bourff on or about July 20, 2005 that there was going to be a rental pool.

Securities and Exchange Commission Release No. 33-5347 states “The offer

of the unit together with the offer of an opportunity to participate in such a

rental pool involves the offer of investment contracts which must be registered

unless an exemption is available.”;

h. There is no exemption to registration under Georgia law for the Condo-

Hotel Investment Contract at issue in this complaint.

355.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A § 10-5-12 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person:

(2) In connection with an offer to sell, sale, offer to purchase, or purchase of

any security, directly or indirectly:

(A) To employ a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud;

(B) To make an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a

material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light

of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading; or

(C) To engage in an act, practice, or course of business that operates or

would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person.

-114-

356.

By reason of the conduct alleged in COUNT I of this Amended Complaint

and incorporated herein by reference, Defendants have offered or sold a security

and employed device, scheme, or artifice to defraud.

357.


and incorporated by reference, Defendants have offered or sold a security, by

means of an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material

fact necessary in order to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances

under which it is made, not misleading.

358.


and incorporated by reference, Defendants have engaged in an act, practice, or

course of business that operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the

Plaintiffs.

359.


and incorporated by reference, Defendants have violated O.C.G.A. § 10-5-

12)(a)(2) and are liable to the Plaintiffs as provided for by O.C.G.A. § 10-5-14 et

seq.

-115-

360.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have the right to recover the full consideration paid

for their condo-hotel investment, interest at the legal rate from the date of payment,

court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

COUNT X

VIOLATON OF THE BROKERAGE RELATIONSHIPS IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS ACT

361. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in the preceding paragraphs of


herein in full.

362.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-12(a) a broker may act as a dual agent only

with the written consent of all clients.

363.

Defendant failed to obtain the written consent of Plaintiff Bourff and

Plaintiff Cote prior to entering into an agency agreement with Trump Sales and

Marketing and Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC, the developer of Trump International

Hotel & Tower.

-116-

364.

Defendant never disclosed they are an agent of Trump until on or about

November 9, 2009 when they were forced to produce all contracts between the

Trump and the Defendant.

365.

Defendant has violated to O.C.G.A. § 10-6A-12(a) and the Plaintiffs have

been damaged to the extent of an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT XI

LEGAL FRAUD

366.



herein in full.

367.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 23-2-52 a misrepresentation of a material fact, made

willfully to deceive or recklessly without knowledge and acted on by the opposite

party or made innocently and mistakenly and acted on by the opposite party,

constitutes legal fraud.

-117-

368.

Defendants, in the course of their business, supplied false and fraudulent

information for the guidance of Plaintiffs as stated with particularity in Count I of

the amended complaint.

369.



Contract and in making the required escrow payments for unit #4900.

COUNT X UNJUST ENRICHMENT

370. Defendant has been unjustly enriched by their actions as alleged throughout

this complaint and have admitted to receiving at least $17,800 in direct

compensation from Trump Ruffin Tower I, LLC per the terms of the illegal agency

contract between Trump and the Defendant. It is unconscionable the Defendant

be allowed to keep any profits derived from the monies the Plaintiffs have paid in

the form of escrow payments toward the contemplated purchase of unit #4900 at

Trump International Hotel & Tower.

-118-

371.

Defendants have admitted to not possessing a Georgia real estate license, nor

a license to offer securities to Georgia residents, thus there exists no legally

binding contract that is enforceable between the Defendants and Plaintiffs.

372.

Defendant has been conferred a benefit by the Plaintiffs which the Defendant

equitably ought to return or compensate the Plaintiffs for.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court assume jurisdiction of this

action and award the following relief:

1. Entry of judgment to Plaintiffs on all counts of this Complaint awarding

general damages in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, jointly and

severally;

2. For an award of treble and/or punitive and exemplary damages against

Defendants;

3. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, and pre and

post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

4. For such other and further relief as the Court determines to be just and

proper.

-119-

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of January, 2010

_____________________ David C. Ates State Bar No. 026281

DAVID ATES, P.C. 6400 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 112 Atlanta, Georgia 30339

-120-

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

MICHAEL BOURFF and : TABITHA COTE : : Plaintiffs : : CASE NO.: : 2009-CV-173815 v. : : LUXURY REALTY GROUP, LLC; : BRUCE HIATT and SIMON CHEN : : Defendants : (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) :

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on thisday, I served a true and correct copy of the within and foregoing Amended Complaint, via United States Mail, to: Thomas S. Carlock Katherine G. Hughes Carlock, Copeland and Stair, LLP 2600 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dated this 19th day of January, 2010. __________________________ DavidC.Ates StateBarNo.026281DAVIDATES,P.C.6400PowersFerryRoad,Suite112Atlanta,Georgia30339

luxury realty group, bruce hiatt and simon chen trump las vegas condo hotel fraud complaint filed

Documents

tabitha cote plaintiffs

plaintiffs re

commissions lrg

trump units

defendants hiatt

defendant luxury realty

individual unit

casting trump