Business ProfileforForshee Agency, Inc.

The following describes a government action that has been resolved by either a settlement or a decision by a court or administrative agency. If the matter is being appealed, it will be noted below.

On June 14, 2023, the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance (CSI) filed two motions for summary judgment, one against Sheila Forshee (Forshee) and one against Forshee Agency, Inc. (Forshee Agency) respectively, on the basis that Forshee and Forshee Agency violated Mont. Code Ann. § 33-17-214 by failing to inform CSI within 30 days of Forshee’s guilty plea to the charge of deceptive practices.

On July 20, 2023, before the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, Office of the Montana State Auditor, Shelia Forshee, (License No. 12875959), and Forshee Agency, Inc. a/b/n Havre Affordable Insurance (License No. 3000760162) entered into a Final Order Adopting Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Decision.

Respondents’ insurance producer licenses numbers 12875959 and 3000760162 are hereby revoked.

For more information, please contact the State of Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance at 406.444.2040 or https://csimt.gov/contact/. 

The following describes a government action that has been resolved by either a settlement or a decision by a court or administrative agency. If the matter is being appealed, it will be noted below.

On October 11, 2023, before the Board of Realty Regulation, State of Montana, Sheila Kay Forshee, Broker License 30810 entered into a Final Order by Default.

According to the case, in or about October 2018, the David and Kristina Shaw (“Shaws”) entered into negotiations for the potential sale of the Atrium Mall, (“Property”) to the Forshee Agency. The Forshee Agency was a tenant of the Shaws in the Property. Ms. Forshee drafted a Buy-Sell Agreement for the Property with the Shaws as sellers and the Forshee Agency as buyer. On the Buy-Sell Agreement, Ms. Forshee checked that she was acting as a dual agent, but no additional disclosure forms were created setting forth the information required to be communicated per Mont. Code Ann. § 37-51-314.

The Buy-Sell Agreement was so poorly drafted as to prevent fair performance of the contract. The Buy-Sell Agreement contains conflicting provisions regarding the closing date—stating in one provision that it will be when the Stockman Bank Loan is paid in full and in another provision that it will be October 31, 2018 (the date the Buy-Sell Agreement was executed). The Buy-Sell Agreement also contains conflicting provisions regarding the purchase price. One provision set forth a $2540.83 monthly payment, which was the result of the $385,000.00 purchase price balance being amortized at 5.0% over twenty (20) years, but another provision stated that the purchase price would be reduced based on Ms. Forshee’s payments to Stockman Bank.

The Shaws intended the transaction to provide that the Forshee Agency would pay off the Stockman Bank loan, at which point they would deed the property to her under a seller financing transaction, but the Buy-Sell Agreement does not adequately describe the Shaws intentions. On February 22, 2021, the Shaws filed an unlawful detainer lawsuit against Ms. Forshee in Hill County District Court, Cause No. DV-2021-18, seeking to evict her from the Property for failure to pay rent and seeking money damages.

On May 17, 2021, the Shaws filed a lawsuit against Forshee Agency in Hill County District Court, Cause No. DV-2021-54, alleging breach of the Buy-Sell Agreement and, in the alternative, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Buy-Sell Agreement was so poorly drafted as to prevent fair performance of the contract.

On March 23, 2023, a jury verdict was issued against Ms. Forshee in the unlawful detainer action finding that she breached a lease agreement with the Shaws by failing to pay rent. The jury awarded the Shaws $32,384.00 in monetary damages.

On April 12, 2023, the district court issued a judgment as a matter of law against the Forshee Agency in the breach of contract action finding that it breached the Buy-Sell Agreement “by repudiation by demanding the addition of a term that the parties had not agreed to and stating unequivocally that it could not perform without the addition of the term.” The district court also found that the Shaws were entitled to rescind the Buy-Sell Agreement.

Ms. Forshee’s actions in drafting the Buy-Sell Agreement with the Shaws, in her capacity as a dual agent, in a manner that made it essentially unenforceable, constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined by Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-51-321(1)(s).

Pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-309(3), a licensee’s failure to request a hearing within 20 days of receipt of the Notice constitutes a default on the charge or charges allowing the Board to enter a decision based on the facts available to it.

Respondent failed to request a hearing as provided for in Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-309(3) and has therefore defaulted in this case. Ms. Forshee’s actions in drafting the Buy-Sell Agreement with the Shaws, in her capacity as a dual agent, in a manner that made it essentially unenforceable, constitutes unprofessional conduct as defined by Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-51-321(1)(s).

The Board entered the following Final Order:

Within 60 days after entry of the Final Order in this case, Ms. Forshee shall complete twelve (12) continuing education contact hours (CE). Mont. Code Ann. § 37-1-312(1)(d). The CE shall include eight (8) hours in the subject area of real estate financing and four (4) hours in the subject area of dual agency relationships.

Ms. Forshee will pay an administrative fine in the amount of $500, the amount should be paid by cashier’s check or money order, payable to the Montana Board of Realty Regulation.

For more information, please contact the State of Montana Realty Regulation Board at https://boards.bsd.dli.mt.gov/realty-regulation/ or (406) 444-6880.