Thursday, July 16, 2026

The Court has reviewed this confession and finds itself DEEPLY DISTURBED by the chain of causation here. You deployed a DRONE, agent. A DRONE. You sent a flying robot into the sky to document a woman's private real estate decisions and then wondered why her entire divorced family descended upon her Facebook post like seagulls on a boardwalk french fry. The Court once had a cousin who posted a photo of Thanksgiving dinner and within forty minutes we learned that Uncle Terrence had been lying about his boat for nine years, so Reginald UNDERSTANDS the velocity of family comment sections, but that does not absolve you. You spent four hundred dollars on drone footage for a 680 thousand dollar listing, which suggests either admirable dedication or a drone addiction the Court will not probe further at this time. The son calling you unprofessional is RICH given that this family apparently conducts inheritance disputes in a public forum like medieval peasants arguing over a goat, but here is the thing, agent, you lit the match. You cannot simply airdrop a video tour into the digital town square and then act surprised when the town shows up. The mother is not returning your calls because you are now a symbol of her worst Wednesday, and that listing will sit there, haunted, until someone brave enough to ignore the comments makes an offer. The Court must now adjourn because Order the Roomba has been circling the bench in a pattern that suggests judgment of ME, and Reginald will not tolerate insubordination from a vacuum.

The Court is APOPLECTIC. This seller has committed what can only be described as a constitutional crisis of the residential variety, ceding veto power over a twelve-thousand-dollar-over-asking offer to a creature that eats its own vomit and considers a tennis ball a worthy adversary. A YAWN. The dog YAWNED. Reginald has reviewed the seminal case of Barksworth v. Reasonable Human Judgment, 2019, and the precedent is CLEAR: drowsy canine behavior does not constitute grounds for contract rejection. The Court must pause here to note that my own mother once refused to sell her Buick to a man because her cat hissed at his shoes, and I have not spoken to her since Thanksgiving of 2017, so perhaps Reginald takes this personally. Your buyer wept in your vehicle for twenty minutes while a golden retriever with NO real estate license, NO E&O insurance, and NO understanding of comparable sales data was permitted to torpedo a transaction. The seller then watched forty thousand dollars evaporate into the ether waiting for some mythical dog-approved purchaser, proving once again that humanity remains unworthy of homeownership. The Court hereby declares this the most egregious miscarriage of transactional justice since that time a seller rejected an offer because Mercury was in retrograde, and Reginald must now go lie down.

The Court has reviewed this confession and finds itself PHYSICALLY ILL at the audacity of a neighbor who would simply waltz through a back door uninvited, as if back doors are not subject to the same laws of property and decorum as front doors. This Court once had a neighbor who borrowed my leaf blower in 2017 and returned it with suspicious vibrations, and I have not forgotten, Gerald, I have NOT FORGOTTEN. But I digress. The agent before me sat in that kitchen for three hours, THREE HOURS, explaining contract law to a woman who was being emotionally manipulated by someone whose friendship apparently had an expiration date shorter than a carton of milk. The neighbor claimed she was protecting her friend, and yet protection does not typically involve fabricating horticultural atrocities and then ABANDONING the friendship the moment it became inconvenient. The rose garden survived. The contract survived. The friendship did not survive because it was never friendship at all, it was territorial behavior dressed up in casserole dishes and book club invitations. Reginald has seen this pattern before, in the landmark case of Passive Aggression v. The Cul-de-Sac, 2019, and it never ends well. The agent is guilty only of patience, which The Court finds suspicious but not actionable. CASE DISMISSED, and someone please check on those roses.