FORMAL COMPLAINT
Complainant
Amy Deane
Broker Associate, Moreland Properties
Austin, Texas
Respondents
Kumara Wilcoxon – Sales Agent
Sasha Wilcoxon – Sales Agent
Jessica Docasar – Sales Agent
J. Kuper – Sponsoring Broker
Overview and Statutory Basis
I am filing this complaint regarding the handling of two written offers that I prepared and submitted on behalf of my buyers, [Buyers], for 3400 Foothill Terrace and it was later found out these offers were never submitted to the seller. This complaint concerns potential violations of the Texas Real Estate License Act (TRELA) and TREC Rules, including:
- TRELA §1101.652(b)(1) – Misrepresentation or dishonest conduct
- TRELA §1101.652(b)(3) – Failure to disclose a material fact
- TRELA §1101.652(b)(4) – Acting negligently or incompetently
- TRELA §1101.652(b)(23) – Failure to properly supervise
- TREC Rule 535.2 – Responsibility to the Public (honest dealing and integrity)
- TREC Rule 535.156 – Broker supervision duties
The above statutory provisions are cited because the conduct described in this complaint raises concerns regarding: (i) whether written offers were properly presented to the principal; (ii) whether all material facts were fully disclosed; (iii) whether representations made to cooperating brokers were accurate and consistent with honest dealing; (iv) whether any undisclosed personal interest created a conflict inconsistent with loyalty to the client; and (v) whether the sponsoring broker fulfilled his statutory duty to supervise license holders and ensure compliance with TRELA and TREC Rules.
The following narrative is based on written communications, call logs, and recorded conversations.
Detailed Chronological Narrative
On September 4, my clients toured 3400 Foothill Terrace and I submitted a written offer of $9,500,000, $50,000 above the list price of $9,450,000 the same day we toured the property. The offer was written as all-cash with a short closing timeline, and we requested an immediate response by 8pm the same day. Between September 4 and September 5, I placed approximately ten calls to Kumara Wilcoxon and three calls to Jessica Docasar to discuss this offer. None were answered or returned.
Late Thursday, September 4, I received a text from Kumara stating: "There is no way the seller will respond before 8… We have other people interested. She's traveling and I've sent but need time to discuss. I will call you on the way to Trinity {her kid's school}." No follow-up call ever occurred.
On Friday morning, September 5, in a group message including Kumara Wilcoxon, Sasha Wilcoxon, and Jessica Docasar, Kumara wrote: "I connected with the seller. There are several parties trying to get in over the next few days and so would like to get everyone in and continue to show the house with a deadline for offers Wednesday at 9am." This reflected a proposed six-day delay from responding to our original offer.
I asked to go back to the property to verify non-realty items and was told days earlier there was already a 10:00 a.m. showing. I requested to come at 11:00 a.m. I sent my assistant, Kacey Lang, early to verify what agent and buyer may be looking at the home, but no showing occurred at that time. This appeared inconsistent with representations of the frenzied competitive offer situation. One of Kumara's assistants, Ariel Cohen, arrived at 10:45 to turn on the lights, and Sasha Wilcoxon arrived at 11 am to meet me for the tour. My clients did not attend.
During my in-person showing with Sasha Wilcoxon, I pressed for more information and asked why the would recommend to any seller in this type of market slowdown to delay responding to an above-list price offer. Sasha told me a detailed story that the seller's husband had just passed away and she had recently purchased a home in Bozeman, Montana. During her purchase she had waited over a week for a response in that transaction. Sasha stated the seller, Ms. Stanley, personally advised them to follow a similar protocol here and wait approximately one week before responding to offers. I pressed for details on how to write a clean offer, and Sasha emphasized the importance of a long lease-back for Ms. Stanley to move from her home. Sasha presented this explanation and said the delayed response was solely directed by the seller.
After this second home tour, I spoke to [Buyers] and explained the situation. After being told a leaseback was important and explaining that I didn't really believe there were multiple buyers, we decided to revise our offer to full list price ($9,450,000) with a no-fee leaseback. I requested a response by 5:00 p.m. the following day and clearly stated the offer would be rescinded absent a response. After confirming receipt of the updated offer, Jessica Docasar responded in writing via text: "Based on their call (Kumara, Mary Stanley and Laura Stanley), their preference is to wait until Tuesday or Wednesday, but maybe we can push to Tuesday. We will do our best and would love to work with you!" I then advised my clients that they would not be responding to our offer by the deadline, so my client instructed me to withdraw the offer. They felt like she was trying to find her own buyer in an effort to double-end the transaction at the expense of her client. They also instructed me not to show them any further homes listed by Kumara, as they did not feel she or her team was working in good faith.
On September 15, I contacted Kumara and inquired why the property was not marked pending on the website and Kumara told me they didn't receive any offers. I explained how upset my clients were with her for mishandling our offer and pleaded with her to have her client send a written clarification or apology to my buyers explaining why Ms. Stanley had advised Kumara's team to postpone a response and request that we all put the deal back together. Kumara agreed to do so, but never provided such communication. I followed up three days later, on September 18th, via text, requesting that they send the note to help us put the deal together. I received no response from Kumara.
On October 22 at 5:39 p.m., Kumara and I were on a call and she asked me if she could bring her father-n-law to view two of my listings I had on the market (3405 Southill Circle offered at $11.995M and 2601 Wooldridge offered at $8.995M). She is going through a separation with her partner and wanted the father-n-law to purchase a home for her and her boys to live in. She advised me at this time: "I tried to get him to buy Foothills but then he went quiet on me." This was the first indication to me regarding her personal interest in the 3400 Foothill Terrace property. Note: I have completed well over $50M in transactions with Kumara, and she and I always work diligently to put deals together. This situation was completely different. For this property alone, Kumara was consistently dismissive with no initiative to work with me on this transaction. This later admission of personal interest, when viewed in the context of her unusual behavior, raises concern regarding whether an undisclosed conflict may have existed. My intuition was the she was slow playing all offers in an effort to reduce the price of the property and ultimately purchase it for herself. This is speculation, but knowing how we have worked together on numerous transactions, it is the only explanation for her unusual and dismissive behavior in refusing to engage on this transaction.
On November 12, an eblast announcing a price reduction of 3400 Foothill Terrace was sent to all agents at $8,995,000. Kumara still made no attempt to contact me to explore my clients' interest nor attempted to revive our offer.
On November 18, I was advised by another agent that 3400 Foothill Terrace had gone under contract and that this agent experienced similar issues with their offer submission. Kumara never contacted me to advise of another offer, nor did she encourage us to bring our better offer back to compete with this offer. I contacted [Buyers] to advise them of the status of Foothills and they decided to reach out to the seller, Ms. Stanley. [Buyers] called her and texted her and advised her of our offer to seek confirmation if she had ever received it.
On November 20, Laura Stanley, Ms. Stanley's daughter, contacted me and told me her mother was 78 years old, so she had been working closely with her mom on the sale of her home. Laura verified that neither offer had ever been presented to her or her mother; that they were told by Kumara that an offer was expected but advised to wait; and that they were later told, when they asked about the full-price offer, that it "never materialized." Laura confirmed with me that they would have accepted the offer immediately if it had been presented and that they had never requested any sort of lease-back since her mother was already living out of state.
On November 29, Kumara brought her mother and sister for a third visit to one of my listings at 2601 Wooldridge, which she was interested in purchasing for herself. During this in-person visit to my listing at 2601 Wooldridge, Kumara Wilcoxon stated to me again: "I wanted to buy Foothill but this location…." Her sister, Sasha, then interrupts her and talks about the importance of the Pemberton Heights location for her kids. This statement is available via home recording if requested by TREC Commission. Once again, at no time during my negotiations on behalf of my client was I informed that she had a personal interest in acquiring the 3400 Foothill Terrace for herself. I did not bring up my clients' previous offer at this time because [Buyers] had moved on to present an offer on a different property by this date.
On December 4th, my client reached out to me to see if I had heard anything about the status of the contract on Foothills and if I had ever talked to Kumara about our findings with the sellers. At this time, I decided I needed to call Kumara and make this request for her to deliver proof of offer submission. During the call, I asked for proof of offer submission. Based on prior statements from the seller's daughter, I knew the offer had not been submitted, but I wanted to hear what Kumara had to say. She told me in our recorded call: "I told Mary, Yes I said 'we have a full price offer'…..we had all these showings lined up as I told you, and she wanted to wait through the weekend." I asked for proof of that offer submission but she declined to send to me.
I then followed up in an email requesting written proof of the offer and she texted me J. Kuper would reach out to me. I told her I didn't want to speak to J., but I just wanted proof of the offer submission so I could forward it to [Buyers].
On September 9, Mr. Kuper had left me a casual voicemail stating: "I'm going to check with the client to make sure the offer was presented or that we were at least doing what the client wanted us to do." No documentation confirming the offer presentation was subsequently produced.
I followed up in an email to him with written proof the offer was submitted. J. followed up in an email stating a) they would not provide any proof of offer submission, b) they had fulfilled their duty by responding, c) he characterized the matter as "blown out of proportion," and d) he suggested I may be "tortiously interfering" with the existing contract. No written documentation confirming the presentation was ever provided.
In a later email, when I advised that I planned to follow suit with a TREC complaint asking how he could ignore this issue, he advised that he is handling and will continue to handle this matter appropriately. Given the lack of documentation and conflicting statements, I do not believe the broker has met his proper supervisory obligations of his agents.
📎 View Email Communication with J. Kuper 🎙️ Listen to J. Kuper Voicemail
On February 2, 2026, another buyer purchases 3400 Foothill Terrace for $8,400,000. A few days later, the Stanleys sent a demand letter to Kuper Sotheby's and Kumara Wilcoxon requesting damages of $1,362,000.00 and plan to file a lawsuit against Kuper and Wilcoxon for violations of the DTPA, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and any other claim available to Ms. Stanley which may also include Texas Penal Code 32.55 Financial Abuse of Elderly Individual and Texas Penal Code 32.53, Exploitation of an Elderly Individual.
Regulatory Significance
The written representations, the inaccurate rationale for not responding to the offer, the seller's daughter's statements, the demand letter, and the recorded admissions of Kumara's personal interest in the property raise questions regarding:
- Whether both written offers were fully presented in compliance with the agent's obligation to place the principal's interests above her own.
- Whether the seller was fully informed of all material facts affecting the transaction.
- Whether representations regarding buyer competition were accurate and made with integrity.
- Whether an undisclosed personal interest created a conflict inconsistent with loyalty to the seller.
- Whether the sponsoring broker fulfilled his duty to supervise and ensure compliance with TRELA and TREC Rules.
Request for Investigation
I respectfully request that TREC investigate whether the above conduct constitutes violations of TRELA §1101.652(b)(1), (3), (4), (23), and TREC Rules 535.2 and 535.156, and impose the discipline deemed appropriate for Kumara Wilcoxon, J. Kuper, Sasha Wilcoson and Jessica Docasar.