Terin, I am really sorry you didn't find out about this story sooner. The home was really a unique, stately landmark structure filled with a great history that your family blessed us with, which longtime Naperville residents will not forget. It was a shame to have it torn down, especially the deceitful way the last owners went about purchasing it. If you go to the Naperville Historic Society's website, www.napersettlement.org, I believe there are pictures, and there is also a video on the local tv station's (NC-17?) website.

OK, i seriously hope no one touched that house. Adolph Hammerschmidts great great great GREAT Grand daughter. My name is Teirn Frazier and he built that house. I never got to see it so if it's not torn down, i would very much like pictures maybe? And yes i can prove my lineage.

MDM,

Hi Chris! We've been waiting a long time for you to join us on Potluck and tell your side of the story!

By MDM on February 4, 2009 5:43 PM
You don't know either the buyer's original intentions (not sinister) or seller's true intentions (to get out of a white elephant home - demolition worthy or not). You don't know where the money for the house came from. You don't know Chris Cobb's wife. You've probably never used their family for a realtor, and probably never will.
__________________________________________________________

MDM, It's ironic that you would chastize others here for their opinion on the situation stating we don't know the parties personally or their intentions and then you in turn state YOUR personal opinion and think it is fact. You don't know the Cobbs or the O'Neills or me, yet you think you can tell me (or anyone else here) that we don't know how we'd react in their position? On the contrary, I absolutely know that I wouldn't deceive someone. Character and integrity are important to me.

But you are correct about one thing: I have never used the Cobb team for a real estate transaction in the past, and I never would in the future.

Its always sad when an old house is replaced by a monsterous McMansion. Not really so bad when a house you've looked at for years, but that you really had no idea nothing had been done to keep it up on the inside, becomes nice green space in a town that has now become the second largest city in Illinois filled with big box stores.

For those who are debating ethics and think you know the "real story", I bet you don't...you just are caught up in the hoopla of trashing a family that couldn't afford to fix up a house they originaly thought they would like to because it is next door to their residence.

Give it a rest. You don't know either the buyer's original intentions (not sinister) or seller's true intentions (to get out of a white elephant home - demolition worthy or not). You don't know where the money for the house came from. You don't know Chris Cobb's wife. You've probably never used their family for a realtor, and probably never will.

Unless you were willing to make an offer on the house, no matter what the price, you really can't speculate on what the circumstances were, or how you'd react in their position. You especially don't know how it would feel if you read speculation and name calling about your family every day in the paper.

I don't know the Cobb's, but I feel like I know you. And I'm sorry you don't have anything else to do but to get involved in someone else's business.

By Ethics Complaint Is on File on February 3, 2009 12:09 PM

Response to Anonymous Feb. 2nd -- You stated that no complaints were filed. There IS an ethics complaint on file with the Dept of Professional Regulation, filed by Mrs. O'Neal's family.
__________________________________________

Great news. I look forward to hearing the outcome.

Ken, why would Mrs. O'Neill or her broker know or suspect that "Susan Wilkie" was the fiance or wife of Chris Cobb? Should all sellers assume that all buyers represented by anyone from The Cobb Team are related to the Cobbs? Not sure I get your point.

That was DUH's point, so you would have to ask him.

Response to Anonymous Feb. 2nd -- You stated that no complaints were filed. There IS an ethics complaint on file with the Dept of Professional Regulation, filed by Mrs. O'Neal's family.

Redskin, I agree with you that most of the 140,000 people don't know or care about this story as it is mostly of local interest to the downtown residents. And I agree that progress and development do require change, including the tear down of some homes. I am not opposed to tear downs. If Mr. had Cobb simply walked next door and offered to buy this historic home openly and transparently, and then torn it down, I would regret that this piece of heritage was demolished but would respect his rights as a property owner. Unfortunately, that is not what he did. He apparently hid his identity and had his fiance or wife buy it in her former name. Neither she nor Mr. Cobb's father, Susan Wilkie's father-in-law, who acted as her broker, bothered to disclose the fact that Susan was Chris Cobb's fiance (or wife) who was moving in next door. They disclosed a lot of other things, but not that fundamental, material fact. Why did they not make that disclosure? According to Mrs. O'Neil's family, she would never have sold it to Susan Wilkie had she known the truth, and would instead have sold the home to one of the other buyers who had made offers on the home. Regardless of whether you share mesn's view of Naperville as a closely-knit community of small town values, that just seems to have been a wrong way to go about this. It is not just WHAT they did (tearing down a historic home) but HOW they went about doing it ("subterfuge" to use Hooray's term) that made so many of the 1,000 or so people who care oppose it.

Ken, why would Mrs. O'Neill or her broker know or suspect that "Susan Wilkie" was the fiance or wife of Chris Cobb? Should all sellers assume that all buyers represented by anyone from The Cobb Team are related to the Cobbs? Not sure I get your point.

Nothing of value was salvaged from the mansion. There are tons of salvage groups and preservationist groups that go to great lengths to remove historic materials from old homes like this because they are hard to find or replace on other renovation projects, often can not be duplicated, sometimes are of exotic woods no longer available, etc. Yet, nothing was salvaged. Not one thing. The entire mansion was torn down without a thought, care, or consideration that at least parts of the history of this home could have lived on.

The smirk on Cobbs face while he watched the demolition explains in one word why nothing was salvaged. Spite.

To have trouble living with your conscience over the wrongs you have done to others first requires you to have a conscience.

You're right, Naperville is no longer a tight knit community. If that's progress, I don't want it. This is all about greed, and also lies, deceit, & waste. That house, along with many others, could have been rehabbed, & sold for a profit for someone to live in for the next hundred years. The sheer amount of usuable building materials from Naperville teardowns could have kept Habitat for Humanity running for years. So many of these homes had new doors, windows, lighting fixtures, plumbing fixtures, hot water heaters, furnaces, the list is endless. To my knowledge, none of these items were donated, or even sold. They were bulldozed down & carted off. Why?? Because it would have taken a few hours, & a little bit of work. Take the easy way out. Building an oversized home on a small city lot is not improving the neighborhood, rather it is causing a disconnect with the neighbors. No longer are you able to visit with anyone, because there is no back, or front yards left. Naperville is no longer a place I want to admit I live in. For all the underhanded dealings going on at City Hall, we're rivaling Chicago in "politics as usual" & downtown at night is a carbon copy of Rush Street. Thanks, but no thanks! With no grocery, butcher shop, bakery, or real pharmacy left, there is really no reason to go there at all. Whew, sorry, I got off course! You are also right about 139,00 that could care less. Thats because there's only about 1000 left of us old-timers who do care, but unfortunately don't have the monetary resources neccessary for city hall to listen to us.(Apparently that's what it takes) I'm done reading this blog, nothing will change, & nothing will be done about the deceitful way this property was acquired, business as usual in this town.

anonymous 2/2 6:21 pm: I hope you are okay. The comment about people in the slums of Chicago is so disconnected with reality it piqued my concern. The whole house demolition thing is really not that big of a deal. We snipe back and forth debating it but really, your post is probably the most bleak that I have read. Naperville is not that tight knight community it is often portrayed as or once was. You know, the kind where everyone knows everyone and we unite for common good. The reality is like this country, we are a diverse and accordingly difficult to govern and most of all, a progressive community. This means an old house that needs a half million dollars in repair is going to either 1) fall down because no one can afford or will spend the money to fix it or 2)it will be razed and the property redeveloped because it is more economical in the long run to remove it. Contrary to the subsequent poster, this is not about greed. It is about improving the neighborhood and that old house was a large eyesore that no one could apparently afford to repair. It really died a natural death. About 140,000 people live in this progressive community and probably about 139,000 or so could care less about this subject. If they did, the community would have rolled up its sleeves and saved it.

Amen to that!! Couldn't agree with you more! This city has been ruined by greed, plain & simple. The entire west side is testimony to that. It is now a wasteland of vacant homes, both new & old. No charm, character, nor sense of neighborhood left. What an enormous sense of loss to the longtime homeowners that are still here. And the history of the area has been decimated, never to return. I think perhaps that is why so many are so upset by this travesty.

Interesting that those who assume that just because the house needed some repairs that it wasn't worth saving. It is truly a shame that we have come to be such a disposable society that we place absolutely no value on anything existing and are quick to wipe the earth clean and start anew. What poor environmental stewards we Americans have become. In many more civilized countries historic properties are valued and protected and prized for ownership and even without legislation the attitude of the people is keep them intact, repair them, and treasure them.

I guess that as old Naperville has given way to snotty, arrogant, nouveau riche Naperville that the new property owners are no longer either capable or willing to roll up their sleeves and rehabilitate a property that needs some repairs. Just drive around downtown and look at the dozens of examples of pretentious, over designed homes that demonstrate to the entire world that their owners have more money than good taste or good judgement.

All the dunderheaded "property rights" chameleons have demonstrated that they have no heart nor love nor capacity for history. To them all property is nothing more than an asset and they worship the god of green and numbers more than history and tradition or community and neighbors. With people who have no soul to what makes a community it is little wonder why money has long replaced people as the most valuable asset to possess. And it is truly a shame for those who think like this are surely robbing their own children of learning any meaningful intrinsic values, but surely they will learn of greed and jealousy, spite and envy, ego and narcism, and all of the other heart warming traits that those who worship at the almighty altar of the dollar learn so quickly.

What did Naperville do so wrong to attract these types of people to our very doorsteps? Even the poorest people in the worst slums of Chicago know more about respecting your neighbors and respecting the elderly than many of our newest residents. The loss of community values is disturbing and it is little wonder why our own city council is out of control when we as a community can't seem to find common ground on even the most basic of reasons to form a community. God help us all!

Anonymous on February 2, 2009 9:07 AM
The most important point is Mrs. O'Neill. Clearly neither Ken nor a lot of others understand the aging process nor the effects of diminishing mental capacity

_________________________

I think we do understand the effects of diminished mental capacity, "Anonymous". We are subjected to it every day on this blog site. The only thing missing from your rant is a threat to have the Napergate man begin running ads against the Cobb's!

As Fed Up With The Noise points out - if this woman is incapacitated she (Probably) needs the money immediately. Absent any buyers in this current market, or anyone willing to rehab the old place, she (or her guardians) were able to sell the place and move on.

Has anyone who believes this is illegal called the police to investigate? If I believed a senior citizen with diminished skills was swindled I would immediately make a claim - absent a complaint you must not truly believe she was wronged? And don't give me the line that you don't have standing - based on what you say this is a criminal matter which if you have relevant knowledge should be submitted.

Let's just suffice it to say that the actions of the Cobbs and the attitude of those like Ken are glaring examples of why there are laws binding realtors and laws protecting the aged. You can't expect everyone to 'do the right thing' and not everyone cares about ethics and decency.

Some have represented that the issue here is that the seller was taken advantage of and that her wishes to not let the Cobbs get control of the home. I do not think anyone has taken exception to opinions expressed that the house was in need of some very extensive physical repairs and had suffered from a number of years of deferred maintenance. I also believe it is realistic to consider that a home that has extensive and significant repair requirements would not be as financially viable or attractive to a buyer. That being said, it is also likely that putting any kind further restrictions or requirements on the property could only further reduce it's financial value by reducing the potential buyer pool.

Is it just possible, that the persons acting on behalf of the seller, did, after considering her "wishes", act in her best interests? is it possible that they did act in her best interests by getting as high a price for the home as they could and there by providing her with the funds she might need to live out the rest of her life in reasonable comfort and security?

In many cases, the elderly have very clear and distinct wishes and desires that can conflict with what is truly in their best interests. Only those intimately involved with the seller's care and condition can comment on that. For others to do so is pure speculation. For anyone to make unsubstantiated claims here that the seller is no longer able to manage her own affairs, is unfair to her at best and damaging, at least, to her reputation in the community. I am sure that those who care for her would not broadcast such information about her here in this forum.

First of all, anonymouse 2/2/09 9:07am, the only people ethically challenged are the ones who sold O'Neill's house without getting it designated first. If that was truly the widow's wishes, they should have followed them. Of course, they did her a favor by not following them, as she made a nice profit from selling the house. If there is elder abuse, it is solely on the shoulders of her representatives. They are the people who the state would have to go after, not the Cobbs.

Secondly, I have a very good understanding of dealing with people with diminished capabilities, despite your statements to the contrary. My Dad died from complications of Alzheimer's last year, giving me a close up look at what you say I have no knowledge of.

Lastly, there have been no complaints filed because there are no grounds for complaints. What that says about Naperville and all of this that realize this is that we have brains, and use them. Wish you would do the same.

Let's see... both Cobb and Ken are standing on the ground and both are still reaching up toward the first rung on the ethics ladder.

As usual, Ken fails to understand one of the most key points to this entire transaction doesn't center around the buyer or her relationship with any of the Cobbs. Those relationships do matter, but not as much as the most important point.

The most important point is Mrs. O'Neill. Clearly neither Ken nor a lot of others understand the aging process nor the effects of diminishing mental capacity. There was a point in time when Mrs. O'Neill had full mental and physical capacity. As she aged she slowly lost full capacity. Regardless, while she had full capacity she had very strong wishes regarding the sale of her home as has been adequately communicated by her POA. Likewise she had very strong wishes about not wanting her home to fall into the possession of Cobb.

Even though there are several posters on this board who do not respect Mrs. O'Neill's wishes the laws of this State do and they also hold those responsible for protecting such wishes accountable.

When a person starts to loose capacity they do not always loose all capacity, they most commonly do not loose all capacity at once, and commonly they vary from day to day in their current level of capacity. Despite the good days and bad, despite the steady decline the law is there to protect their wishes, their rights, and their property in these difficult times.

Only a person of the lowest morals and personal ethics would not be able to see how a person as vulnerable as Mrs. O'Neil has been taken advantage of in this transaction because the bottom line is that what Mrs. O'Neill did not want happen was allowed to happen. That is a tragedy for her and should be cause of great cause for legal and financial difficulty for every single person who had a hand in this transaction or was otherwise responsible.

From every aspect of this discussion there are those who treat this transaction as if it was just any other transaction where in contract law and real estate law it is pretty much fair game to lie, cheat, and steal within the limits permitted by law. All those who seem to think this transaction was acceptable have failed to fully consider that the seller was protected under law because of diminished capacity and that the buyer and all of the other professionals in this transaction are not permitted to run roughshod over a protected party much like they are free to do in other transactions.

This is yet another black mark upon Naperville as a community that something as egregious as this was permitted to happen and from all appearances there was a conspiracy that was designed to deliberately make it happen among some, if not all, of the professionals involved in this transaction.

And from all appearances it looks like these bottom feeding leaches are going to get away with what they did scott free. There doesn't appear to be any complaints filed with the Office of State Guardian, there don't appear to be any complaints filed with the Illinois Department of Professional Registration, there don't appear to be any complaints filed with the Realtor Association, and there don't appear to be any complaints filed under the Financial Exploitation of the Elderly Act either.

So despite all of the rhetoric, despite all of the many posts, despite all of the time that has gone by, there doesn't appear to really be one single person in Naperville who is outraged enough by what has transpired to pick up the phone and file a complaint with any of these agencies.

What does that say about us as a community and what does that say about each of you who do not agree with what has transpired?

Wait a minute. Ms. Wilke was represented by Bernie Cobb Sr in the transaction? The O'Neils did not know that Bernie Cobb was Chris Cobb's father? This is stupidity.

More BS. Go file all of the complaints. See if anything happens.

In all reality, Another Anonymous, I have met one ethical realtor in my dealings with realtors.

It's not that I sympathize with Cobb as much as I feel the O'Neils are being hypocritical. If the widow felt so strongly about seeing the house restored to grandeur, and her sister knew this, she should have had it designated before listing. Of course, having had an estimate done on the cost of doing this, they knew that such a move would have allowed them to list the house for about a $100,000 and hope to get $75,000.

After they sold the house for almost ten times that amount, it is obviously easy to cry how they feel victimized by the local real estate tycoon. After all, they already have their money. They sold property that only had value as a tear down, and then shed crocodile tears when it was torn down.

Anonymous, According to a Sun article I read dated July 10,2008 the family felt duped once they found out the buyer was the fiance of Chris Cobb. Mrs. O'Neill's sister commented:
"She (Charlene O'Neill) would have never sold their home to Susan if she knew she was going to marry Chris Cobb and take over the property," Mangers said Tuesday. "They didn't get along on small issues. But it was important for her, since she never had any kids, to preserve the history of that home. It was everything to her. I mean everything - all their memories.

"I am angered that Chris Cobb and his wife duped us the way they did and I am saddened," she said. "Don't you think they'd mention that your next-door neighbor is getting married to the person buying the property?"

Whether or not she was mentally incapacitated at the time of the actual sale, her sister vouches for her feelings on the issue of the Cobbs. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1049123,6_1_NA10_HOUSE_S1.article

Another Anonymous on January 31, 2009 6:45 PM
Ken, did you ever stop to consider that the 'cantankerous old lady who wanted to influence the neighborhood she was abandoning' was more knowledgeable of her neighbor's character than you or I and that's why she chose not to sell to him?

_____________________

Just a point of clarification AA. Didn't I read on this site that the woman's family member(s?) was responsible for this transaction due to her (Mrs. O'neil) being incapable of / or somehow unable to comprehend the transaction? If so, it would be difficult to believe she could judge anyone's character?

Ken, did you ever stop to consider that the 'cantankerous old lady who wanted to influence the neighborhood she was abandoning' was more knowledgeable of her neighbor's character than you or I and that's why she chose not to sell to him?
There are always two sides to every story and I believe the woman who lived in that home for decades wanted to see it go to someone who would appreciate it for it's character instead of wanting to sell it to someone who lacks it.
And I am hoping you are sympathizing with Cobb due to your ignorance of the rules and guidelines reputable realtors adhere to rather than your disrespect for them.

Ken, again you have missed the point. Mrs. Cobb was her broker's daughter in law and her broker / father in law did not disclose that fact, as required under Article 4.

Article 4 says that "REALTORS® shall not acquire an interest in or buy or present offers from themselves, any member of their immediate families, their firms or any member thereof, or any entities in which they have any ownership interest, any real property without making their true position known to the owner or the owner’s agent or broker." Could this possibly be any more clear? Bernie Cobb Sr. represented his daughter in law, and apparently didn't disclose that fact. What part of that is unclear?

Also, Article 2 says "REALTORS® shall avoid exaggeration, misrepresentation, or concealment of pertinent facts relating to the property or the transaction." It is hard to argue that the fact (if true) that Susan Wilkie was married to Chris Cobb on the closing date was not a "material fact" that was concealed. I suspect there was a reason why Bernie Cobb Sr. didn't bother to mention that Susan Wilkie was his daughter in law, who was moving in next door, don't you think? Google National Association of Realtors Ethics Rules to see the full text of the ethics rules.

As for Chris, there is also part of Illinois professional licensing rules quoted in another post that says that a realtor can't "directly or indirectly" buy a property without disclosing his or her interest. Surely you can't avoid an ethical rule by just having your wife do what you couldn't do yourself. I would think that is why the "or indirectly" was added, so that realtors can't skirt the rules by using a legal entity they control or a spouse or other family member.

Ken, Mrs. Cobb was Bernie Cobb Sr.'s daughter in law, which required a disclosure by Bernie Cobb Sr., her broker, under the rules, or do you think a daughter in law is not "family" under the ethics rule? And she was realtor Chris Cobb's husband, which suggests that maybe Chris Cobb ("directly OR INDIRECTLY") also failed to make a required disclosure. Had he made that disclosure, he would probably not have been able to buy the home, at least not on the terms that his wife bought it on, which makes that a pretty important failure to disclose, don't you think?

Another Anonymous, well said. Nothing to add to that.

I'm sorry, Not all about money, I missed the part where the future Mrs.Cobb was a licensed real estate agent.

Bottom line is that an offer was made and accepted on the house, no little old ladies were ripped off, and the new property owner did what they wanted to the property within the law. End of story.

John Q., I hold no more ill will towards the Cobbs than I do towards a cantankerous old lady who wanted to influence the neighborhood she was abandoning.

Ken, I believe you fail to see the point many are trying to make here.
Personally, I would finish the sentence in your comment to say, "I wonder what karma does to a man whose fiance bought a dilapidated house for around 3/4 million dollars, enabling the seller to live the rest of her life without worrying about money problems even though he was well aware of the fact that she absolutely did not want to sell her home to him so he did an end-around and deceived her in order to get it?" Long winded, yes, but also accurate as far as I'm concerned. Money doesn't buy character or decency. I hope someday Chris has to do battle with the conscience he seems to have misplaced.

Ken, I guess to you and to Chris Cobb, money cures all ills, right? As long as you write a check, you can pretty much do whatever you want, in whatever way you want, huh? Fortunately, there are professional standards designed for those who think that way. Those standards were made to guide real estate professionals to act in an ethical way no matter how much money changes hands. I don't think the fact that his wife paid a lot of money for the home answers any of the ethical questions raised here.

Wow, Ken.

While I agree with you that Mr. Cobb probably did nothing illegal, and was within his rights to tear the house down, I am amazed that you can't bring yourself to admit that the manner in which he and his wife (she WAS his wife when they closed on the house) reportedly came into possession of the house is morally ambiguous, to say the least.

-JQP

I wonder what karma does to a man whose fiance bought a dilapidated house for around 3/4 million dollars, enabling the seller to live the rest of her life without worrying about money problems?

I seriously hope this transaction is presented to the liscensing board for review. If all the dates are a matter of public record and if they are chronologically in the order they are listed on this blog, I can't see HOW Cobb could get away with it.

I, too, saw the video on NCTV17 and the way Cobb behaved was repulsive. I guess to him, it doesn't matter how you go about it as long as you get what you want in the end. I think this man needs a huge dose of Karma.

Obviously learning how to show respect to neighbors and the elderly was not a character trait instilled in him by his family as a youth.

Leads one to wonder if his personal conduct as an adult will improve from this point or deteriorate?

I have been reading these comments, & trying to stay neutral, but after inadvertantly catching the video of the teardown on NCTV17, there is no doubt in my mind of their intention all along.If a picture is worth a thousand words, this video says it all! The big smirk on Chris Cobbs face, & his wifes comment about it being turned into a yard--"just like we said" turned my stomach. These two, given 10 minutes in front of a camera, could make Blago & Patty look like innocent school children. My only hope is that they go the way of a certain few unscrupulous builders in this town--straight down the toilet!! (BTW--Mr. Rosanovas comments on this video are worth listening to.)

If the subterfuge story is true, I really don't care about what the letter of the laws and ethics rules say. This was a shameful way to treat the next door neighbor who had lived in that home longer than Chris Cobb had been alive.

Maybe I missed something but the ethics claim seems like a pretty clear case. If the November wedding date and December closing date are true, then Bernie Sr. represented his daughter in law at closing, right? I would think a daughter in law is an "immediate family member" as stated in Article 4. And by having his wife buy the property, Chris Cobb seems to have acquired a "direct or indirect" interest in the property without making the required disclosure, even if he didn't loan her the money. If he knew that he might not get the same deal, or any deal, if he disclosed his identity, I would think any board reviewing this would view that as another factor against the Cobbs in setting a penalty. If this is viewed as deliberate "subterfuge", to use the words of Hooray for America, I would think the licensing board would take this pretty seriously.

Ken - I guess I don't see much of a defense here if the dates of the wedding and closing are true. The only possible defense I can see would be that the wedding in November was just a ceremony without a marriage certificate, so their closing actually occurred before their "official" marriage. Even that if true seems like a weak argument. Relying on a technicality as a defense to an ethics complaint is not a good position to be in.

The real questions seem to be whether or not the licensing board takes the time to actually review this and if so, what the penalty will be.

Am I missing something?

I was in the title industry for several years. According to what I was told a home is considered under contract or sale pending and isn't final until the the monies are disbursed and the deed is signed, along with all of the other closing documents.

Hurray for America,

No one is creating new laws.

First off if Cobb gave her money to buy the house the first thing he has to do is declare it a gift and pay IRS taxes on the gift... and that would be a lot of money on a gift of this size.

Was it a gift before or after the marriage? Do they have a prenup? How are they handling ownership of all of their prior assets as well as assets acquired after marriage. In other words did a gift before marriage slide back into mutual ownership after marriage?

"Each licensee shall disclose, in writing, his or her status as a licensee to all parties in a transaction when the licensee is selling, leasing, or purchasing any interest, direct or indirect, in the real estate that is the subject of the transaction." If Cobb's money was used, in part or in full, directly or indirectly then he was a party to this transaction. If Cobb has an interest in the trust that took title to the property then he was a party to this transaction. If the transaction involved use of the Cobb real estate firm to represent either the buyer or the seller then Cobb was a party to this transaction. If the transaction closed after the marriage then Cobb was a party to this transaction:

Realtor Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice

Article 4
REALTORS® shall not acquire an interest in or buy or present offers from themselves, any member of their immediate families, their firms or any member thereof, or any entities in which they have any ownership interest, any real property without making their true position known to the owner or the owner’s agent or broker. In selling property they own, or in which they have any interest, REALTORS® shall reveal their ownership or interest in writing to the purchaser or the purchaser’s representative. (Amended 1/00)

Standard of Practice 4-1
For the protection of all parties, the disclosures required by Article 4 shall be in writing and provided by REALTORS® prior to the signing of any contract. (Adopted 2/86)

AFTER READING MOST ATICLES ON THIS MESS AND KNOWING THE REPUTATION OF THE COBBS, IT IS A REAL SHAME FOR NAPERVILLE TO HAVE TO GO THRU THIS. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO BUSINESS WITH REALTORS LIKE THE COBBS BUT I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT REMAX HAS APPARENTLY CONDONED THEIR BEHAVIOR!PERSONALY, I WILL NEVER USE A REMAX REALTOR BECAUSE OF THIS.WHEN
PEOPLE HAVE TO REVERT TO DECEITFUL BEHAVIOR I WANT NO PART OF IT.

Follow the money. Hmmm...A cash purchase, no mortgage. (That makes sense, what mortgage coimpany lends money on a deal where the house it has an interest in needs $500K in repair? Would love to see that home inspection report) So where did the money come from? Glad this thing is gone. Is the garage still up?

With what has happened here the silence has been deafening and one can only wonder why...

One doesn't have to wonder why. There is no noise because there is no case. You can make up all the what ifs and what might have happened, but the facts show none of what you imply happened.

Bottom line is, the deal is done, it's out of evryone's mind except for a few posters here.

Wow, we are creating new laws.

What law was violated if Cobb gave her $775,000 to buy the house? He (or shee) has no responsibility to disclose that transaction. That transacation does not violate the law that was quoted.

Next arguement.

Hurray for America,

Part of what you are asking would play into the trust that took ownership of the O'Neill property, the type of trust, the trust beneficiaries, and the trustees themselves.

And again, follow the money... if there is no mortgage recorded what was the source of funds used in the transaction. Was the source of funds solely under the control of the fiance? Were they funds under the mutual control of the fiance and Cobb?

Or did the fiance simply use her funds to purchase the property free and clear of any interest by Cobb? I would speculate that is not likely considering their personal relationship and the mutual benefit to be enjoyed in the years to come and their reported mutual plans for the changes we see happening. So another aspect of follow the money would be to see if any large sums of money flowed before or after the transaction that would strongly imply partial or even total ownership in the transaction.

In any investigation those who have followed the law have nothing to fear from the truth being learned. Most really ethical people who are proud of their reputation and possibly aspire to hold a position in the community usually are forthcoming in situations like this to set aside misunderstandings or rumors.

With what has happened here the silence has been deafening and one can only wonder why...

Is Sue Wilke a licensed real esate broker, her trust cannot be.

The law does not say that spouses of purchasers have to disclose they are real esate brokers. What disclosure was Chris Cobb required to make? I think he purchased a wedding license in some county, if O'Neal was so concerned about her purchaser, she should have hire a Private Investigator. I think she wanted the money.

I don't think you are missing anything, Anonymous. I think the Cobbs were trying to pull a fast one and got caught. Being an experienced realtor, he had to know what he was doing was not ethical. Did he not think concerned citizens knew how to check public records? Shame on him.

mimi, nice work pulling that info together. Chris Cobb has publicly stated that Susan "purchased" the home in September, before he was married. It looks like he is using the date of the offer or contract rather than the closing date. Now I understand why he might want to do that... if he and Susan were really married in November. I don't know many other realtors who would not count the closing date rather than the contract date as the purchase date. It seems to me that a home is purchased only when the buyer actually pays for it, takes title, and is handed the keys, which all happens at closing, which according to the public records was on December 7th. Am I missing something?

Dan and Charlene O'Neill never had any children. The POA was granted to Mrs. O'Neill's sister.

Sec. 10‑27. Disclosure of licensee status. Each licensee shall disclose, in writing, his or her status as a licensee to all parties in a transaction when the licensee is selling, leasing, or purchasing any interest, direct or indirect, in the real estate that is the subject of the transaction. (meaning both sides of the transaction)

Chris and Susan Cobb were reportedly married on 11/17/07, the warranty deed from Charlene O'Neill conveying to The Susan Samyan Wilkie Trust, is dated 12/07/07. One would conclude that Ms. Wilkie was actually Mrs. Cobb on the date of closing. Unless they never obtained a marriage license, but I doubt that.

There is no record of a mortgage, again, one would conclude this was a cash deal.

The recorded documents can be found at the DuPage County Recorders website, http://www.dupageco.org/recorder/generic.cfm?doc_id=332

It'll be interesting, to say the least, as to how this thing plays out.

Because of her age and current physical and mental condition was Mrs. O'Neill aware that she could have taken steps to have her home designated as historic? Was Mrs. O'Neill aware that she might be able to execute some possible deed restrictions? And if she was aware... was she mentally capable of making a legally valid decision? There are hundreds of similar questions that could be asked about how this transaction took place, who said what, who advised Mrs. O'Neil, who influenced her decision, or even who make decisions on her behalf. There are not a lot of solid answers though.

From what quite a few people have posted who think nothing wrong went down here it blatantly obvious that they have little to no working knowledge of this law, elder rights, and the special protection afford senior citizens because of the conditions and diseases that can affect their decision making abilities and capacities. Clearly these same people have never worked with or been around senior citizens who suffer from the affliction of dementia or Alzheimer's. This is not to suggest Mrs. O'Neill suffers from either because I have no personal knowledge if she has any such conditions or not. Hopefully though everyone on Potluck can appreciate that a lot of senior citizens have diminished mental capacity and are easily coerced or taken advantage of which is exactly why this law exists to protect them and that none of us would want our own parents or close relatives to be exploited.

Whether or not we agree with Mrs. O'Neill or her wishes that does not change the fact that she definitely had some. It also does not change the fact that her wishes were not followed. Only by investigating the true facts of this case could a legal determination be made if financial exploitation of an elderly person took place under this law and within the context of the circumstances involving this specific transaction. From all of the subterfuge and slight of hand that has been reported a reasonable person would say... you know for the sake of all of the elderly in our community let's look into this and know for sure that she wasn't taken advantage of and her rights were not violated. If we can't trust "the system" to protect and look out for the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens then who will? I sure hope the compassion for the elderly living among us is such that Naperville residents will band together and demand to know the truth.

It is also fair to point out that if a person who is included in this protected class went and sold their home totally on their own, which is legally possible, without any family members or lawyers providing advice that the buyer is at risk of the entire transaction being reversed and damages being awarded if a complaint is made and upheld. Oh, and "elderly person" in the State of Illinois means a person 60 years of age or older.

And just because a protected person may be advised by family members, a POA, an attorney, etc. does not totally protect the buyer either if it can be determined or proven that the protected person was taken advantage of and again the transaction could be reversed and damages awarded. In such a case if the buyer could prove that they had no hand in taking advantage of the protected person that would not necessarily prevent the transaction from being reversed and they might have to seek their own settlement from those who actually took advantage of the protected person. Actually collecting on such a settlement might be another thing altogether. In disputes like this the rights of the protected person are going to be preserved first with any other parties to what happened sorting out their own involvement and liability as a secondary course of action.

As the old saying goes... buyer beware.

Hmmmm... after reading some comments here and comments in some of the other Sun blogs, I think Jo is Ken.
By Anonymous on January 26, 2009 7:22 AM
___________________________________________________

JO is JO, Ken is Ken and BHO has run his course. Please don't try to understand how an IP address works, you'll just bust a vein. You might want to read my last post again, then say JO is Ken.

"Despite her age, physical and mental condition Mrs. O'Neill had specific wishes with regard to her property. There were legal ways to honor and respect her wishes which do not appear to have been followed."

The only ones who violated Mrs. O'Niell's 'wishes' were her children and Mrs. O'Neill herself. As stated many times before, if it was her wish to save the house, she should have had it designated as a landmark. She didn't. If her children wanted it saved, they should have had it landmarked. They didn't. Both probably knew that the house would be impossible to sell if they did so because of the renovation costs.

This whole thing is a joke as the seller wanted their money and also to be able to dictate what to do with the property after it was sold. Life just does not work that way.

OK, let's assume there is some legal issue. What are the damages? Did the old lady get too little for her house? NO, probably too much. Also, she seemed to have a lawyer and children. I bet they knew Cobb was behind this because that was the best offer. Now they cover up their greed with these stories.

Were any deed restrictions violated? Did she take action to prevent a tear down? Did she get the house put into a historical district? No to all.

Were their neighborhood covenants that needed to be observed? Again, no.

So there are no damages to anyone. The only claim would be to reverse the transaction. Have her sell her condo and buy back the house. Then the City of Naperville should give her six months to bring it up to minimum code. Let her put out the $1 million to make it livable.

And remember, the Cobbs offered the house for sale, no takers. People AGREE it should simply be torn down. All talk, no action.

Ken,

Sorry to see you missed the irony that JO was actually SLAMMING you. rotflmao!!

however the legal game changes when one of the parties, and it could be on either side of the transaction, is an elderly or handicap person because they have additional protection under the law.....
it was also widely known among all who she was and her current condition so anyone who participated in this transaction should have known better and could be held accountable for their action or in some aspects... lack of action.

---------

So let's make sure I understand this - in a real estate transaction the buyer is now responsible to ensure that the seller is fit and of sound mind to make the transaction? Perhaps there should be a government agency that will intervene and interview each and every party in land and property transactions? They can designate everyone's fitness and ability to participate - - I don't think so, that's what her attorneys are for! Sounds like a pretty slippery slope to me, I mean it's not like this lady spent all day and night blogging on the internet - now that would be crazy!

This is not a legal issue, but an ethical one.

Hmmmm... after reading some comments here and comments in some of the other Sun blogs, I think Jo is Ken. I also think Ken is several other posters. I wonder if Ken is also the infamous Barack Obama who previously blogged here, too. Just curious.

Glockk 22 wrote:

"She cannot reject an offer because of WHO made it. You know thats a civil rights violation as has been discussed in previous topics on this matter."

This would only be true if Mr. Cobb were a member of a protected class which, to the best of my knowledge, he is not, and if the offer were rejected because he was a member of that class.

Glad to be your hero, JO.

"The old lady took a valid offer for her house, so she does not qualify under that law." It has been widely reported that Mrs. O'Neill is no longer capable of acting in her own best interest and senior citizens in such a situation are exactly who this law is designed to protect. Would any of us want our own mother or father to be taken advantage of in their sunset years by unscrupulous persons? I would hope not, and that is exactly why this law exists. As I stated earlier in a typical real estate transaction there is real estate law and there is contract law... however the legal game changes when one of the parties, and it could be on either side of the transaction, is an elderly or handicap person because they have additional protection under the law. Some of the lying, cheating, subterfuge, slight of hand, and other slippery slope stuff that goes on in some real estate transactions can get hammered differently when one of the parties is elderly or handicapped. With person who have special protection under this law they have to get total, ram-rod straight ethical treatment or it is likely going to be proven that they were taken advantage of or exploited.

And to Anoni-mouse... yes her attorney or her POA have to represent her best interest, but under this law anyone who is a party to a transaction with a protected person, especially those who are licensed professionals, all have additional obligations to ensure the protected party is shielded from abuse or exploitation. In fact, they each are legally obligated to report any abuse or obligation should it occur. There are a whole lot of professional licenses hanging by a thin thread from what has been reported on this story in the past. It would appear that at least several of the parties involved conspired to get around Mrs. O'Neill's specific wishes.

True, Mrs. O'Neill's representatives may get the harshest treatment because they represented her directly and had the greatest duty to protect her interests. However, it was also widely known among all who she was and her current condition so anyone who participated in this transaction should have known better and could be held accountable for their action or in some aspects... lack of action.

Despite her age, physical and mental condition Mrs. O'Neill had specific wishes with regard to her property. There were legal ways to honor and respect her wishes which do not appear to have been followed. In the end Mrs. O'Neill's wishes were violated in the crudest and most unkind and mean spirited manner humanly possible last Friday. How anyone could treat a neighbor and long-term member of this community to such disrespect and cruel treatment in her final days on this earth is absolutely beyond belief.

I, for one, hope they are haunted by the fact that they caused so much pain and mental suffering in the final days of a woman who never did anything to them every time they look at the spot where her home once stood. No good will ever come from such evil actions and thy will never be blessed with love or happiness from treating an elderly woman so callously.

PEOPLE!
Ken has only pointed out time and again that there are laws here and they protect us at every turn in our lives that we take. These laws are final. They have to be followed. They are what make this country work. We can't change them, we can't alter them, so why even discuss what happened here. The old lady sold her house, it was dilapidated and she got her price. Ken is right and will continue to go about his life never challenging any law. Just quoting them and standing up for them. Ken will go through life as a model citizen never seeing need for change in how our system works. Ken will never let feelings or his heart steer his judgment off course. Ken will live happily ever after surrounded by the laws he loves. Ken is a hero to all of us! Long live Ken!!!!!! By the way, what happened to our pretend Barack Obama? He should so be here...

I submitted an entry for posting on this blog on Friday 1/23/2009. Admittedly the comments were somewhat tongue-in-cheek but the facts were accurate. I am selling my home in 2Q 2009 for a job relocation and I intend to engage Chris Cobb as my realtor because he is aggressive and does what needs to get done for his clients. I owe it to my family to get the best price as quickly as possible. My comments were not out of line, as far as I could tell, with any of the other comments posted here. I would like to know the criteria under which my submitted entry was denied posting on this blog. I’d like to know, so the next time I submit an entry I can censor it myself to make sure it passes review for posting.

Anonymous on January 25, 2009 1:18 PM

It would seem that the statute you referred to would pertain more to her attorney or those who held POA.

Anon at 1:25: OK then, file a complaint at the States Attorney's office and lets get the Cobbs indicted already. You only have one huge element to meet the statutory requirement: you need to show that she did not receive any money for the sale. Actually she received a lot of money and one could argue as I do, more than the house is worth given repairs it needed. She cannot reject an offier because of WHO made it. You know thats a civil rights violation as has been discussed in previous topics on this matter. Since everyone likes laws, this house is why the city needs an ordinance so that when you list your house for sale, the city needs to inpect it to make sure it is code worthy and issue a permit allowing the house to be on the market. Then people like Mrs. O'Neil will not be able to allow grand homes to become so deteriorated that they need $500K in repairs in addition to the cost of the home when they are sold. That would be the 1st step in saving old derelict homes from the wrecking ball and protecting the values of surrounding homes.

Anonymouse 1/25/09 1:18pm, the law you posted seems to point at a case of elder abuse only if the old person was taken advantage of financially. The old lady took a valid offer for her house, so she does not qualify under that law.

By the way, and as pointed out many times before, if Mrs. O'Neill really wanted her house preserved, she could have had it designated as a historical property before she listed it. She didn't, so she has nothing to complain about. When I sold my old house, the new owners did things to it that I didn't like, but I didn't care. I got my money from the sale, and the house was theirs to do what ever they wanted to with it.

The bottom line is that Mrs. O'Niell's property was not demolished, as she did not own it anymore.

It has widely been reported that Mrs. O'Neill specifically did not want her property sold to Cobb. It has also been widely reported that Mrs. O'Neill wanted to sell her property to someone who would restore and maintain it.

Part of the key to understanding the private agreement to sell would be the promises made by buyer and if promises were made to influence the seller... keeping in mind the seller has specifically protected rights under law as an elderly person... and then if such promises were not kept it is very possible that a violation of the Elder Abuse and Neglect Act has taken place. Also keep in mind that the protection of elderly and handicap persons under this Act goes beyond simple contract law or real estate law. The Act also holds a variety of licensed and unlicensed professionals to a higher level of conduct than the average person. Cobb, the buyer, the real estate brokers, the lawyers, and Mrs. O'Neill's POA all have a lot to potentially be worried about under this Act... depending upon how clean or dirty each of their hands are found to be in this transaction. The bottom line is that Mrs. O'Neill did not want her property to be demolished and she did not want Cobb to own her property yet both of the things she specifically did not want to happen with the sale of her property were allowed to happen. Her wishes were not followed and somehow she was led to believe that selling her property to this buyer was in her best interest. There is a lot to be learned to determine if Mrs. O'Neill was taken advantage of or exploited under the law. For the sake of all senior citizens in Naperville we should all demand to know that this transaction was conducted ethically and met the letter of the law and if it did not that Mrs. O'Neill be adequately compensated.... treble damages by the way and a Class 4 felony.

(720 ILCS 5/16‑1.3) (from Ch. 38, par. 16‑1.3)

Sec. 16‑1.3. Financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability.

(a) A person commits the offense of financial exploitation of an elderly person or a person with a disability when he or she stands in a position of trust or confidence with the elderly person or a person with a disability and he or she knowingly and by deception or intimidation obtains control over the property of an elderly person or a person with a disability or illegally uses the assets or resources of an elderly person or a person with a disability. The illegal use of the assets or resources of an elderly person or a person with a disability includes, but is not limited to, the misappropriation of those assets or resources by undue influence, breach of a fiduciary relationship, fraud, deception, extortion, or use of the assets or resources contrary to law.

Maybe this tear down will be the tipping point for Naperville to start taking its downtown historical preservation seriously. We really need to do a better job balancing the interests of private property owners' and developers' rights against the interests of the community and future generations. Part of what makes Naperville unique is the history and character of the downtown area. As this continues to erode, we risk being viewed as just another non-descript large suburb (e.g., Schaumberg); still a nice place to live but devoid of any history or charm that would separate it from other suburbs. Let's work harder to keep what's left of historic Naperville unique. Keep the dialog moving forward. It is a healthy one and we will benefit from it.

Glock, you say "They bought an old house..." "They" didn't buy it. "Susan Wilkie", a single lady from Chicago who supposedly liked restoring old homes bought it, and then quitclaimed the title over to her new husband, realtor and next door neighbor Chris Cobb, who applied for a demolition permit to tear it down. That is why the O'Neill family was so outraged.

Glock 22, I love the thought of Scott Huber hanging out on a bench in Cobb's new yard. LOL

I don't like telling people they can't tear down a home they own. I also don't like people who go out of their way to perpetuate "subterfuge" on their elderly neighbor, especially when they are licensed realtors. The Cobbs have exercised their legal property rights by tearing down this historic home, and the people who live in town are exercising their rights to weigh in on their conduct. God Bless America...

Hurray for America, HUD discrimination laws would prevent a seller from refusing to deal with someone based on their "race, color, national origin, religion, sex, family status, or disability". If Mrs. O'Neill didn't want to sell to him for any other reason (such as the fact that she didn't like his overbuilt mcmansion next door and didn't want him to tear down her house), she would have been free to do so.

"Anonymous" (If that is your real name?) If there is abuse in this case then it sounds like poor Mrs. O'Neil has a strong case against her kids, her attorney, and her realtor - but not the Cobbs (buyers)! Unless you are saying that a buyer in a real estate transaction is now responsible to evaluate the mental capacity of the seller?

You claim that following the money is the key here, if this is also the case then it looks like her family and legal representation are the one's to look at.

Anonymous: somewhat versed on Illinois elder abuse statute. I frankly support the intention and the law. But somehow I suspect that there is no elder abuse crime associated with the sale of the house but you and I don't have any evidence that there was so I'm not calling the State or anyone else. (Besides, the State already abuses enough people in its charge be it DCFS, Health Department etc. etc. etc.) I'm going to continue to LOL at any implication Mrs. O'Neil was taken advantage of because of her age AND had no legal representation with respect to the sale of her home. Her children aren't filing any charges either. I mean stop it already all of you. Lay off the Cobbs. They bought an old house for whatever they wanted to do with it. Remodel it, live in it or ultimately tear it down. Who the hell cares? I suspect by the end of the summer, the lot will be worked to a beautiful private park like yard. Birds and small animal life will abound. Maybe a small pond with some fish. Ornamental landscaping with some wild or native flowers. A small sancturary for small animals and enjoyment.
Maybe even a bench so Scott Huber can enjoy it too. I hope it is so beautiful that when its done, the Cobbs put a huge privacy fence surrounding it, 8' high to keep all you nosy people from admiring it as you walk or drive by. Then you can all complain about the fence that prevents you from looking into their beautifyl yard.

Glock 22,

Sorry to be the one to inform you but elder abuse does include financial exploitation. If a senior or handicapped person is dependent upon someone with POA to make decisions for them... that person has to carry out their instruction or they have violated their fiduciary responsibility and the law. This is a very serious offense and despite your attempt to trivialize it may actually be a serious consideration in this transaction. You would do yourself a favor to become more informed about the provisions of this piece of legislation.

Drove into town on Chicago Ave. Friday and thought the vacant lot surrounded by the evergreens without the hulking abandoned home was indeed an improvement. But what about the garage? The garage is still there. Elder abuse in the sale of the house? Really! The house is gone already so forget about it. All these complaints spurring action by people who could not even save the monstrosity from demolition to begin with.

Everyone is focussing on the Cobbs. But Federal Housing laws PROHIBIT discrimination of buying and selling houses. Once O'Neal listed the house with a licensed realtor (I think even if she wanted to do it herself), she cannot block a purchase.

And this ethics issues is a waste. Realtors only have to disclose when they are involved in a sale, not a purchase. This is to protect buyers.

If this O'Neal wanted the house to be protected, she should have taken action BEFORE she sold.

There are many houses in the historic district that should be torn down. If there was not an historic district, more higher priced houses would be built. Many are too small and do not even comply with codes.

This is not Cuba. Free rights!!!!!

Who would pay $800,000 to be this guy's neighbor?

Always follow the money in every transaction.

"This is all verified as a routine of the loan mortgage process procedure. The lender verifies bank accounts, employment, gifts, etc. Regardless of where Cobbs fiance obtained her money, this would be transparent to everyone except the financial institution so I'm not sure I agree with your point."

At this point we don't know enough about the true nature of the financial transaction other than to ask rhetorical questions about what may likely have taken place.

It is not likely that either Cobb or the fiance received a typical mortgage on this property. The property would have had to pass both an physical inspection and a valuation assessment. Then there is the question of what the intended use would be... occupy as primary residence, investment/income property, renovation/resale, demolition, etc. as all of that would take into consideration the type of loan/mortgage available as well as the terms. Failure to tell the whole truth in executing a loan or mortgage though is fraud and is a violation of whole bunch of laws.

If the fiance had her own money and used it to purchase the property free and clear there may not be any technical wrongdoing on her part. On the other hand if the money was Cobb's and he "gifted" it to her... the first question is did he pay federal and state taxes on any money so gifted... (a sum this large will definitely be of interest to the IRS)? If the money was properly "gifted" to the fiance then it became her money to use as she saw fit and again there may not have been any technical wrongdoing on her part.

If Cobb and the fiance just conveniently transferred his money to her it would be obvious to a judge that he used her to launder the money on his behalf. As a licensed real estate broker in the state of Illinois Cobb is required to strictly adhere to all of the real estate laws as well as the professional standards of conduct demanded of all licensed brokers. There appears to be at least a handful of real estate laws and professional standards of conduct that need to be fully investigated to verify that none of them were violated in the proper handling and execution of this transaction and especially the required disclosures.

Actually the most interesting aspect of this case is that the selling homeowner is an elderly person who has special protection under the laws of our state. It has been reported that it was against her wishes for her home to be sold to Cobb. It has also been reported that there were other persons representing her interest through a Power of Attorney and that they were specifically aware of her wishes. It has also been reported that those holding the Power of Attorney knew the relationship of the buyer, i.e. the fiance, to Cobb. At best this strongly suggests that those with the Power of Attorney may have violated their fiduciary responsibility to the owner. Of course it would be up to the owner, the owners family, or the guardian of the courts to determine if a violation of the Illinois Elder Abuse and Neglect Act took place. If a court actually made such a determination that a violation took place it could reverse the real estate transaction. Considering at this point that Cobb or his fiance has demolished the mansion it places him or her in a now precarious position of not being able to return the property intact and while they might be ordered to return the land they might actually be liable for damages to the seller for having demolished the mansion.

Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place... Cobb and his fiance better hope like heck that no one picks up the phone and makes an anonymous complaint to the State of Illinois - Office of State Guardian because if someone does they may have a whole lot more to worry about than just the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

I think the only way the Cobb's will go out of business is from the economy. Face it, outside of possibly a couple of hundred people, no one cares. If the Cobbs are selling a house any of you want, you probably are going to buy it. If there is any ethics violation, the Cobbs will probably get a slap on the wrist, but I don't see what the violation would be. A woman made an offer on the house, the owner accepted it, end of story.

It was nice to drive by the lot today and see the house torn down. A few more months, and this will all be forgotten by most people.

There is an ethics issues here and the question should be asked who was susie's attorney?? Could it be the same attorney the cobbs sent to represent before the city Kevin Lynch - the same Kevin Lynch running for city council. Yeah that's what we need on the council!! That guy should be investigated!

Thanks for the correction Tim - I didn't realize it was the council - my point was that it was considered for landmark status but want not so designated.

"The Naperville Historic Sites Commission did not seem to feel it was a landmark home as the commissioners did not declare it to be one."

The Historic Sites Commission actually DID approve the landmark application. It was the City Council that denied it.

My the Cobb family business go the same way as this home... straight to the dump.
What a shame for Naperville to see this house go.

The Naperville Historic Sites Commission did not seem to feel it was a landmark home as the commissioners did not declare it to be one.

What a shame. Just saw the site without the house standing. We have lived near the Hammerschmidt mansion for years and even though it had fallen into disrepair over the past several years, it still had its victorian charm and history. I remember seeing the former owner out on a ladder trying to keep up the home. He wasn't up for the task but he was always trying. If this wasn't a landmark home, I'm not sure what could ever be one.

Hey. Where did my mansion go?

Anonymous on January 23, 2009 11:52 AM
Follow the money in the first transaction. Always follow the money for the truth.

Did the fiance actually have the money and was it really her money? Where did she acquire the money... was it savings or did she take out a loan? Or did Cobb front her the money... and if he did... where did he get it from?

This is all verified as a routine of the loan mortgage process procedure. The lender verifies bank accounts, employment, gifts, etc. Regardless of where Cobbs fiance obtained her money, this would be transparent to everyone except the financial institution so I'm not sure I agree with your point. If during the application for the loan the loan processor uncovered illegal activities they would forward this to their internal audit department who would either reject the loan or involve the police. Cobb has an ethical dilemma for sure, but no apparent legal issues. He could have given her every dime of the down payment and transaction, but this in and of itself is not illegal.

Thomas, good comments. I don't believe there is any legal requirement that a person selling a piece of property sells it to the highest bidder. I think people are free to choose who they sell to as long as they don't do so based on a legally protected characteristic, such as race, religion, etc. Wealthy white male realtors who live next door aren't a class of people that the law protects as far as I know... :-)

If Chris wasn't a licensed realtor and if his father was not acting as Susan Wilkie's broker, it may still seem shady for a buyer to hide her identity but it would probably not raise these professional ethics issues. But apparently they are both realtors and there are rules about what realtors have to disclose when they or their family members are involved in real estate deals.

Follow the money in the first transaction. Always follow the money for the truth.

Did the fiance actually have the money and was it really her money? Where did she acquire the money... was it savings or did she take out a loan? Or did Cobb front her the money... and if he did... where did he get it from?

If I was a betting person I wouldn't be taking any bets on this Cobb being in the real estate business much longer.

I agree with the sentiments expressed here that this was a shady deal. Some of the comments, however, indicate that the seller did not want to sell to the Cobbs and if she knew she would not have?

I've sold 2 houses and 1 condo over the past 15 years and I never knew much about who the actual buyer was until we went to closing. The deal was presented by their realtor to my realtor. I received (or saw) an earnest money check and saw the buyers name on the offer sheet, but this doesn't really give me much about who they are.

Here's a different scenario: What if a seller rejects an offer based on an ethnic or religious disagreement, i.e. they don't want to sell to a specific group? In this type of case the government would maybe step in and we would argue discrimination. So why would it have been ok for this woman to reject the Cobbs offer simply because she doesn't like them? (I know the Cobbs misrepresented themselves, but what if they didn't and the woman refused to sell - any problems with that?)

There seems to have been a legal offer and a legal acceptance (ethics aside for a moment). Again, the Cobbs reputation is trash in my book, but I'm not so sure I agree that a seller should be rejecting a legitimate offer.

I agree with Thomas for the most part. People should be able to do what they want with their property within zoning and legal standards. But this one is pushing the limits for me. It smells bad the way he had his fiance buy the home and even worse if he had a family member be her broker to keep the commission in the family. Just doesn't seem right to me.

I just drove by this old home and it is already a pile of rubble. I have a feeling this story won't go away easily for the Cobbs. Allegations by the O'Neal family of deception and unethical conduct, public outrage, destruction of a landmark caliber historic home. For such a sleepy town, the Cobbs sure know how to stir things up!

The "Hammerschmidt Mansion" is now officially the "Cobbs Empty Lot of Shame". Well done, Chris Cobb and Bernie Cobb Sr. You must be so proud. I'm sure history will regard you as well as you regarded history...

Mrs. O'Neal's family says that she closed on another condo or assisted living home the same day as the closing so she could not unwind that to repurchase the home. She shouldn't have to. If the Cobbs had followed the rules and done the right thing to begin with, this entire fiasco would not have happened.

This is a community that prides itself on being a great place to live. I guess its a great place to live unless you happen to live next door to the Cobbs on Chicago Avenue. If I ever sell my home, I will have my lawyer add a separate representation in the contract that the buyer is not associated with the Cobbs. Call it the "No Cobbs" clause. :-)

"Hurray for America", you may be all about money, but Ms. O'Neal apparently wasn't. Her family says was willing to accept less money to avoid selling to the Cobbs. I guess she relied on the ethics rules and assumed Bernie Cobb Sr. was being transparent about his client, Susan Wilkie. That proved to be a mistake, but it seems like she had the right to know that the licensed realtor next door, through his wife, was the person she was negotiating with.

This empty lot may be a trophy to the Cobbs but it will be a constant reminder to most others of what Chris Cobb and Bernie Cobb Sr. did. Sort of a monument to their "subterfuge", to use Hurray for America's terminology.

The Cobb's should have said from the start that they were buying this house with the intention of living next door while they rehabbed it. After purchasing it they could have said they discovered just how dramatic the rehab was going to be, and the cost to do so would be prohibitive. Then Bernie could have said that unfortunately their "dream" of living in this house is now impossible, and regrettably they will be demolishing it.

Of course this "story" wouldn't be true, but with the way the transaction was shielded and covert anyway what could it have hurt?
Anyone can do whatever they want with their property as long as it doesn't violate the law so I don't have a problem with this. But just like a restaurant benefits from a good location, a realtor only has their reputation to consider and the Cobb Team is taking a beating.

Mrs. O'Neal is a hypocrite. If she was so inflamed, then she should have repurchased the house. Why don't one of you file a lawsuit voiding the sale for fraud and making her give the money back in return for the house.

The Cobbs bought the Rot development house, they were stuck with a house that the Village should have condemned. My only problem with Cobb's house is that it it too close to Chicago. The Hammerschmidt house is decrepid and too small. Not worth saving.

He will do just fine in real estate. None of the people leading the complaints will ever be buying higher priced houses. They are all talk and no substance.

If Naper settlement thought the house was so important, they could have moved it to their site. Guess not.

Looks sunny and destructive tomorrow!!

Evidently the Cobbs felt taking ownership of the property was worth jeopardizing their credibility when it comes to their livelihood. That or they didn't think the whole process through thoroughly. In any event, now the whole town knows to what extents their greed will take them. Shame on them and I hope Ms. O'Neal is successful with her complaint.
I also hope potential clients think long and hard before hiring someone who does not deal on the level.

Really. Does anything that family does surprise anyone? Hard to believe the ethics committee hasn't revoked their licenses yet though I've heard they are investigating. Regardless, they will do what they wish and what goes around comes around.(Right up there with Drew!)

Good bye to the old house already. Don't forget the garage. The garage must go too.

Finally, even Ken comes around... This is all about the Cobbs subterfuge. Chris Cobb can do whatever he wants with his properties. But this is a closely knit neighborhood in and around the historic district. There are a lot of older residents and most people look out for them. Chris Cobb wasn't looking out for Ms. O'Neal when he used this "subterfuge" to buy her dilapidated historic mansion to tear it down. That not only angered Ms. O'Neal's family and left them feeling "duped", but it also didn't go over too well with the rest of the neighborhood. I think this is well worth whatever time Ms. O'Neal is spending on her ethics complaint.

Ken, was it worth Chris and Bernie Cobb Sr. risking their professional licenses over? Was it worth the time and cost Chris Cobb has had to spend on the landmark proceeding and ethics complaint? Was it worth Chris and Susan Cobb having the entire neighborhood know about their subterfuge on an older lady who had lived there for 45 years? Was it worth all the negative publicity his coy "subterfuge" caused?

Hey...it is really a shame some tv show could not pick it up & just redo it for the show you know. To bad some restoration place may not want to use it for teaching others and take pictures or video for the future etc. Just seems like there could have been some other way.

I agree..seems fishy with this guy. Not sure I would trust him. You know it is pretty typical in many areas to just buy to demolish & use the land though & rebuild or add on? The house my folks sold, they took the brick off & made it into this 2 story or almost looks like 3 story mansion. Which mansion is a relative term I will agree. What use to be one now is not with the bigger ones of today.

The story was that she didn't want to sell the house to Cobb. She didn't. A little subterfuge on Cobb's part? Yes. Worth wasting time with ethics complaints? No.

After hearing about the way the Cobbs went about this transaction I would hope any potential buyer or seller would steer clear of them. If they weren't doing something shady, there would be no reason to conceal Chris' identity by having the purchase go through under his wife's name, would there?

I thought a realtor had to disclose the fact that they were a realtor to a seller. Is there an ethical realtor or real estate attorney that can confirm this information?

don't buy a house listed by the Cobbs and don't list your house with Cobbs. Hit him where it hurts most. Plain and simple. What a crook

The whiners and nimby's of Naperville.

1. $800,000 versus $770,000? Did you ever hear of closing and holding costs? Also,did anyone put in an offer for $770,000? Does not sound like it. And the earnest money is always deposite with the realtor of record. All of this is sour grapes. Nobody wants to buy the dump.

2. If the previous owner was so devastaded by the offer, why doesn't she offer to repay the $770,000 adn reverse the transaction? Offer to void the sale and return thbe money. If she is not willing to do that, then she should shut up.

Hoorah for America? I don't think anyone questions that "Susan Wilkie" paid a fair price for this historic home, but I can see why people question the fairness and ethics of how she and Chris Cobb went about buying it. It seems like she had the right to know she was really dealing with the wife of the realtor next door who she didn't want to sell to. I would not expect any "do gooders" to be dumb enough to pay more than Chris Cobb's wife paid for this home, since its value has continued to collapse since she paid $775,000 for it in December of 2007. So the fact that nobody took Cobb up on his supposed offer does not surprise me.

One clarification. Chris Cobb did not offer to sell the home for $770,000. He tacked on thousands of dollars in unspecified costs, which made the price well over $800,000, and he required a $50,000 cashiers check payable to him personally to even present an offer. That was on the sell sheet he handed out at an ECHO meeting last year. Nobody would ever sign up to those terms. Had he offered it for sale for the same price his wife paid for it and on the same terms, then we would actually know if it was feasible. I think his "offer" was more about PR than anything else.

I hate to see such a historic property demolished but I generally agree that property owners should have the final say on what they want to do with their property, within zoning requirements. But what bothers me is how this realtor and his wife went about buying the home from their neighbor. When a long time resident feels "duped" and her broker cites ethics violations, I think someone needs to take a closer look.

I wonder what other realtors think about this mess? Is it ok for a realtor to have his fiance or wife buy a property without disclosing that she is the wife of that realtor? Do realtors have to disclose any personal interest they have in real estate transactions?

Totally agree with Ken. Property rights were preserved. The previous owner got $770,000, probably $250,000 more than the lot was worth since the house was worthless due to the poor condition she left it in.

And true to form, all of those do gooders could not put their money where there mouth is!!!

America survives another liberal onslaught.

Actually, their wedding website that was until recently publicly available online showed that Chris and Susan got married in November of 2007, and Susan Wilkie did not close on the purchase of the mansion until December, which would seem to make her Chris Cobb's wife when she bought the place. I don't know that it matters that much, but maybe makes it more of a legal or ethical mess for them.

This guy has no shame. Tearing down this historic house is one thing, but hiding the ball by using his fiance to buy it was pretty bold. I wonder why the former owner didn't like him to begin with? Unfortunately for Chris and Susan Cobb, this empty lot will be a daily reminder to residents of how he went about this whole mess. I suspect it won't do much for his approval ratings in the neighborhood...

The real story here is the ethics behind the purchase by Cobb, using his wife to buy the home without ever disclosing who she really was. I hear the State licensing board is investigating and the family of the former owner is not letting this drop. Expect more news on this one...

Another old decrepit house that has no real historical meaning will be gone. No big deal. Best of all, the property owner's rights were not abrogated by a bunch of nimbys that were not willing to put up their own money for a costly restoration.

If the news report of the impending demolition is accurate then we shall soon loose yet another piece of Naperville history at the hand of an uncaring and small minded person who obviously has more money than brains and little vision for what could have been done with this property from a preservation perspective.

With the economy as bad as it is and the real estate business as slow as it has been it is also very doubtful that the Cobb family business is going to weather this economic storm any more than this old mansion. Little wonder. People in Naperville generally are not happy about the choices this family has made and won't soon forget what happened. Rather, long after the Cobb family business is long gone from the local real estate market people will still remember this old mansion and what was done to it.