Real Estate Rescue product by DG Institute being sold despite being flawed

This message is a consumer warning to consumers and the thousands of DGI graduates who remain ignorant that there is a major flaw with the product, which could cost you everything you’ve invested in your property project, or worse - your life savings or your home. This is very real and current. This is not a joke. I’m writing this because I don’t want anyone else to suffer as we are.

We bought the Real Estate Rescue product (from Dominique Grubisa and her DG Institute) in Feb 2015. We became elite mentoring graduates in 2016. The product uses 3 methods to deal with distressed property. The first two are easy to understand. They are the ‘wholesale’ method and the ‘short sale’ method. The wholesale method works on the principle of finding and buying a property ‘off market’ for 10%-40% cheaper than retail. The title changes hands. The short sale is similar in that the house is bought by the graduate off market. The sale is termed ‘short’ because there’s no equity in the property. To build equity the DG Institute graduate has to convince the bank that it’s worth their while to sell to the graduate at a loss. The graduate is trained to make a deal with the vendor that might include a cash incentive, that the lender can’t know about.

The takeover method is the most attractive for graduates because there’s no need to get a bank loan and profits go up because there’s no need to pay stamp duty. The property stays in the name of the vendor while the deal runs its course. Now this might seem pretty scary as you don’t actually ‘own’ the property - you’ve merely ‘taken it over’ and are supposed to be standing in the ‘legal shoes’ of the vendor. The graduate is supposed to be protected through the DG institute’s legal tools, the most important of which is the ‘irrevocable power of attorney’ (POA). This is supposed to protect the graduate from the vendor changing their mind and seeking to take back the property after you’ve spent a lot of time, effort and money fixing it up for sale.

How do I know all of this?

I am currently living a nightmare caused by the failure of the supposedly irrevocable power of attorney (POA), which CAN easily be revoked. Our takeover project was going well until the vendor decided to take back the property. She simply broke into the house (2 weeks out from the auction to sell it), and changed the locks. She visited the land titles office and filled out the form to revoke the POA. It was that easy. The vendor has no legal training and didn’t have the help of a solicitor. She simply revoked the POA and we lost our right to sell the property and recover our investment.

This all happened back in October 2016. On the 27th February 2017 the QLD State Minister for the DNRM weighed in and supported the revocation of the POA. He made a written decree that the DGI POA is not valid at law. Any vendor that knows this can undo a takeover project with ease. The DGI customer who has bought the DGI Real Estate Rescue product has NO PROTECTION at law.

I wish this was a joke, but it’s not. We’ve now got $1m at risk because of the failure of the product. Importantly, we don’t blame the government for deciding to allow the POA to be revoked. As the government, they make the rules. Dominique Grubisa has claimed that the fault in the failure of her product lies with the government being wrong and not with her. She claims that because there have been 100’s of successful uses of the DGI POA then our case is an anomaly.

What she won’t say is that we were the very first time a vendor challenged her POA and it failed to provide the protection she sold. As such it has a 100% failure rate when challenged. That’s like saying that it doesn’t matter if the airbag in 100 of the same type of car doesn’t fail when you drive that car and don’t have an accident…the accident is an anomaly and that’s your problem as the consumer. Sounds crazy, but that’s what’s being said.

What remains a major problem for consumers is that Dominique Grubisa has known this is the case and has continued to sell the product regardless. As she is a licenced legal practitioner she has a duty of care to disclose the fact that the QLD State government won’t support the irrevocability of her product, and yet she refuses to do so. That’s like the surgeon operating on your family neglecting to tell you they might die and then saying, “it’s your problem” if they do. In an email she sent on the 11th January 2017 she stated that she’s not interested in defending her product and if there’s a loss, then that’s the consumer’s problem.

She also claims that because she has had her product reviewed by independent lawyers (who all agree with her that her product is sound in theory) that consumers should be comfortable with the theory regarding the viability of her product. As a licenced practicing lawyer she knows the only way to actually prove the viability of her product at law is by way of case law precedent. Judges and governments make the law - not lawyers! She knows this and yet continues to spruik that her product is tried and tested at law when in fact it isn’t. She’s also ignoring repeated requests to remedy the problem and acknowledge responsibility for the product’s failure.

How could this happen? It’s very simple. Dominique Grubisa hasn’t actually tested her POA prior to selling it. What’s worse, she has continued to sell the product (with sales topping $25m in the last year alone) SINCE she found out the product is flawed and should be withdrawn. She is effectively selling a product that could blow up in your face and kill you financially. The NSW, Victorian, SA and WA state governments have now all followed QLD in declining to support the irrevocability of the DGI POA. We even have an audio recording of Dominique Grubisa telling consumers the POA is irrevocable and that it will protect them, when she knows in practice it won’t.

We have pleaded with DGI to be compensated but have been met with threats if we disclose this information. Dominique Grubisa has repeatedly posted a video in which she claims the there’s no problem with her product and that she is the victim of lies and half truths. The acid test here though is that she is a lawyer with a big law firm behind her. If I was lying, how hard would it be for her to get an injunction to shut me up? She’s claimed that the government allowed the POA to be revoked because of unconscionable conduct on my part toward the vendor. Wow! That was a bold statement by her given her letter to the QLD State Government on the 28th February 2017 (which followed the government’s decision to allow the POA to be revoked) focused entirely and completely on the technical deficiencies of the POA.

Who in their right mind would buy a product that isn’t tested and which comes with the caveat that when it fails you will have to bear the burden of loss and then you will have to pay for the defence of the product. If she were selling a car with a faulty airbag she would be selling you the problem of dealing with the death or injury that comes from relying on it and then asking you to pay to defend its viability.

ALL of the evidence is free source and available at the facebook page DG Institute Graduates Independent. Please don’t just believe me. Please visit the page or ask for copies of the evidence for yourself. She is now under investigation by the NSW Law Society for professional misconduct. All of the evidence is there so there’s no excuse for anyone else to be harmed by this woman.


Hi @consumer.sheepdog,

Thanks for sharing this experience with DG Institute and sorry to hear that you’ve been through so much trouble. I’ll be sure to pass on this story to my colleagues.

It sounds like you are already looking at legal advice, but if there’s anything else we can do in the short term future, please let me know.


I just saw this and I am sorry to know this happened. Are you receiving advise and being represented? Please advise.


Resurrecting this old thread prompted me to google. First note is that on our ‘old friend’ productreview, DGI has many 5 star reviews. The more interesting part is that so many of them are single review posters who apparently felt compelled to register and review DGI at the same time and have not made other reviews. I’ll leave that for readers’ thoughts as to how that goes.

This dated exchange is appropo for the genre of seminars

Another thing that stood out is so many hits were her business web site and that the ‘testimonials’ are mostly on youtube. Many of the other exchanges seem to attract staunch defenders as well as detractors. It resembles a huge marketing plan that is a pyramid upon itself, selling hype and its seminars. There is also a ‘news report’ on her ‘small business success’; I’ll leave it to readers to consider whether it reads like an infomercial or a spotlight, and the flavour from our ‘hard hitting press’ is not unique.

As for these seminars and ‘educational opportunities’ I always marvel at the real estate gurus and share market experts who sell market letters or seminars. If they were any good one could expect they would be doing their own buying/investing and struggling to deposit all their profits as well as minimise their taxes (by signing onto ‘tax minimisation seminars’? :wink: ) Why would they want to develop competitors to themselves? Altruism?

All that cynicism being written, I subscribed to a US market letter for decades, written/edited by a respected financial heavy weight, that was brilliant, and sold at a token amount. Richard C. retired a few years ago, aged in his 80’s; his family continues to operate the business and the publishing company sold the masthead to a ‘promoter hot shot type’ who is ‘in your face’ about ‘this deal and that deal and where he is speaking next - quick sign up’, as well as some less conservative market advice. His real business seems selling lectures and multiple market letters not investing per se. As for Richard C., it seemed to be his hobby and obviously not his business. That circumstance does not happen often, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

When considering seminars one truism is usually that the more hype one encounters the less value it probably has.


I’m not only concerned about DG Institute /Dominique Grubisa’s students, but that her strategies teach students to do things that put vulnerable people at risk, including taking a power of attorney to control the property of financially stressed mortgagors. All outlined on my blog


Hi Carolyn, thanks so much for your input. Like you I’m committed to consumer safety, and as soon as the veil was lifted on the true nature of the strategies taught by Dominique Grubisa I became committed to protecting the people she targets. What’s been uncovered over the last 12 months has been truly shocking and warrants an investigation by the ACCC. Sadly that’s not going to happen as of today regardless of the ACCC being in full knowledge of what’s been uncovered and the harm it continues to cause.
What on earth does it mean when the ACCC will immediately launch an investigation into a basketball game attended by Russell Crowe, in which he and a few other consumers made a complaint to the ACCC about the seating layout; but they won’t lift a finger to protect Australian consumers when the shocking evidence that proves DGI is grossly misleading consumers, and placing their homes and life savings at risk, is put on a platter for them? It would seem the ACCC is nothing more than a toothless tiger that only raises it’s voice as a regulator when there’s a media opportunity…or am I missing something here?

Wasn’t it your tireless work that saw Rick Otton brought to justice? Didn’t the ACCC then seek a change of laws to protect consumers from spruikers as a result of that case? Didn’t that protection then become part of the ACCC mandate? I must be missing something here as the basic protections that the Consumer and Competition Act 2010 [cth] spruiks are the very protections the ACCC has decided to ignore in the face of overwhelming evidence that DGI are breaking the law.


There is Useless, there is Hopeless and there is the ACCC.


1 Like

Surely there was an agreement struck with the home owner based on the agreement and strategy to (a) get them out of a hole and (b) to protect the DGI graduate who has come along as the white knight. As long as the agreement is fair and legal and the home owner is of sound mind, it should be binding

There is also a caveat placed on the property registering the graduate’s interest.

Fairness goes both ways and a court of law should recognise an agreement.

1 Like

Some unfair contracts are set aside - not all contracts are binding.