"Corporate realty fraud is a tragic American business scandal, forcing victims into years of distress and litigation with giant real estate companies—AFTER the damage is done—as government is silent and often complicit. WindermereWatch.com is the internet journal of corporate realty fraud and malfeasance named for Windermere Real Estate, whose brand has become synonymous with deceitful sales promotion, predatory business tactics, greedy incompetence and routine unethical misconduct in local realty transactions. Ethical Realtors think twice about showing a Windermere listing, and potentially exposing their clients to such catastrophic financial jeopardy. WindermereWatch.com is an indispensable news, opinion and legal resource that provides hard evidence why consumers, agents and prospective realty franchisees should avoid Windermere Real Estate at all costs."

A public service consumer advocate reporting clear, compelling evidence of America's most dangerous and unethical corporate predator, Windermere Real Estate. When your home is listed for sale by Windermere, the resulting commission will fund Windermere's predatory legal strategies against other Windermere customers damaged by unscrupulous Windermere brokers, agents and franchise owners. Protect your life, home, family and future by cancelling or not renewing your Windermere listing. Don't risk doing business with Windermere Real Estate, the brand built on lies, fraud and ruined lives.

.

Latest Cases & Updates Home Page • Comment, Case Tip or Local Windermere Complaint? Email WindermereWatch.

Notice: As of October 1, 2015, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bennion & Deviile Fine Homes SoCal, Inc., and Windermere Services Southern California, Inc., have left Windermere Real Estate and become the “bennion deville HOMES” independent brand.

________________

 

Popular Quick Clicks:

 

Windermere Property Management Complaints & Reviews Homestreet Bank Review Demco Law Firm Review Suing or litigating with Windermere? Click here Vestus Foreclosure Group Review Windermere Mortgage Services Review CW Title Reviews

________________

 

Insuring Windermere brokerages means insuring prior Windermere defendants...

E&O VENDORS EVALUATE RISK and PROBABLE LIABILITY HERE: WindermereWatch.com has become the commercial real estate Insurance provider's first stop on the internet!

________________

Windermere Real Estate Hires Matthew Gardner as Chief Economist:

Seattle - Windermere Real Estate announced today that it has hired Matthew Gardner (left) as the company's new Chief Economist. Gardner is the former Principal of Gardner Economics, and has over 25 years of professional experience both in the U.S. and U.K. (MORE)

________________

 

CLICK TO WINDERMERE OFFICE & PERSONNEL LISTINGS IN WASHINGTON OREGON CALIFORNIA IDAHO

THE COMPLETE WINDERMERE WASHINGTON LITIGATION HISTORY in comprehensive listings of Windermere Real Estate lawsuits from KING and PIERCE and SNOHOMISH counties, and all Washington counties where Windermere cases have been filed: Benton Chelan Clallam Clark Columbia Cowlitz Franklin Grant Grays Harbor Island Jefferson Kitsap Kittitas Lewis Mason Pacific Pend Oreille San Juan Skagit Spokane Stevens Thurston Wahkiakum Walla Walla Whatcom Whitman Yakima

Download the complete Windermere litigation history from ALL Washington counties here.

__________________

GENDER INEQUALITY, WINDERMERE, AND WORKPLACE FAIRNESS: Read the hard truth about how Windermere Real Estate treats female workers.

__________________

WindermereWatch Ethics University...

Realtor Unethical Miscondust Review: Read the complete California Department of Real Estate legal action for license suspension and/or revocation in the Matter of the Accusation of Tower Lending and Carl L. Cole.

 

From Glassdoor website—an inside look at jobs and companies:

 

Dec. 24, 2013

“Coldhearted Hypocrisy”

Anonymous Employee (Former Employee)

I worked at Windermere Real Estate full-time for more than 10 years

Pros – Enjoys a good public image, intensely cultivated and marketed for many years...the image appears to be the real thing to the public.

Cons – Marketing is at the heart of the Windermere Corporate approach to business ...consistently promote service to community, putting people first and honesty in business dealings but only if it doesn't mean taking a financial hit of any size: Windermere is guilty of huge hypocrisy. See windermerewatch.com for an extremist but fact based opinion. Windermere has, in their own words always "vigorously defended" against buyers and sellers who complain or sue them.... apparently regardless of the merit of the consumer's complaint. Windermere's contribution to their own Foundation comes primarily from it's agents (Not the Corporation) and at a level of less than a third of the per transaction legal defense contribution agents are required to make. (approx. $12 per transaction. Former Windermere franchise owners find themselves being sued by Windermere Corporate or may see the their loyalty and their Company tossed aside and closed in favor of a newer, younger franchise company......going against their own strict rules by facilitating the transfer of agents with zero compensation to the Ownership losing their entire business. The "Nordstrom of Real Estate" might apply to the design and décor of many Windermere offices, but in no way is there a similarity between the two companies when it comes to true integrity...there simply isn't real consistency between Windermere's professed beliefs/values and their actions.

Advice to Senior Management – You may remember when Windermere had integrity. Try to regain it. Good luck.

No, I would not recommend this company to a friend

Editor's note: Windermere's staggering PR image problems and reputation for protracted litigation with defrauded Windermere customers must be well considered by real estate professionals when evaluating Windermere desk fees and/or Windermere commission splits.

 

 

 

WINDERMERE SERVICES PART OF GRAND JURY/FBI INVESTIGATION IN CALIFORNIA...

WINDERMERE TRIAL DELAY STRATEGY: MOTION OF DEFENDANTS PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY and JOSEPH R. DEVILLE TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, "This motion is made pursuant to the Court's authority to Stay civil proceedings where defendants are also the subject of criminal investigation and/or prosecution..." NOTICE OF RULING CASE UPDATE: "The Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion, and to stay the entire action until completion of the related criminal action...

...A NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED IN THE PRECEDING WINDERMERE COACHELLA CASE ON JULY 11, 2011, STATES: "A grand jury and FBI investigation have been instituted to discover whether any criminal wrongdoing arose out of Plaintiff's allegations in this case." CLICK TO THIS REPORT

 

 

 

ASSESS THE RISK OF DOING BUSINESS WITH WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE:

If anything goes wrong in your Windermere home transaction—despite whatever clear, convincing evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct you may present—Windermere legal strategy will force you to sue in an effort to stall and exhaust your financial resources on litigation before trial. This web page reports many such cases.

WHEN CHOOSING A REAL ESTATE COMPANY, CONSIDER ITS REPUTATION FOR ETHICAL PERFORMANCE :

Through the fees and commissions that Windermere agents and brokers pay to their Windermere franchise owners—who in turn pay fees and commissions to franchiser Windermere Services Company—every Windermere agent, broker, and Windermere office is a knowing partner to Windermere marketing fraud, and its predatory conduct in local communities.

Your sale or purchase of a home means big commission to a realty agent, their broker, and the company they represent. Consumers have the right—indeed, the responsibility—to review public information which documents the unethical history of a company to whom they may consider trusting their home.

Public information lists the following Windermere office location, agent/broker sales personnel, and staff:

Windermere Entiat
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/NCW 14754 Highway 97 A
Entiat, WA 98822

Office: (509) 784-9016
Email: shildahl@windermere.com
Steve Hildahl,
Cell/Direct:(509) 994-0462
Email: shildahl@windermere.com

Jackie Blanchfield
Cell/Direct:(509) 670-4679
Email: Jackie@JackieBlanchfield.com
Website:JackieBlanchfield.com

Office Coordinator
Cell/Direct:(509) 784-9016
Email: entiat@windermere.com

Claudia Hildahl
Cell/Direct:(509) 994-9312
Email: claudia@windermere.com

Windermere Enumclaw
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Enumclaw
2744 Griffin Ave
Enumclaw, WA 98022

Phone: 360-825-6505
Fax: 360-825-0350
Email: enumclaw@windermere.com

Paula Anderson
Helen Boisjolie
Angelena Bowen
Timi Brooks
Anita Carlson
Annette Howells
Todd Huizenga
Doug Johnson
Jan Johnson
Ken Johnson
Laurie & Tom Kittelman
Tom & Laurie Kittelman
Linda Matson
Brian McIntosh
Steve Parker
Mary Richards

Windermere Ephrata
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Central Basin LLC
1133 Basin SW
Ephrata, WA 98823

Phone: 509/754-1168
Fax: 509/754-0524
Email: ephrata@windermere.com
Website: www.ephrata.windermere.com

Debra Adams
Scott Adams
Roger Attleson
Staci Faw
Terri Hunter
Susie Johnson
Gema Powers
Melodie Symington

Windermere Everett South
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/M2, LLC
9502 19th Ave. SE Ste. A
Everett, WA 98208

Phone: 425-338-0600
Fax: 425-338-9600
Email: everett@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereEverett.com

Cheri Bartelheimer
Marilyn Beck
Kent Becraft
Debi Bloomquist
John Boyden
Robert Boyden
Laura Burton
Nick Cason
Charles E David
Nell Del Ciello
Cheryl Durham
Firm Email
Carole Falleen
Pete Falleen
Brianne Field
Debbie Finch
Melody Foreman
Tyler Gardner
Paula George
Jessie Grandpre
Laura Gumnick
Dan Gunderson
Steve Halvorson, E-
Sharon Harriss
Steve Harriss
John Headley
Jennifer Hudson
Inde Indridson
Lola Jacobson
Mark Kirshner
Jeff Larkin
Denise Leestma
Robin Lessley
Debbie Long
Greg Love
Alison Maider
David Maider
Todd Marshall
Jan McWherter
Everett South Office
Linda Perez
Tom Pittsenbarger
Rene' Porubek
Casey Price
Rob & Sandy Racz
Sandy & Rob Racz
Kim Ratliff
Leska Ratliff
Nanette Scharbach
Shelia Simmons
Elly Smith
Michael Sorenson
Shirley Sorenson
Pam Spampani
Cindy Stach
Miao Sui
Brianna Taylor
Amy Townsend
Amy Trout
Leilani West
Michael West
Jason Zwicker

Windermere Federal Way
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/South Sound, Inc.
33405 6th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003

Phone: 253-838-8900
Fax: 253-838-8975
Email: fedwaycontracts@windermere.com
Website: www.federalwaywindermere.com

Chad Beckwith
Bryan Bell
Kathy Callahan
Katie Criddle
Maureen Donhauser
Jennifer Dovey
Bill Drew
TIM EVANS
Cindy Freed
Marylyn Gates
Debbi Hart
Helen Hendricks
Marge Hering
Graceland Heruska
Mingrey Hildebrandt
Ann Kirrmaier
Debra McGlothlen
Molly McNeil
Jenna Milne
Marvin Pinkis
Jeanette Pop
Cheryl Presleigh
Libby Ristau
Ronda Sims
John W Song
Alexandra Torres
John Ulrich
Federal Way Windermere

Windermere Federal Way West Campus
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/West Campus, Inc.
33310 1st Way South Suite 200
Federal Way, WA 98003

Phone: 253-838-7900
Fax: 253-838-9909
Email: fedwaywc@windermere.com

Susan Afalava
Linda Bellisario
Jenny Bemis
Mickael Berg
Monique Bloedel
Wendy Burney
Laurel Butler
Thomas Cameron
CJ Campbell
West Campus
Harry Carrick
Karen Carrick
West Campus Contracts
Deanne DeVries
Sheila Elwell
Al Franzen
Tanya Franzen
Tim Gavranich
Delia Gregg
Carol Haley
Sandra Harbert
Joy Heritage
Monica Hilliard
Kris Holden
Kris Huber
Stephen Janho
Bruce Johnson
Kristy Johnson
Michelle Karns
Ryan Karns
Diane Kawell
Dondi Koester
Mike Kollar
Cindy Kourkos
Bret Lane
Alec Lang
Marcy Lang
Linda Letney
Ivan Leung
Corinne Lombardo
Nichole Lombardo
Shannon Lombardo
Cory McGraw
Tracie Minkler
Kris Naylor
Beth Porter
Diane Renner
Abby Santos
Lee Santos
John Siridakis
Kathy Siridakis
Tayler Sloboda
Boots Swan
Marisa Thorson
John A. Tidwell
Tanner Tinney
Kris Verdi
Michelle Walden
Heidi Wiren
Allie Wobbrock

Windermere Franchise
Office Address:
Windermere Franchise
5424 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105

Phone: 206-527-3801
Fax: 206-527-3801
Email: franchise@windermere.com

Office Admin
Francis Franchise

Windermere Gig Harbor
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Gig Harbor
5801 Soundview Drive, Suite 101
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Phone: 253-851-7374
Fax: 253-858-6753
Email: gigharbr@windermere.com
Website: www.realestategigharbor.com

Kyongi Allaway
Gloria Babb
Kathy Barker
Susan Boyer
Victoria Burgess
Paul Butler
Constance Cassell
Matt Chittick
Internet Coordinator
Nancy Forsythe Corsi
Sue Davis
Bonnie Daybell
Mike Diaz
Linda Dodds
Chris Dowd
Molly DuPuy
Sandi Eddy
Joan Fiano
Patricia Gilmore
Lella Hamilton
Trish Harrison
Christianne Helland
Carole Holmaas
John Holmaas
John Holmaas Jr
Jennifer Ivester
Dale Johnson
Penny Jones
Kari Knapp
Amy Long
Cheryl & Daryl Main
Marty Marcum
Chris Miller
Carl Miraldi
Melissa Moller
Toni Monzon
Matt Morgan
Douglas B. Murphy
Don & Laura Musgrave
Fax Office
Shannon Patterson
Stacy Paul
Morrie Pedersen
Sue Rand
Jeremy Ritchie
Barb Roe-Trochim
Steve Skibbs
Bill Striegel
Mike Tinder
Sean L. Watson
Allison Welch
Stuart Yellowlees

Windermere Gig Harbor- Builder's Choice
Office Address:
Windermere Builder's Choice
2727 Hollycroft, Suite 110
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Office: (253) 514-8294
Email: builderschoice@windermere.com
Website: windermerep-c.com

Michael Robinson
Cell/Direct:(253) 219-1932
Email: michaelr@windermere.com
Website:michaelrobinson.my-windermere.com

Ed Aro
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-2241
Email: edaro@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Team Aro
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-2241
Email: teamaro@windermere.com

Jesse Cedarland
Cell/Direct:(253) 225-5738
Email: jessec@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Office Coordinator
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-0294
Email: builderschoice@windermere.com

Lindsay Emery
Cell/Direct:(253) 225-3777
Email: lindsay-e@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Brian Esparza
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-2022
Email: brianesparza@windermere.com
Website:www.brianesparza.com

Natasha Gray
Cell/Direct:(253) 565-1189
Email: natashagray@windermere.com

Gay Hartman
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-8294
Email: gay-hartman@windermere.com

Maria Kalafatich Cell/Direct:(253) 376-5559
Email: mariakalafatich@windermere.com Website:
MariaKalafatich.withwre.com

Cheryl Larriva
Cell/Direct:(253) 651-3644
Email: clarriva@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Cindy Marchand
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-8294
Email: cmarchand@windermere.com

Jenn Milstead
Cell/Oirect:(253) 298-8811
Email: jenniferm@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Sandy Simpson
Cell/Direct:(253) 470-6499
Email: sandy simpson@windermere.com

Alison Ybarra

Cell/Direct:(253) 988-1887
Email: alisonybarra@windermere.com

 

Windermere Gig Harbor- Downtown
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Gig Harbor
3111 Harborview Drive, Suite 200
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Phone: (253) 851-9134
Fax: (253) 851-7196
Email: gigharbordowntown@windermere.com
Website: www.gigharborrealty.com/

Lavina Buckmaster
Roger Cipolla
Internet Coordinator
Carolyn Craft
Kirsten DeWitt
Sandy Jones
Margaret Martin
Rob Mitchell
Joan E Mitton
Paul Redal
Kris Reddin
Allison Skibbs Welch
Lee Smith
Terry Weller
Billie Jean Winter-Hirko

Windermere Gig Harbor- Key Peninsula
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Key Realty
11615 State Route 302 NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98329

Phone: 253-857-3304
Fax: 253-857-4425
Email: keypen@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerekeypen.com

John Barelli
Donna Dilger
Robert Home
Bob Knudson
Tony Lindsay
Dottie Mazza
Key Peninsula Office

Windermere Granite Falls
Office Address:
Windermere Granite Falls
103 S. Granite Ave./ PO Box 1559
Granite Falls, WA 98252

Phone: 360-691-7377
Fax: 360-572-0499
Email: cheryld@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeregranitefalls.com

Cheri Bodine
Internet Coordinator
Cindy Craig
Kristi Everett
Jennifer Haverfield
Shana Hoople
Josh Hopp
Les Howards
Cheryl Munn-Desrosier
Bob Norlin
Kimberlee Sappington
Donna Wilson

Windermere Hood Canal
Office Address:
Windermere Hood Canal
31 Brinnon Lane PO Box 770
Brinnon, WA 98320

Phone: 888.796.3450 / 360.796.3450
Fax: 360.796.3122
Email: brinnon@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerehoodcanal.com

William Barnet
Forms Brinnon
Internet Coordinator
Jillian Greenwood
Doug Hixson
Mary Kowalczyk
Valerie Schindler
Kimberlee Talbott
Tim Talbott
Jerry Wright

Windermere Insurance & Benefits
Office Address:
Windermere Insurance & Benefits
PO Box 1060
Duvall, WA 98019

Phone: 425-844-9955
Fax: 206-774-6078
Email: wmmurray@windermere.com

401k Plan Insurance and Benefits
Healthplans Insurance and Benefits
Insurance Insurance and Benefits
Retirement Insurance and Benefits
Bill Murray

Windermere Issaquah
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
1810 15th Place NW, Suite 100
Issaquah, WA 98027

Phone: 425-392-6600
Fax: 425-392-0558
Email: paremski@windermere.com
Website: www.issaquah.windermere.com

Jane Agent
Todd Baxter
Julie Bergman
Lou Bergman
Alan Berkwitt
Heather Boll
Paula Chambers
Lonnie Child
Tim Church
Bruce Clouse
Internet Coordinator
Tom R. Covello
Jim "Scoop" Cox
Cheryl Crane
Yvonne Dalke
Kathi Davis
Issaquah Email
Bill Emert
Jeanne Erdahl
Erin Etchemendy
Issaquah Fax
Issaquah Files
James Fisher
Phil Frost
Stephanie Frost
Kim Gervasoni
June Griffiths
Russ Haire
Jenna Hansen
Terri Hermes
Windermere
Issaquah
Darren Jaeggi
Debbie Kinson
Jeff Kissick
Jeff Klosterman
Dorothy Lange
Katlin Lee
Diane Lind
Jan Lipetz
Ron Loos
Valerie MacKnight
Teresa Matches
Michelle McDonald
Cathy McKenzie
Denise McNeal
Brian McRae
Larry Miller
Sara Miller
Joe Muscat
Wendy Oliver
Don Oster
Kelly Pangborn
Dave Paremski
Darcy Perea
Joan Probala
Dale Reardon
Caitlin Reardon Miller
Bob Richards
Beth Salazar
Josh Sanford
Paula Sanford
Cathy Santiago
Allyn Schinski
Kirk Singleton
Issaquah Staff
Alicia Terry
Catherine Thom
Roy Towse
Renee Vanous
Kevin White
Laura White
Melissa Wieser
Susan Witherbee
Lance Woodruff
Shari Woodruff
Beverly Yoneyama

Windermere Kelso/Longview
Office Address:
Windermere Kelso/Longview
209 West Main, Ste. 200
Kelso, WA 98626

Phone: 360-636-4663
Fax: 360-636-0941
Email: emailus@windermere.com
Website: www.longview-kelso.windermere.com/

Judy Allen
Jeanette Almos
Cheryl Ballard
Verla Barker
Darla Brown
Diane Buckner
Kevin Campbell
Tami Cheatley
Internet Coordinator
JoAnn Crayne
Shannon Crayne
Sonja Denson
Demetrio Flores
Lynne Frost
Joni Geier
Venancio Gonzalez
Tara Granger
Donna Hammond
Timi Harris
Shay Howsmon
Thomas Johnson
Jayme King
Sue Lantz
Kristina Mack
Kellie McIvor
Gregg Myklebust
Celinda Northrup
Christine Schott
Victoria Sturm

Janell Wilson

Windermere Kent
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/PSK, Inc.
441 Ramsay Way, Suite 103
Kent, WA 98032

Phone: 253-854-8900
Fax: 253-854-4682
Email: kent@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

James Bell
Brandi Cook
Randy Dehaan
Kathryn L. Enlow
Julie Fontanez
Ronnie Fontenot
Judy Freed
Ken Freed
Meagan Freed
Susan Garlock
Melanie Goodwin
Larry Hansen
Robin Johnson
Stacey Johnson-Litzenberger
Evelyn Kegler
Evelyn Kegler
Ron Linebarger
Tara Linebarger
Tim McEwen
Becca Mullins
Kent Office
Takondwa Pangalala
Russell Peterson
Laura Pitts
Dusty Pruitt
Francine Romero
Karen Ruhl
Micheal Smith
Cathy Wahlin
Don Wetter
Renee Williams
Jerry Yates

Windermere Kettle Falls
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Kettle Falls
250 East 3rd /P.O. Box 437
Kettle Falls, WA 99141

Phone: (509) 738-6521
Fax: (509) 738-2448
Email: kettlefalls@windermere.com
Website: kettlefalls.withwre.com

Debbie Baker
WINDERMERE KETTLE FALLS
Nancy Moore
Allen Palmanteer
Kandis Palmanteer
Marty Schroeder
Anadee Snyder
Ronald Snyder
Dane Warner

Windermere Kingston
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/West Sound, Inc.
26569 Lindvog Road NE
Kingston, WA 98346

Phone: 360-297-2661
Fax: 360-297-2980
Email: kingston@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereKingston.com

Alana Adler
Janet Olsen & Alma Hammon
Scott Anderson
Catherine Arlen
Brianna Belger
Tana Belger
Kim Brown
Christy Dagsaan
Carter Dotson
Tori Dotson
Catrice Elms
Sherri Galloway
Doug Hallock
Cammie Hamal
Alma Hammon
Linda Henry
Rental Inquiry
Admin Kingston
Cathy Morris & Lorna Muller
Sherri Galloway & Sacha Mell
Pat Miller
Cathy Morris
Dave Muller
Lorna Muller
Megan O'Dell
Janet Olsen
Mike Pitts
Kim Poole
Melanie Poole
Monika Riedner
Steve Smaaladen
Chris Todd & Susan Tyson
Christine Todd
Susan Tyson
Jet Woelke

Windermere Kirkland
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Central Inc
737 Market Street
Kirkland, WA 98033

Phone: (425) 823-4600
Fax: (425) 820-6318
Email: kirkland@windermere.com
Website: www.kirklandwindermere.com

Erica Abel
Dana V. Adams
Dawn Armstrong
Betsy Bayley
Bill Blanchard
Cathy Boorman
Mary Boyd
Laura Brodniak
Diane Charouhas
Lynda Coccione
BJ Connolly
Mike Connolly
Van Cooper
LaRhonda
Cronquist
Heather Dannels
Kirkland Docs
Clive Egdes
Sheree Everson
Catherine Ferrera
John Fiala
Marcea Galindo
Melissa Gatdula
Elizabeth
Gibbons
Leslie Goulden
Kathy Gray
Mitika Gupta
Charlene Hanson
Malia Hass
Leslie Heinz
Peggy Hill
Lisa Hjorten
Cathi Howland
Kelli Hughes
Cheri Ingram
Jamila Iraqui
David Janssens
Nathan Knopf
Suzanne Kohl
Beth Kovacevich
Rick & Carol
Kreeger
Dorae Lande
Hilary Long
Kristi
Macpherson
Marsha Matchett
Chip McBroom
Derek McCallum
Kirk Mitchell
Mike Moghaddas
Cheryl Nygaard
Lisa O'Brien
Kirkland Office
Christi Packard
Cheri S. Parris
Holly Paul
Kathryn Paulson
Karin Peterson
David Pope
Rebecca Raney
Jan Riley Carroll
Sabrena Smith
Shelley Stalwick
Peter Steinke
Joanne Stewart
Travis Stewart
Laurie Topness
Scott Wiklof
Kelly Zuger

Windermere Kirkland-Northeast
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Northeast Inc.
11411 NE 124th St #110
Kirkland, WA 98034

Phone: 425-820-5151
Fax: 425-821-9483
Email: kirklandne@windermere.com
Website: http://kirkland-northeast.windermere.com/

Ron Ball
Loa Barber
Julie Billett
Roger Bintner
Roger Bintner, Jr
Ray Bosko
Jason & Tracy Chester
Tracy & Jason Chester
Cindy Clarke
Paul Conley
Patricia Cook
Christy Crissinger
Wayne Curtis
Kristi Dodge
Kevin Donovan
Mike Gallanar
Kelly Goodwin
Jeanne Gorder
Tami Grayevsky
Roger Gregorich
Bradley Gregory
Chris Guzzardo
Wesley Harrison
Brian Harwood
Scot Henderson
Debbie Hensley
Mel Hester
Gayle Hickey
Peter Hickey
Gayla Hocker
Dave Hopkins
Connie Huff
Matthew Hurley
Jill Jaccard
Jason Jarvie
Samantha Jarvie
Jennifer Johnsen
Linnea Jones
Brian Kayler
Windermere Kirkland Northeast
Stacey Lange
Ivan Lanham
Stephanie Lentz
Chris Linnerooth
Sue Linnerooth
Amanda Lloyd
Jim Lloyd
John Logue
Joe Loutsis
Bryan Loveless
Nick Loveless
MaryLou MacKay
Angela Marks
Kyla McAdams
James McCarthy
Mike McGoorty
Carmen & Ernie Meier
Ernie & Carmen Meier
Tony Meier
Sara Miller
Aimee Mills
Jerry Mooberry
Surekha K. Murthy
Chloe Nash
Irene Nash
Ken Nash
Michael Nash
Tom Navarre
Barry Parducci
Greg Perry
Jeanyne Quanz
Jamie & Sarah Reece
Sarah & Jamie Reece
Pat & Rick Reimer
Rick & Pat Reimer
Jennifer Reyer
Lisa Rhodes
Calendar Ripp
Debbie & Jerry Rippeteau
Jerry & Debbie Rippeteau
Dave Rodland
George Rudiger
Stacy Rus
Bill Rynd
Heather Scalia
Brandy & Richard Senecal
Richard & Brandy Senecal
Aimee Shriner
The Key Team
Kirkland Trasaction
Theresa Tuengel
Debbie Turner
Dennis and Tammy Wallick
Tammy and Dennis Wallick
Darrell Whittaker
Joan Whittaker
Daniel and Shauna Willner
Shauna and Daniel Willner
Kim Witzig
Sarah Wolverton

Windermere Kirkland-Yarrow Bay
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
3933 Lk Washington Blvd NE, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033

Phone: (425) 822-5100
Fax: (425) 827-3400
Email: lewmason@windermere.com
Website: www.kirkland-yarrow-bay.windermere.com

James Alavekios
Bill Badgley
Jim Badgley
John Barker
Dennus Baum
Brooks Beaupain
Tabitha Beaupain
Sharon Berry
Jess Beyers
Bryon Bosch
Natasha Bosch
Thomas Bosch
Ron Branch
Jennifer Braun
Daniel Breilh
Heidi Bright
Steve Burk
I C
Amy Cagle
Lynly Callaway
Ann Carson
Scott Carson
Lauri Cass
Lauri Cass
Keith Childress
Lynette Chu-Hirai
Cindy Coakley
Joe Coakley
Laurel Crisafulli
Diana Curneen
Erik Daley
Tamara Dean
Michael DeDonato
Amy Dedoyard
Patricia Deveny
Cheryl Eastwood
Cheryl Eastwood
Amber Eckert
Rondi Egenes
Trish Englund
Cara Erdman
Yarrowbay Fax
Yarrowbay Files
Leanne Finlay
Skeets Fletcher
Peter Freet
Jonathan Garber
Craig Gaudry
Lydia Geline
Dianne Girard
Carol Goddard
Brian Green
Kathryne Green
Steve Green
Bruce Gunnels
Charlie Hall
Christopher Hall
Julie A. Hall, MBA
Joyce Hardy
Beverly Harris
Ivana Hill
Steve Hiller
Andrea Holmqvist
Steve Holton
Feng Hong
Laurie Hope
Laurie Hope
Nan Humble
Annie Hyatt
Paul Isenburg
Stan Isenhath
Fara Jaberi
Michelle Jewell
Maureen Kelly
Renee Kimes
Karishma Kiri
Julia Krill
Mark Krill
Julia Krill Forum
Brit Kuhnke
Jodi LaBow
Dana Landry
Susan Lemaire
David Liddle
Carrie Lord
Sonja Lui
Kathy Magner
Margo Mansfield
Lew Mason
Patricia Mason
Sarah McGrath
Sarah McGrath
Gary McLean
Amir Medawar
Jim Melgard
Jim Merritt
Tammy S. Miller
Robin Myers
Pearl Nardella
Chelle Nelson
Dawn Neu-Rupp
Anna Novikoff
Judie O'Brien
Tim O'Brien
Pat O'Grady
Nancy Olmos
Wendy Paisley
Nick Pallis
Jennifer Perkins-Johnson
Kay Plimpton
Callaway Polt
Joy Polt
Laura Polt
Vicki Powers
Karen Prins
Nikki Provost
Wolfgang Puls
Sheri Putzke
Randy Reeves
Stephanie Reeves
Ky Reichle
Jeff J. Reynolds
Anna Riley
Dan Riley
Erena Rombakh
Max Rombakh
Emo Rowe
Team Sabrina
Lynn Sanborn
Carlene Sandstrom
Danielle Sanine
Jane Lindsay Scott
Joel Scott
Colette Seley
Debra Sinick
Jean Smith
Sabrina Smith
Hugh Stewart
Roya Tabatabai
Lori Tanaka
Susan Taylor
Sinick and Beaupain
Rayme Teders
Chip Tilley
Marion Tilley
Dorothy Tropp
Carol Vandenberg
Ann Wahl
Dave Wahl
Dave Wahl
Pat Wenzel
Pat Wenzel
Betsy Weyer
Lynn Winchester
Kay Zatine

Windermere Lake Chelan
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lake Chelan
115 East Woodin Avenue/ PO Box 2382
Lake Chelan, WA 98816

Phone: 509-682-4211
Fax: 866-661-6964
Email: Chelan@windermere.com
Website: lakechelanrealestate.com

Office Admin
Steve Brown
Lake Chelan
Joe Collins
Josh Collins
Valerie Conrad
Rosemary Easley
Mary Flood
Tim Flood
Kimberly Johnson
Kari Kollmeyer
Tony MacMillan
Vickie McKenney
Brian Merrill
Jim Northrup
Renee Peterson
Morgan Picton
Kara Schell
Craig Stimson
Keith Wells
Arturo Zavala

Windermere Lake Stevens
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lake Stevens Inc
9327-4th St. NE, Suite #3
Lake Stevens, WA 98258

Phone: 425-335-4666
Fax: 425-335-1838
Email: lakestevens@windermere.com
Website: www.lakestevensrealestate.com

Office Administrator
Office Administrator
Gina Akins
Vic Chaloupka
Bob Chapman
Leah Crombie
Christina Dow
Kelly J. Dykstra
Kim Filion
Meg Griswold
Heather Herdt
Meribeth Hutchings
Elizabeth Jentzsch
Nikki Jutte
Joshua Koffler
Tracee Kosters
Christine Larson
Leanna Lopez
Catherine Martin
Elena Moore
Julie Pearson
Nicole Perez
Gary Petershagen
Jane Reynolds
Vicky Rhodes
Jeff Sax
Sherry Schublom
Jim Solemsaas
Michael Thompson
Tami Tuck
Cindy Welk
Corrina Westermann
Laura White
Jill Woolsey

Windermere Leavenworth
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/NCW
11779 Highway 2, Suite 106
Leavenworth, WA 98826

Phone: (509) 548-4663
Fax: (509) 662-2656
Email: Leavenworth@windermere.com

Julie Averill
Office Coordinator
Geoff Ford
Claudia Hildahl
Steve Hildahl
Momi Palmieri
Geordie Romer
Allyson Zacharko Romer

Windermere Long Beach
Office Address:
Windermere/Pacific Land Company
1410 St Route 101 / PO Box 1577
Long Beach, WA 98631

Phone: (360) 642-5600 (866) 970-5600
Fax: 360-642-5611
Email: longbeach@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerelongbeach.com

Cindy Colley
Internet Coordinator
Marketing Coordinator
Kent Easom

Windermere Lopez Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lopez Island
182 Lopez Rd/ P.O. Box 27
Lopez Island, WA 98261

Phone: 360/468-3344
Fax: 360/468-3632
Email: wrehome@wrelopez.com
Website: www.wrelopez.com

Annie Albritton
Beth Andrewes
Jim Gorton
Mitty Huntsman
Dianne Pressenda
Roy Richmond
Terry Tuszynski

Windermere Lynden
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whatcom Inc.
8071 Guide Meridian, Unit 105
Lynden, WA 98264

Phone: 360-354-4455
Fax: 360-354-7788
Email: beckylee@windermere.com
Website: www.lyndenrealestate.mywindermere.com

Keith Bouma
Ron DeBoer
Brady DenBleyker
Sharon Engels
Jessica Hanon
Jason Heutink
Wynden Holman
Jim Huleatt
Becky Lee
Sid Mellema
Lynden Office
Darrel Timmer
Karen Timmer
Mike Vail
Marv Van Mersbergen
Loren VanCorbach
Bonnie VanderYacht
Duane VanderYacht
Lester VanMersbergen
Tresie Wiersma

Windermere Lynnwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/North, Inc.
4211 Alderwood Mall Blvd Suite 110
Lynnwood, WA 98036

Phone: 425-776-1119
Fax: 425-776-5680
Email: lynnwood@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere-north.com/

Samantha Arango
Leah Arnold
Melody Benton
Jen Bowman
Ben Buehler
Greg & Janet Buehler
Casey Bui
Marcia Chamberlin
Jin Chang
Barbara Clark
Lynnwood Contracts
Front Desk
Robin Downie
Jenny Eglian
Douglas Everett
Aranka Fruehauf
Kasia Giron
Elizabeth Hagen
Michele Hagen
Kim Harman
Linda Hauanio
Brian Hayter
Lynette Hensley
Jim & Judy Hopper
Judy & Jim Hopper
Melissa Huddleston
Nancy Hunter-Miller
Joel Johnson
Joel Johnson - Commercial
Shelly Katzer
Steve Kemp
Steve Kemp
Karen Kibbey
Michele Kimes
Barbara King
Steve Larsen
Property Management
Nancy Marsh
Molly Martin
Stefanie A. Massie
Lena Maul
Claudette Meyer
Windermere Real Estate/ North
Katherine O'Neill
Shawn Perry
Chris Royer
Jan Taylor
Pat & Tonya Tye
Tonya & Pat Tye
Laurie Vandermay
Liz Warren
Andrea Wetzel
Cori Whitaker
Bernice Whitney
Lynnwood Windermere Property
Management
Mark Winslow
Cathy Wood
Elliott Wood
Cristina Zalavarria

Windermere Maple Valley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Maple Valley
22017 S.E. Wax Road, Suite 102
Maple Valley, WA 98038

Phone: 425-569-6900
Fax: 425-569-6901
Email: maplevalley@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremaplevalley.withwre.com

Trisha Adams
Arnie (Rick) & Julie Arnevick
Kellie Batali
Shannon Brannon
Pam Brossard
Carla Clark
Michelle Constantine
Cara Currey
Chris Currey
Shane Davies
Susie Davies
Kerry Dean
Sherri Goodwin
Kristen Greenlaw
Desi Heikell
Sean Henderson
Jule Johnson
Dawn Johnston
Claire Kindley
Meridith Kohn
Trena Kupper
Janet Lewis
Melody Mann
Alissa McCord
Tia O'Dell
Tia S O'Dell
Maplevalley Office
Cheryl Pederson
Cindy Sizemore
Greg Skagen
Roberta Smith
Petrina Snodgrass
Butch Soomann
Leslie Stoecker
Joanna Tift
Cindi Williams

Windermere Marysville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/JS
801 State Ave.
Marysville, WA 98270

Phone: 360-653-2509
Fax: 360-653-5003
Email: marysville@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremarysville.com

Debbie Barger Smith
Debbie Barger Smith
Rachel Blanton
Shannon Brooks
Nora Chess
Dave Clark
Jean Cory
Lisa Y. Davis
JoAnn Donohue
Karen Eckerson
Tom Estabrook
Del Fazzone
Kay Frederickson
Robin Hammond
John Hartman
Diana Hauge
Mary Jane Hendry
Kym Johnsen
Larry Johnson
Karen King
Deirdre Kvangnes
Bud Laird
Maloree McCulla
Laurie McKenzie
Laurie McKenzie
Gretchen Muldowney
Barbara Nyland
Marysville Office
Lars Oquist
Brooke Orcutt
Dan Orcutt
Suzanna Owen
Aimee Patton
Pamala Perez
Dan Peterson
Larry Peterson
Heidi Ramos
Connie Redden
Barbara Rowley
Jeff Rowley
Jim Rowley
Kim Siemer
Natalee Thurston
Lois Tuengel
Juli Freeman Wampler
Kaitlin Watson
Kathy West
Shannon Woodward

Windermere Mazama
Office Address:
Windermere Methow Valley
42 Lost River Road
Mazama, WA 98833

Phone: (509) 996-6562
Fax: (509) 996-6563
Email: methow@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereMethow.com

Anabel Andres
Leverett Hubbard
Mary Lockman
Delene Monetta
Robert Monetta
Alexis Monetta Port
Nicola Zahn

Windermere Mercer Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Mercer Island
2737 77th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040

Phone: 206-232-0446
Fax: 206-236-6038
Email: MercerIsland@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereMercerIsland.com

Jay Agoado
Van Anderson
Ina Bahner
Julie Barrows
Lis Brown
Kathryn Buchanan
Wendy Chan
Denise Coe
Jennifer Craven
Robert Craven
Nicole Demers-Changelo
Claire Dion
Lisa Dong
Daphne Donovan
Terry Donovan
Erin Ewing
Cindy Galante
Sharon Glatz-Scott
Megan Hand
Kristopher Herrell
Allen Hovsepian
Andrea Iverson
Andrew Jackson
Valarie Kaye
Anne Kaye-Jewett
James Laurie
Nancy LaVallee
Cherrie Lee
Michael Lee
Kathryn Lerner
Susan Lettengarver-Stowell
Lisa Lewis
Daniel Marinello
Doug McKiernan
Windermere Mercer Island
Molly Neary
Marianne Parks
Seamus Pelan
Tom Poole
Mary Lou Putman
Emily Roberts
Brian Rosso
Michelle Rubin
Bonnie Sanborn
Cynthia Schoonmaker
Peni Schwartz
Karin Spencer
Paul Tiscornia
Andrea Victor
Kelly Weisfield
Larry Williams
Julie Wilson
Sandy Yin
Anni Zilz

Windermere Methow Valley
Office Address:
Windermere Methow Valley
313 E. Highway 20 Box 1088
Twisp, WA 98856

Phone: (509) 997-6562
Fax: (509) 997-8342
Email: methow@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereMethow.com

Office Admin
Anabel Andres
Leverett Hubbard
Mary Lockman
Windermere Methow
Delene Monetta
Robert Monetta
Alexis Monetta Port
Nicola Zahn

Windermere Mill Creek
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Mill Creek, Inc.
18323 Bothell Everett Hwy, Suite 210
Bothell, WA 98012

Phone: 425-481-6666
Fax: 425-481-9353
Email: millcreek@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremillcreek.com

Shellie Adolfson
Anne Allen
Barbara Athanas
Kim-Ho Barnes
Russell Brenneke
Brett Bunn
Theresa Burkhart
Cynthia Caffrey
Mike Cheesman
Michelle Cooper
Tammy Davis
Lyla Derosier
Ron Einstein
Jessica Griffin
Toni Griffin
Deb Hall
Jack Herzog
Chris Hill
Chris and Diana Hill
Diana Hill
Vern Holden
Sue Hounshell
Windermere/Mill Creek, Inc.
Tom Isenhart
Brooke Jaeger
Pam Jensen
Vic Johnson
Preston Kallshian
Knute Korshaven
Jennifer Kuhlman
Kevin Kuhlman
Shari Landrie
Dean Larson
Shawna Matthews
Patricia McCormick
Deanna McCulloch
Todd McElroy
Keith D McKinney
H.R. Butch Mears
Dave Miles
Pamela Mullen
Darren Munson
Gwen Munson
Crystal Nybo
Rachelle Oster
Thea Pellegrino
Robert Purser
Ron Reeder
Michael Roland, Jr.
Donna Rorvik
Shawna Matthews & Russell Brenneke
Dominique Ruybal
Roxanne Santiago
Frank Sargent
Marilyn Scott
Joanne Shattuck
Lisa Sleister
Alan Stevens
Beth Tanner
Lynette Thomas
Windermere Mill Creek Town Center
Joe Valenta
Bob Williams

Windermere Mill Creek Town Center
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Mill Creek, Inc.
15418 Main Street, Suite M103
Mill Creek, WA 98012

Phone: (425) 481-6666
Fax: (425) 481-9353
Email: millcreek@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremillcreek.com

Shellie Adolfson
Anne Allen
Barbara Athanas
Kim-Ho Barnes
Russell Brenneke
Brett Bunn
Theresa Burkhart
Cynthia Caffrey
Mike Cheesman
Michelle Cooper
Tammy Davis
Lyla Derosier
Jessica Griffin
Toni Griffin
Deb Hall
Jack Herzog
Chris Hill
Chris and Diana Hill
Diana Hill
Vern Holden
Sue Hounshell
Tom Isenhart
Brooke Jaeger
Pam Jensen
Vic Johnson
Preston Kallshian
Knute Korshaven
Jennifer Kuhlman
Kevin Kuhlman
Shari Landrie
Dean Larson
Shawna Matthews
Patricia McCormick
Deanna McCulloch
Todd McElroy
Keith D McKinney
H.R. Butch Mears
Dave Miles
Pamela Mullen
Darren Munson
Gwen Munson
Crystal Nybo
Rachelle Oster
Thea Pellegrino
Robert Purser
Ron Reeder
Michael Roland, Jr.
Donna Rorvik
Shawna Matthews & Russell Brenneke
Dominique Ruybal
Roxanne Santiago
Frank Sargent
Marilyn Scott
Joanne Shattuck
Lisa Sleister
Alan Stevens
Beth Tanner
Lynette Thomas
Joe Valenta
Bob Williams

Windermere Monroe
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
800 West Main
Monroe, WA 98272

Phone: 360-794-3777
Fax: 360-794-5731
Email: monroe@windermere.com
Website: www.monroewindermere.com

Karen Akers
Micah Broker
Internet Coordinator
Susan Davis
Dave Demarest
Monica Dexter
Micki Engel
Monroe Fax
Hank Fresonke
Linda Gates
Crystal Hanson
Shirley Hudson
OB Jacobi
Bronn Journey
Kathleen LeFebvre
Kristine Nicholls
Amanda Norseen
Monroe Office
Mary Parsons
Melissa Reule
Marlene Rouleau
Jenell Steltz
Trudi M Terletter
Matt Wheadon

Windermere Mortgage Services
Office Address:
Windermere Mortgage Services
601 Union Street, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: 1-800-867-1337
Website: www.windermeremortgageservices.com/

Jennifer Dunham
Chris Erickson
Cheryl Fry
Lee Gill
Erik Hand
Jill Walker

Windermere Moses Lake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate K-2 Realty LLC
2900 West Broadway
Moses Lake, WA 98837

Phone: 509-765-3337
Fax: 509-765-0435
Email: Hjadkinson@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremoseslake.com

April Adams
Heather Adkinson
Sierra Becken
Kandi Bersanti
Walt Bumgarner
Internet Coordinator
Sandy Eslick
Lisa Garmon
Lynn Garza
Tammy Garza
Lisa Hanley
Norman & Lisa Hanley
Jay Kincaid
Lois Kincaid
Ralph Kincaid
Barry Lawson
Susan McMillan
Vivian Richard
Pat Wold
Tiffany Zemke

Windermere Mount Vernon
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Skagit Valley
1030 E. College Way
Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Phone: 360/424-4901
Fax: 360/424-8715
Email: skagit@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereskagit.com

Karine Anderson
Karen Beckner
George Bellos
Warren Bingham
Internet Coordinator
Lee Ann Dean
Jenna Dellinger
Skagit Docs
Linda Eastman
Margy Furst
Jim Glackin
Ellen Hankins
Skagit Info
Rita Ingram
Sherry Johansen
Kim Kelley
Balisa Koetje
Jake Koetje
Jim Koetje
Bill and Jannette Krieger
Jannette Krieger
Jeri Lee
Nathan Loeb
Robin Lee Luif
David Mani
Bob Masterman
Elizabeth Miller
Travis Miller
Sarah Minton
Dick Nord
Megan O'Bryan
Harry Ota
Dave Patterson
Kelly Peacock
Spencer Roozen
Donna Rowell
Carol Schweigert
Jim Scott
Josh Scott
Julie Scott
Windermere Real Estate/ Skagit Valley
Cindy Sullivan
Lindsey Weaver
Jamie Yantis
Shanayla Yantis
Tasha Zahlis

Windermere Mukilteo
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/GH LLC
12003 Mukilteo Speedway, Ste 101
Mukilteo, WA 98275

Phone: 425-348-5960, 866-912-3954
Fax: 425-353-3134
Email: mukilteo@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremukilteo.com

June Bigelow
Casey Bowers
Dora Carelli
Rick Carlson
Tina Chun
Mukilteo Compliance
Marlene Dawsey
Terri DelMaestro
Kristen Ellington
Abby Foote
Scott Garbarino
Greg Hoff
Hugh Hoff
Alex Johnson
Evan Johnson
Jessica Jorgensen
Jeana McDonald
Bruce W. McKinnon, MBA
Mike Miller
Sandy Morton
Linda Nelson
House of Success
Mukilteo Office
Tracey Rodrigue
Jim Rosenberger
Kristi Rosenberger
The Rosenberger Team
Don Scorgie
Judy Scorgie
Laura Smith
Randi Szakaly
Dave Tribble
Kelly Wedin

Windermere Northport
Office Address:
Windermere Colville
412 Center Avenue
Northport, WA 99157

Phone: (509) 732-6269
Fax: (509) 732-1611
Email: john@newarealestate.com

Internet Coordinator
John Corcoran
Heidi Murphy

Windermere Ocean Shores
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Ocean Shores
PO Box 1568, 837 Pt. Brown Ave NW
Ocean Shores, WA 98569

Phone: (360) 289-3373
Fax: (360) 289-2825
Email: oceanshores@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereoceanshores.com

Kristi Beitzel
Linda Benson
Patrick Brunstad
Julie Dessert
Jim Donahoe
Jim Donahoe-COMM
Tracy Finsterbusch
Dave Granlund
Nancy Granlund
David Granlund - COMM
Dave Granlund - Seabrook
Donna LaShance
Richard LaShance
Richard LaShance - COMM
Office Manager
Jana Mobray
Ocean Shores Office
Tom Quigg - Commercial
Tom Quigg- Residential
Lynn Sebastian
Lorna Valdez

Windermere Olympia
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Olympia
2312 Pacific Ave Suite A.
Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: 360-943-7839 1-800-848-7022
Fax: 360/943-5625
Email: windoly@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereolympia.com

Floor Agent
Jane Ames
Internet Coordinator
Stephanie DeForest
Larry DeRoux
Barbara Dugaw
Alan Fuller
Steve Garrett
Woody Hill
Dave Kamenz
Charity Kirk
Louie Kiser
Dawn Lord
Denise Luikart
Kathy Madsen
Michelle Mewhinney-Angel
Gregory Moe
Connie Nicholas
Ray Noorassa
Tranactions Olympia
Stephanie Parsons
Andrea Peters
Janet Connell Sallee
Pam Stonefelt
Rod Swisshelm
David Uhlemann
Julie Weist
Cheryl Wiatrak
Office Admin Windoly
Bev Wood Back

Windermere Omak- Okanogan
Office Address:
Windermere Methow Valley
540 Riverside Ave. (P.O.Box 3817)
Omak, WA 98841

Phone: (509) 826-5906
Fax: (509) 826-5908
Email: omak@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereOmak.com

Jeff Daigneau
Kristine Gaffney
Billie Holden
Brian Lowary
Robert Monetta
Mary Niemeyer
Joanne Talmadge
Nicola Zahn

Windermere Orcas Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Orcas Island
18 Haven Road / P.O. Box 310
Eastsound, WA 98245

Phone: 1-800-842-5770
Fax: 1-360-376-5637
Email: orcas@windermere.com
Website: www.orcas-island.com

Mariah Buck
Mariah Buck
Gwyneth Burrill
David Douglass
Peter D Drape
John Dunning
John D. Dunning
Terri Gilleland
Cat Gilliam
Wally Gudgell
Wally Gudgell
Gary Harper
Laura Hasselman
Linda Hume
Wreoi Island 2
Lynne Ann Johnson
Duffy King
Reba MacLeod
Tom Maiuro
Lydia Miller
Windermere Orcas
Windermere Orcas Island
Jaylin Peacock
Suzana Roach
Bob Shipstad
Becky Smith
Stu Stephens
Elyse Van Den Bosch
Michael Whellams
Diane Whitley

Windermere Oroville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Oroville
1408 Main
Oroville, WA 98844

Phone: 509-476-3378
Fax: 509-476-3384
Email: oroville@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Dan Coursey
Doug Kee
Kathy Noel
Ron Peterson
Sandy Peterson

Windermere Packwood
Office Address:
Windermere Mountain Valley Real Estate
13068 U.S. Highway 12, P.O. Box 952
Packwood, WA 98361

Phone: (360) 494-2323
Fax: (360) 494-2324
Email: packwood@windermere.com
Website: www.packwood-realestate.com

Internet Coordinator
Lisa Davis
Maree Lerchen
Lisa Morehead
John Sanders
Windermere Mountain Valley Real Estate
Sally Van Boheemen

Windermere Port Angeles
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Port Angeles
711 E. Front Street
Port Angeles, WA 98362

Phone: 360-457-0456
Fax: 360-452-2304
Email: windermere@olypen.com
Website: www.portangeles.com

Alan Barnard
Michaelle Barnard
Quint Boe
Holly Coburn
Internet Coordinator
Thelma Durham
Jennifer Felton
Helga Filler
Glenn Franko
Jennifer Holcomb
Kelly Johnson
Linda Kepler
Terry Neske
Doc Reiss
Harriet Reyenga
Christine Wilson

Windermere Port Orchard
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Port Orchard
1200 Bethel Ave.
Port Orchard, WA 98366

Phone: (360) 876-9600
Fax: (360) 876-9644
Email: portorch@windermere.com
Website: www.PortOrchardRealEstate.com

Kt Arthur
Kim Bartell
Luke Bentson
James Bergstrom
Johan Bester
Jennifer Connelly-Delay
Robert Contreras
Donna Cryder
Barry Jones
Leann Knight
Terry Knowlton
Mark McColgan
Port Orchard
Bryan Petro
Mike Rochon
Dana Soyat
Beth Sturdivan
Daryn Swisher
Joan Wardwell
Andrew Welch
Linda Yost

Windermere Port Townsend
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Port Townsend
1220 Water Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368

Phone: 360-385-9344 800-776-9344
Fax: 360-385-9345
Email: wrept@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereporttownsend.com

Designated Broker
Kevin Burgler
Holley Carlson
Paul Constantine
Steve Crosland
Suzanne DeMasso
Mark Dembro
Jim Fox
Dave Garing
Jan Garing
Marty Gay
James Graf
Chuck Hynden
Gina Johnston
Linda Livingston
Rian Lopeman
Susan Wilson Miller
Teri Nomura
Christine Ota
Sue Ramage
Marta Ray
Michelle Sandoval
Susan Scott
Angela Wilkinson

Windermere Poulsbo
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/West Sound, Inc.
18570 Hwy 305
Poulsbo, WA 98370

Phone: 360-779-5205
Fax: 360-779-9549
Email: poulsbo@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerepoulsbo.com

Amy Allen
Liz Bailey
Annita Baze Hansen
Ida Bear
Julie Bray-Larsen
Christine Brevick
Terry Burns
Bonnie Chandler
Harborside Condominiums
Internet Coordinator
Carter Dotson
Tori Dotson
Norma Foss
Rebecca Gore
Romelle Gosselin
Kevin Hannah
Jim P. Harris
Sheenah Hellmers
Barbara Huget
Catherine Jones
Joni Kimmel
Moira McDonough
Casey McGrath
Chris Moyer
Kelly Muldrow
Windermere
Marleen Nighswonger
Noelle Osborn
Wayne Paulson
Mike Pitts
JoAnn Polley
Sharla Pugliese
Mary Richards
Jim Robb
Jay Robertson
Sandie Rumble
Poulsbo Scan
Jeannette Schanbeck
Elaine Tanner
Pam Taplin
Randy Taplin
Kasi Taylor Martinez
Tim Thompson
Bill Touchette
Brittany Vander Pol
John West
Chris Wurden
Irene Wurden
Bridget Young
Kimmel & Young

Windermere Property Management- Bellevue
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/Lori Gill & Associates
700 112th Ave NE Ste 203
Bellevue, WA 98004

Phone: (425)455-5515
Fax: (425)455-5537
Email: wpme@windermere.com
Website: wpmnorthwest.com

PM Accounting
Tracey Adams
Pete Anderson
Aaron Arnold
Erica Bartram
Kristina Blair
Jessica Blake
Michele Braa-Heidner
Cory Brewer
Internet Coordinator2
Deanna De Valk
Brianne Diebner
Eric Dworkis
Colleen Sheridan Gasca
Rob Gasca
Kristin Gill
Lori Gill
Hilary Gilman
Stephanie Heimbigner
Lacey Hiersche
David Hogan
Laurie Hoskins
Aaron Hundtofte
Camey Jenson
Mary C. Joyce
Tori Kolytiris
Julie Leary
Cyndi Lenay
Elizabeth Lybecker
Lily McGuire
Theo Montgomery
Katie Phan
Manny Ramos
Josh Randall
Elizabeth Roberts
Heather Rochester
Kelley Rose
Buck Sater
Jennifer Shepperd
Tia Simmons
Jennifer Spence
Linda Stephenson
Monica Stomner
Erin Strobel
Tony Strobel
Anne Tabert
Kirstin Tamminen
Paul Tollner
Jenna Weinstein
Shannon Williamson

Windermere Property Management- Bellingham
Office Address:
Windermere Management
541 W. Bakerview
Bellingham, WA 98226

Phone: 360-733-7944
Fax: 360-733-7969
Email: rwashburn@windermere.com
Website: Rentalsbywindermere.com

Jay Baklund
Teresa Bosteter
Zena Boyko
Terry Brown
Internet Coordinator
Karey Jones
Sandi Jones
Liesa Krause
Patricia Reese
DeeAnn Richstein
Lindsey Shields
Jen Vander Meulen
Jessica Wheeler

Windermere Property Management- Edmonds
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/Lori Gill & Associates
146 3rd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020

Phone: (425) 672-2000
Fax: (425) 672-2005
Email: wpme@windermere.com
Website: www.wpmnorthwest.com

Ann Ashford
Jessie Brown
Toni Campbell
Internet Coordinator
Laura Gallagher
Jessica Garin
Rosie Gray
Breezy Maxim
Debbi Olsen
Laurie Rohrich
Jenn York

Windermere Property Management- Everett
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Realty Brokerage Inc
7100 Evergreen Way, Suite A
Everett, WA 98203

Phone: 425-348-7368
Fax: 425-355-9512
Email: office@wpmnw.biz
Website: www.wpmnw.biz

Arin Becker
Jamie Booth
Margie Clifton
Jody Dahl
Sandy Delaney
Michele Dillon
Brinda Faux
Lori Hundhausen
Virginia Kiesel
Karen Raybould
Geri Scott
Cathy Staehnke
Courtney Thompson
Heidi Thompson
Ronald E. Thompson
Twila Toomey
Becky Wright
Scott Young

Windermere Property Management-Kirkland
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management JMW
12801 NE 85th St.
Kirkland, WA 98033

Office: (425) 213-1300
Email: propertymanager@windermere.com

Amber Anderson
Cell/Direct:(206) 621-2037
Email: AmberAnderson@windermere.com

Office Coordinator
Cell/Direct:(425) 213-1300
Email: cassieh@windermere.com
Website :www.Windermere-PM.com

Christian Dema
Cell/Direct:(206) 391-3297
Email: christiandema@windermere.com

Jay LaBrie
Cell/Direct:(206) 550-8712
Email: jaylabrie@windermere.com
Website :www.WindermereSeattlePM.com

Mandy Lane
Cell/Direct:(206) 276-3202
Email: mandylane@windermere.com
Website:www.WindermereSeattlePM.com

Christy Rice, Property Manager
Cell/Direct:(206) 391-3297
Email: christy@christyricepm.com
Website :www.christyricepm.com

Jennie Ugaitafa
Cell/Direct:(206) 229-5224
Email: jennie@windermere.com
Website :www.WindermereSeattlePM.com

Windermere Property Management- Olympia
Office Address:
Windermere/Olympia Property Management
2413 Pacific Avenue, Suite C
Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: 360-943-4189/800-943-7543
Fax: 360-705-3129
Email: rpm@windermere.com
Website: windermereolympiapm.com

Debbie Arnold
Maggie Balagot
Monica Dana
Jodi Dillashaw
Randy Parker
Olympia PMCoordinator
Catherine Tenuth

Windermere Property Management- Port Orchard
Office Address:
Windermere Paramount Properties
1200 Bethel Ave.
Port Orchard, WA 98366

Phone: (360) 876-9600
Fax: (360) 876-9644
Email: portorch@windermere.com

Windermere Property Management- Pullman
Office Address:
Windermere Pullman Moscow
1125 NW Nye St., Suite B
Pullman, WA 99163

Phone: (509) 338-4653
Fax: (509) 338-9134
Email: myrentals@windermere.com
Website: myrentals.withwre.com

Marina Hawn
Lynn Kramer
Beth Semingson
Alise Smith

Windermere Property Management- Puyallup
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/South Sound
12114 104th Ave E
Puyallup, WA 98374

Phone: (253) 445-0166
Fax: (253) 845-0166
Email: brokersupport@windermere.com

Office Coordinator
Helen Hardie
Beth Salmon
Tammy Woodward

Windermere Property Management- Seattle
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/ JMW
615 Eastlake Ave E
Seattle, WA 98109

Phone: (206) 621-2037
Fax: (206) 382-3561
Email: PropertyManager@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereSeattlePM.com

Alan Bonaci
Rebecca Farmer
Kimberlee Farvour
Catherine Hardesty
Andrea Jacobi
Tricia Jacobs
Bruce James
Kathy Langenegger
Wendy Lindell
Edelisa Munar
Property Management Seattle Office
Accounting Staff
Office Staff
David Steinmetz
Gary Vasseur
J. Michael Wilson

Windermere Property Management- Seattle North
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/Lori Gill & Associates
819 NE 65th Street
Seattle, WA 98115

Phone: (206) 527-0400
Fax: (206) 527-3499
Email: wpme@windermere.com
Website: www.wpmnorthwest.com

Eric Anderson
Gino Araki
Brenda Brynildsen
Rachel Bucher
Nicki Callahan
Internet Coordinator
Kelly Coulibaly
David Drake
Candice Feldman
Cassie Walker Johnson
Stacy Jost
Nicole Meiser
Marta Morris

Windermere Property Management- Silverdale
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management West Sound
9939 Mickelberry Rd NW, Suite B
Silverdale, WA 98383

Phone: (360) 516-6243
Email: kitsappm@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereforrent.com

Bobbi Alger
Office Coordinator
Patrice Holland
Chelsey May
Bobbi Neal
Tim Roche

Windermere Property Management- South
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/WPM South, L.L.C.
15215 SE 272nd Street, Suite 204
Kent, WA 98042

Phone: 253-638-9811
Fax: 253-638-0437
Email: wpmsouth@windermere.com
Website: www.wpmsouth.com

Rodney Bishop
Alison Bonaci
Kymberlee Bruton
Kim Clifton
Internet Coordinator
Sarah Devine
Elaine Dial
Dawnette Fletcher
Shawn Fletcher
Laura Gordon
WPM South HOA
Paris Johnson
Kay Joyner
Jacquelyn Kleebauer
Linda Larson
Zhanette Litvinchuk
Cinda McClure
Cinda McClure
Kira McRae
Chantelle Mitchell
WPM South Office Email
Carrie Roods
Lynn Sutherland
Shelly Tarica
Ron Thompson
Melissa Tuck
Bob Ustanik
Austin Verdi
Austin Verdi
Daytin Verdi
Edward J. Verdi
Charity Williams

Windermere Property Management- Spokane
Office Address:
Windermere Equity Brokers, LLC
8601 N. Division
Spokane, WA 99208

Phone: (509) 467-2202
Fax: (509) 468-2028
Email: timz@windermere.com
Website: www.wrents.com

Office Administrator
Suzie Carney
Suzie Carney
Robin Catterton
Front Desk
Mindy Ohmann
Lani Richards
Lani Richards
Tim Todd
Tim Todd
Tim Zoesch

Windermere Property Management- Tacoma
Office Address:
Windermere Professional Partners Property Management
2209 N Pearl St Suite 200 A
Tacoma, WA 98406

Phone: (253) 830-5160
Fax: (253) 830-3500
Email: MarkMelsness@windermere.com
Website: WPPPM.com

Chambers Bay
Jennifer Coursey
Fenny Friis
Jeri-Kay Lerew
Mark Melsness
Client Services

Windermere Property Management- Walla Walla
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management Walla Walla
20 E Poplar, Ste 204-B
Walla Walla, WA 99362

Phone: (509) 526-7368
Fax: (509) 529-0728
Email: wallarent@gmail.com
Website: www.windermerewallawalla.com

Bud Campbell
Internet Coordinator
Susan Frers
Tina King
Jason Oldridge
Doug Ralph
Betty Simcock
Manford Simcock
Nicki Simcock
William Teepe
Windermere Property Management Walla Walla

Windermere Property Management- Yelm
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Yelm WA
709 Yelm Ave E
Yelm, WA 98597

Phone: 360-458-5120
Fax: 360-458-1806
Email: yelm@windermere.com

Windermere Pullman
Office Address:
Windermere Pullman Moscow
1125 NW Nye Street, Suite B
Pullman, WA 99163

Phone: (509) 334-3530
Fax: (509) 338-9134
Email: pullman@windermere.com
Website: pullmanmoscowhomes.com

Chris Clark
Contracts Coordinator
Technical Coordinator
Jacob T Davis
Lynn Kramer
Windermere Pullman-Moscow
Jeri Rainer
Jess Rainer
Beth Semingson
Alise Smith
Mindy Vance
Amy Wang

Windermere Puyallup
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Puyallup Inc.
12114 104th Ave. E.
Puyallup, WA 98374

Phone: 253-845-5900
Fax: 253-845-0113
Email: jnichols@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermerePuyallup.com

Cindi Allison
Shannon Armstrong
Matthew Avila
Larry Bargmeyer
Chuck Brockway
Rose Corey
Erin Dobrinski
Tony Dressor
Puyallup Fax
Fred Goehler
Carolyn Graham
Dana Grant
Annie Halko
Tim Hermansen
Kylee Hill
Ed Hock
Lori Holman
Brenda Holmes
Rob Holmes
Mike Hurter
Steve Hurter
Melanie Imber
Windermere Real Estate/Puyallup, Inc
puyallup Info
Kelly Inman
Vickie Jennings
Jennifer Jones
Von Karl Inman
Justin Kenney
Mark Kitabayashi
Mark Kitabayashi
Jason Mendel
Jeanne Merola
Gary W Miller
Seth Miller
Cathy Morris
Jessica Mustain
Jane Nichols
Allison OKere
Rob Pollard
RJ Preisser
Josh Prieur
Mary Richard
Hector Rios
Donna Rudebaugh
Jaryd Ruffner
Ryan Sand
Stacy Schwartz
Gina Short
Stacy Skoog
Carol Tedrick
Alex Torres
Kirsta Trombley
Office Website
Jami Wilson

Windermere Quincy
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Central Basin, LLC
503 S. Central Ave
Quincy, WA 98848

Phone: 509-787-4536
Fax: 509/787-8707
Email: quincy@windermere.com
Website: www.quincy.windermere.com

Debra Adams
Kelly Field
Pam Marquis
Daja Mayfield
Quincy Office
Tom Parrish
Linda Ray

Windermere Realty Group-Vancouver
Office Address:
Windermere/Realty Group
237 Chkalov Drive #215
Vancouver, WA 98684

Phone: (360) 823-0404
Fax: (503) 675-8268
Email: lakeoswegowest@windermere.com

Yousef Abraha
Internet Coordinator
Joeseph Daiker
Robin Denburg
Kristin Duyn

Windermere Redmond
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
7525 166th Avenue NE, Suite D210
Redmond, WA 98052

Phone: 425-883-0088
Fax: 425-885-7210
Email: redmond@windermere.com
Website: www.redmond.windermere.com

Ivonne Allen
Robyn Ayala
Lisa Brand
Jim Brown
Lara Brown
Kara Deak
Jason Decker
Jason Decker
Do Not Delete
Joel Dugan
Bill Ebert
Tricia Ebert
Shelley Elenbaas
Kim Gallert
Brandi Gibson
Eldon Guerrero
Buck Hoffman
Corky Irvin
Corky Ivrin
Amy Maggio
Dianne Masaoka
Pat McDonnell
Jennifer Mix
Cindy Nelson
Danyelle O'Neal
Jan Patton
Lisa Pearson
Autumn Reid
Jutta Roehrig-Strainer
Derek Rothe
Alan Saturay
Broker Services
Nate Short
David Simpson
Shirley Sterner
Jodi Stull
Redmond Transactions
Kristi Vellema
Maggie Vreeburg
Tim Vreeburg
Mike Watts
Sarah Weinold
Samantha Ying

Windermere Relocation and Referral Services
Office Address:
Windermere Relocation
301 N.E. 100th Street, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98125

Phone: (866) 941-3936 (206) 526-7730
Fax: (206) 258-3048
Email: Relocation@Windermere.com
Website: www.windermererelocation.com

Lisa Cox, CRP, CNE
Rose Hardiman
LaMonica Hummel, CRP, GMS-T
Cauline Osenbach
Chip Painter
Admin Relocation
Debbi Russell, RCC, WRS
Kathy Serrato
Relocation Services
Maureen Stern

Windermere Relocation- Mountain West
Office Address:
Windermere Services Mountain West
25 W. Cataldo, Ste. A
Spokane, WA 99201

Phone: 509-468-9410
Fax: 509-468-3203
Email: spokane@windermere.com

Rebekah Singer
Janet Weldon

Windermere Renton
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Renton, Inc.
3800 NE 4th Street
Renton, WA 98056

Phone: 425-235-7777
Fax: 425-226-0130
Email: renton@windermere.com
Website: www.windermererenton.com

Joan Addington
Sandra Bolden
Mindy Brady
Chelsea Brown
Heather Buckles
Lisa Contreras
Cheryl Coupens
Larry Crim
Official Delivery
Mira Demireva
Mark Follmer
Bill Grover
Teresa Grover
Jana Gustafson
Jenn Hammermaster
Sue Hammermaster
Len Holston
Linda Howe-Bristow
Tom Huxtable
Renton, Inc.
Darlene Johnson
Lisa Lam
Ian Lunsford
Sue Lunsford
Heather Maddox
Erin Maxwell
Marcie Maxwell
Jason Moore
Michelle Moore
Mika Peart
Cyd Phillips
Dan Phillips
Jennifer Rodgers
Ed Ruth
Bimal Sandhu
DeeDee Shirkey
Julie Sinclair
Stacey Stuart
Stacey Stuart
Jeff Taylor
Caren Tobolski
Timothy Tran
Danny Tseng
Linda Wagner
Jody Warren
Michelle Woo
Brad Yeager

Windermere Renton-Tukwila South
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/PSR, Inc.
3900 E Valley Rd, Suite 200
Renton, WA 98057

Phone: 425-277-5900
Fax: 425-277-6099
Email: RentonSouth@Windermere.com
Website: rsoffice.withwre.com/

Mark Barron
Joe Bernasconi
Kacee Bilbrey
Debbie Boyett
Dori Brashear
Scott Cannon
Beth Clement
Jennifer Clukey
Internet Coordinator
Caprice Y. Davis
Jimm Elliott
Mike Elliott
Sharon Gentry
Kim Grinolds
Christina Clymer Jarvis
Janet Jassen
Larry Jassen
Pat Larkin
Justin Laukala
Candace Legg-Cadigan
Roger Maggio
Tim McCormick
Travis Monen
Jason Moore
Darla Morton
Summer Nieto
Robbin Ott
Aaron Peterson
Charles Peterson
Sarah Peterson
Renton PSR, Inc.
WRE PSR, Inc.
Darleen Rasmussen
Carole Saffell
Roger Schluter
Kay Storhoff
Deborah Taylor, Assoc. Broker
Anne Thoreen
Nate Thornton

Windermere Republic
Office Address:
Windermere Republic
728 S. Clark Ave
Republic, WA 99166

Phone: 509-775-3004
Fax: 509-775-0235
Email: bjb@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Team Baldwin
Cynda Bragg
Bill J. Baldwin
Windermere Republic

Windermere San Juan Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/San Juan Island
50 Spring Street, P.O. Box 488
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Phone: 360-378-3600/ 800-262-3596
Fax: (360)378-5916
Email: info@windermeresji.com
Website: www.windermeresji.com

Mary Jane Anderson
Samantha Bryner
Bette Cantrell
Tim Daniels
Debbie Dardanelli
Kathryn Farron
Gary Franklin
Bill Giesy
Sue Gordon
Bruce Hall
Thalya Harvey
Rebecca Hughes
Greg King
Denece Kost
John Lackey
Lisa Lawrence
Michael Linehan
Sybil Mager
Property Manager
Vail McClure
Annette McCullough, Property Manager
Linda McMahon
Robert Nieman
Pat O'Day
Helene Picone, Property Manager
Jacoba Porter
Meichelle Roberts
Windermere San Juan Island
Richard Sandmeyer
Zita Sandmeyer
Annette Schaffer
Rent Sji
Monica Van Appel-Percich
Tamara Weaver, Office Manager

Windermere Seattle-Ballard
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
2636 NW Market Street
Seattle, WA 98107

Phone: 206.789.7700
Fax: 206.782.4166
Email: ballard@windermere.com
Website: windermereballard.com

Arline Abrams
Cheri Adams
Breanna Albert
Ken Balter
Marilynn Balter
Julie Beall
Tom Bernard
Steve Blackbourn
Kelly Blake
Lynn Blind
Mary Bond
Robert Boyd
Ingrid Brinkley
Robert Brittingham
Andrea Brown
James Coleman
Internet Coordinator
Lance Cormier
Alexis Deneau
Keith M. Donaldson
Mary Durkan
Mary Durkan
Bonnie Ellsworth
Ballard Fax
Ballard Files
Jenny Frey
Darci Gillespie
Daniel Greenfield
Christopher Grimm
Gunnar Hadley
Laura Hanson
Bob Hedlund
Patti Hill
Melissa Homer
BG Hook
Gloria Jackson
Jonathan Jacobs
Jane Johnson
Janel Johnson
Aaron Kahn
Robinson Kahn
Don Kenney
Daniel Kessler
Irene Kristjanson
Nicole LaChasse
Loretta Larson
Greg Lewis
Leslie Manchester
Jacqueline Marloe
Megan McKibbin
Sara Medford
Bob Melvey
Tom Moorman
Jessica Morsley
Muna Muraisi
Dane Murphy
Dane Murphy
Ballard Office
Sylvia Olsby
Jamie Pauley
Karen Peterson
Sulcer And Ward Real Estate
Christine Olsen Reis
Susan Robinson
Brent Sanders
Leslie Sanders
Georgia Selfridge
Michelle Shafagh
Robin Sheridan
Paul F. Simpson
Kelly Souder
Darlene Sozinho
Kristine Springer
Greg Stamolis
Hailey Steiner
Ben Stigler
Cari A. Sulcer
Michael Tade
Erica Topel
Kirk Turnell
John Turosak
Everett Tyler
Sam Ward
Beth Ann Warner
Lee Whalen
Tim Wong
Mike Woods
Stacie Youngblood

Windermere Seattle-Capitol Hill
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Capitol Hill, Inc.
1112 19th Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98112

Phone: 206-324-8900
Fax: 206-328-1716
Email: caphill@windermere.com
Website: www.homeinseattle.com

Ada Alvarado
Ted A. Bash
Julie Bosa
Julie Bouscaren
Sandy Brown
Matt Bryan
Matt Coats
Matt Coats
Internet Coordinator
Stacey Cross
Sarah Cushing
Linda Daniel
Beth Dennis
Derek DeWolf
Heather Dolin
Deirdre Doyle
Philip Farrar
Rachel Findlay
Tom Fine
Diane Ginthner
Kristopher Ginthner
Cortney Greene
Patrick Grimm
Paul Grimm
Mark Hanses
Matt Hanses
Marlow Harris
Michael Harris
Stan Hartmann
Erick Hazelton
Philip Heier
Samuel Hilbert
Brad Hinckley
Chris Ho
Gregg Jackson
Diane Ginther & Kris Ginthner
Loren Kronen
Marco Kronen
Diane Lancaster
Kai Larrabee
Wendy Leung
Paul Levold
Margaret Lyles
Monica McCormick
John McKenna
Joseph Walker Milby
Colby Miller
Felice Molitor-Hudson
Joe Nabbefeld
Stacey Nice-McCannel
Peter Olive
Jim Paddleford
Jeff Parker
Joe Pascual
Jim Patterson
Mary Kay Perrigo
Jackie Leone Pleasant
Erin Porter
Ian Porter
Casey Rosenberg
Clancy Small
Casey Smith
Greg Smith
Jeff Smith
Sara Stephenson
Scott Strodel
Office Submit
Don Taufen
Tracy Treseder
Dustin Van Wyck
Lisa Visintainer
Sally Welch
Yami Williams
Jeremy Witham
Pat Woodley
Margie Zech

Windermere Seattle-Eastlake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
214 East Galer St., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98102-3707

Phone: 206-448-6000
Fax: 206-623-6533
Email: eastlake@windermere.com
Website: windermere.com

Ted Alton
Jeannette Ault
Ashley Azeltine
Mark Besta
Penny Bolton
Darcy Breene
Scott Burdette
Ben Carr
Liz Chalmers
Internet Coordinator
Pat Craft
Patrick Curry
John Daniels
Jeff Davies
Jim Dickinson
Patti Dudley
Elspeth Espinueva
Rebecca Evans
Eastlake Fax
Caitlin Finley
Julie Finstad
Steve Foss
Peggy Frasse
Kevin Gaspari
Carmen Gayton
Lyle George
Charlotte Graham
Mary Granen
Dina Harvey
Kimberly Hobbs
Kevin Hoover
Ob Jacobi
Erik Johnson
Jeremey Johnson
Monte Johnson
Padraic Jordan
Tracy Joshi
Robyn Kimura-Hsu
Jeff Kinney
Laura Ko
Heather Lavin
David Ledingham
Danny Lee
Jackie Lee
Shawn Lovell
Jacqueline Malloy
Gerry McBarron
Tracie McGovern
Mimi McHugh
Reilly McHugh
Chris McQuillan
Linda Moline
Michael D. Nelson
Keith Nyberg
Cricket O'Neill
Lindy Oden
Shane Petersen
Erika Peterson
Lars Peterson
Bruce Phares
Fiore Pignataro
LeAnne Quinn
Penny Bolton Rebecca
Rena Ritchey
Todd Roehl
Joy Rothrock
Rachel Schindler
Jan Selvar
Jeff Severns
Donovan Shelton
Laurie Shields
Tadashi Shiga
Terri Smith
Elise Spencer
Monte Swears
Andre Taybron
David Updike
Sol Villarreal
Mike Walker
Lise Wang
Carol Yamamoto
Dustin Ziegelmann

Windermere Seattle-Green Lake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
7300 East Green Lake Drive North
Seattle, WA 98115

Phone: (206) 957-9441
Fax: (206) 957-9446
Email: greenlake@windermere.com
Website: seattle-green-lake.windermere.com

Randy Anderson
Emily Barr
Leanne Becker
Brenda Biernat
Kelly Chinn
M. Patrick Chinn
Patrick Chinn
Heidi Christiansen
Internet Coordinator
Mike Curry
Kristin Frosaker
Garret Grob
Mike Gusick
Samuel Harris
Joyce Hollenbeck
Tyler Jones
Shannon Laskey
Paul Lavrinec
Amanda McGowen
B.J. Mellema
Kristin Munger
Helen Pinel
April Rauch
Eileen Rumpf
Reilly Schanno
Jamie Silbaugh
Jason Smith
Evan Wyman
Tiffany Yurovsky

Windermere Seattle-Greenwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Greenwood
311 N. 85th
Seattle, WA 98103

Phone: 206-527-5250
Fax: 206-527-3804
Email: greenwood@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeregreenwood.com

Jody Baker
Bruce Barnum
Juliet Beard
Craig Brooke-Weiss
Debra R. Brownell
Coni H. Butler
Beth Bylund
Matthew Carroll
Mark DeSpain
Julie Eidson
Gary Everist
Leslie Fox
Richae Fox
Dan Fresonke
Sharon Giampietro
Jeff Green
Mija Hamilton
Patti Hennessey
Diana Hoang
HAL and JEFF Homes
Phinney Ballard Homes
Blaine Hooper
Dave Hynden
Adrian Jensen
Linda Juliano
Heidi King
Marguerite Knutson
Vera Koch
Steve Laevastu
Byron Lawrence
Inger Lawrence
Kirk Levandoski
Windermere
Brent D. Lumley
Maggie Mallett
Michelle Markwood
Kathy Moeller
Christian Moulin
Windermere
Stephani Nelson
Stephani Nelson
Rick Nimmer
Sharon O'Mahony
Greenwood Office
Derek R. Olson
Kimber Parker
Blair & Jan Paul
Julie Polkinghorn
Jackie Proteau
Hal Rappaport
Robin Reed
Eva Richards
Peter Richmond
Renee Roberts
Jan Robinson
Kyle Rose
Diana Russell
Melinda Ryen
Wendy Saddler
Jeff Saeger
Pieter Salverda
Gregory Sciborski
Gene Seguin
Kurtis Sellers
Molly Shutes
Scott Shutes
Tara Silicio
David Sligar
Suzanne Spano
Diane Lembo Talley
Liz Talley
Jeffrey Valcik
Mick Walls
Scott Waterman
Kim Wesselman
Jayne Williamson
Bonnie Wyatt
Roberta Zook

Windermere Seattle-Lakeview
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
1920 North 34th Street
Seattle, WA 98103

Phone: (206) 527-5445
Fax: (206) 526-7652
Email: lakeview@windermere.com
Website: seattle-lakeview.windermere.com

Catherine Adams
Shawna Ader
Patty Allen
Bob Bennion
Heather Berger
Laura Bollard
Joanie Brennan
Carol Burns
Tamara Canero
TallyAnn Carroll
Susie Carter Johnson
Lesly Chapman
Erica Clibborn
Sarah Clifton
Javila Creer
Chet Crile
Bob Deville
Ann Dover
Jennings Doyle
Michael Doyle
Christina Economou
Joe Everyagent
Kathleen Farrar
Julie Friedman
John Gilbert
Mark Hobbs
Atiya Hollyer
Ob Jacobi
Charlotte Killien
Alex Knuckey
Lori Knuckey
Steve Leland
Chantel Lester
Christine Lewis
Tamara Marson
Kelly Martinsen
Bailey McCann
Laurie McLennan
Shelley Miller
Lynn Murphy
Lakeview Office
Emily Oldfield
Don Parker
Ashlyn Pawlak
Kenna Pearson
Anne Marie Peterson
Gary Peterson
Liz Petrillo
Cindy Rach
Devereux Riddell
Shane Ristine
Rosie Rothrock
Lucy Short
Robin Short
Brittany Spaziani
Cassandra Stoneberg
Lisa Strain
Linda Tallahan
Cliff Tanner
Diane Terry
Theresa Truex
Rene Villanueva
Dan Wilcynski
Larry Wilcynski
Max Wurzburg
Stacey Zorzi

Windermere Seattle-Madison Park
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
4015 East Madison
Seattle, WA 98112

Phone: (206) 324-0000
Fax: (206) 324-1525
Email: madisonpark@windermere.com
Website: www.madisonpark.withwre.com

Aubin Barthold
Laura Bethel
Robin L. Black
Jeanine Burke
Barbara A. Cahill
Judy Striker Curran
Phoebe Day
Shauna Dean
Fedva Dikmen
Shane Doran
Tim Feeman
Shannon Gardner
Bill Garrison
Jim Gram
Michael Griffin
Dave Hale
Kimberly Striker Hall
Jonathan Himschoot
Kathryn Hinds
OB Jacobi
Jane A. Johnson
Pam Johnson
Cheryl Jones
Shavic Jones
Cheryl Jones-Donoso
Darcy LaBelle
Alyson Lapan
Michele Layton
Scott Malatos
A. Carol McDaniel
Lilly Milic
Kate Morgan
Kevin O'Doherty
Madison Park
Scott Perret
Amy Sajer
Susan Sellin
Marilyn Smith
Mary P. Snyder
Hoady Spencer
Susan Stasik
Susan Stocking
Liz Suver
John Swofford
Kim Thomas
Lincoln Thompson
Debra Thompson Harvey
Nick Upshaw
Shannon Vincent

Windermere Seattle-Magnolia
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Wall St., Inc.
3214 W McGraw Street, Suite 102
Seattle, WA 98199

Phone: 206-284-8989
Fax: 206-284-2184
Email: magnolia@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere-magnolia.com

Office Account
Charlie Allen
Gratzi Anderson
Lilia Blomgren
Bill Calhoun
Claudia Case
Internet Coordinator
Patricia Corbin
Jackie DiGangi
Bridget Firsov
Doug Gehrke
Joan and Doug Gehrke
James Goodman
Patty Groesbeck
Veronica Hapgood
Michele Harps
Marli Iverson
Barbara Jones
Russ Katz
Matthew L Koenig
Cindy Lange
Colleen McCann
Brianna McTee
Sherry Moody
Karen Paulsen
John Petrov
Michael Plunkett
Eileen Quackenbush
Greg Shaw
Angela Siderius
Aaron Spring
Karen Stern
JR Torres, J.D.
John Wellman
Tom Wilbanks

Windermere Seattle-Mount Baker
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
4919 South Genesee Street
Seattle, WA 98118

Phone: (206) 725-7255
Fax: (206) 725-0971
Email: mountbaker@windermere.com
Website: WindermereMtBaker.com

Cabby Albright
Samson Asfaw
Simone Bouterse
Virginia Calvin
Daisy Casillas
Nancy Chapin
Nick Chicka
Susan Cole
Internet Coordinator
Sabranie Coyne
Susan Davidson
Ted Dietz
Dorothy Driver
Buy Dwell
Joe Easterday
Warren Farmer
Brian Flora
E.J. Gong
Steven Gorecki
Su Harambe
Monique Harris Jones
Cherie Hasson
Debbie Heard
Serena Heslop
Al Johnson
Don Koonce
Andrew Lee
Freda Leomiti
Leslie Lowe
Carolyn Mollot
Claire Newman
Ken Nicholas
Heather O'Malley
Beverly Powers
Laurie Samuelsen
Rhonda Smith
Erik Stanford
Steven Sterling
Dolly Tokunaga
Steven Wayne
Infax windermere
MountBaker windermere
Outfax windermere
Jeff Wolfe

Windermere Seattle-Northgate
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
301 NE 100th St, Suite #200
Seattle, WA 98125

Phone: 206-526-5544
Fax: 206-526-7613
Email: northgt@windermere.com
Website: northgate.withwre.com/

Frank Airey
Marshall Airey
Phyllis Allison
Ted Allison
Scott Anderson
Tyler Anderson
Myles Armstrong
Barrick Benson
Michael Bill
Pamela Blessing
Dick Carruthers
Betsy Chamberlin
Cathy Cowan
Charlie Cowan
Thomas Cowan
Shelby Cramer
Karen Dawson Fortier
Daniel Dittmann
Northgate Fax
Andrew Fortier
Holly Garwood
Aaron Harrington
Jay Harrison
Stefan Hoerschelmann
Carolyn Holm
Bryan Howdeshell
Jason Howdeshell
Jarrett Johnson
Kiley Koehler
Bill Lemcke
Fran Lilleness
Donna Lindsay
Lisa Long
Marshall Longtin
Adrienne Loop
Julie Manolides
David Marcoe
Carol Cole McElroy
Nan Menard
Alison A. Moceri
Paul Myers
Northgate Office
Anthony Pagones
Elaine Pagones
Sandra Pappas
Kippie Pasowicz
John Pettas
Bentley Pugh
Michael Ravenscroft
Leslie Reed
Maria Rippee
David Rush
Ria Scott
Steve T. Senescall
Julie Shefts
Sasha Shefts
Ken Shiovitz
Brian Steiner
Irma Suntay
Everett Talvo
Peter Tang
Scott Thiessen
Carl Thorgerson
Matthew Townsend
Roger Turner
Jason Viydo
Dan Wallace
Scott Whaley
Marilyn Wick

Windermere Seattle-Northlake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
17711 Ballinger Way N.E.
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

Phone: 206-364-8100
Fax: 206-364-2614
Email: northlake@windermere.com
Website: windermerenorthlake.withwre.com

Sabah Al-Haddad
Marella Alejandrino
Christopher Byler
Seetha Chittar
Jan Craven-Greenberg
WRE Northlake Email
Ryan Francescutti
Ann Hovik
OB Jacobi
Jennifer Johnsen
Denise Johnson
Nicole Kraft-Canitz
Amanda Mayberry
Sheila McKee
Cheri Moll
Windermere Northlake
Beverly Prkacin Read
Maureen Richards
Jeff Strom
Jaclyn Tomaras
Leo Van Hollebeke
Sarah Wolverton
Nicole Zaffarano

Windermere Seattle-Northwest
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/FN
12250 Greenwood Ave N
Seattle, WA 98133

Phone: 206-367-4720
Fax: 206-361-6943
Email: northw@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerenorthwest.com

Bruce Ainslie
Naureen Ali
Mary P. Anderson
Brooke Barnes
Sandra Brenner
Kathe Charais
Debbie Cooper
Internet Coordinator
Bill Drummond
Erika Hartzog
Nicole Haun
Karen Hayes
Larry Helms
Jim Hill
Steve Hill
Shannon Hill Hanson
Cristina Jensen
Andrew Kim
Lindsay Kim
Carmen A. Kloth
Lexie Knull
Dennis Koepke
Brian Landreville
Josephine LaRosa
David Malmgren
Sunshine McArthur
Dick McPhaden
Fritz Nichols
Northw Nichols
Nwfax Nichols
Nwscan Nichols
Officedocs Nichols
Carl Nicholson
Jill Nicholson
Michelle Ogle
Sharilyn Patterson
Kay Rigley
Steve Hill and Sandra Brenner
Matthew Skeel
Tamara Stangeby
Jay Yancey

Windermere Seattle-Queen Anne
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street, Inc.
214 W McGraw St.
Seattle, WA 98119

Phone: 206-283-8080
Fax: 206-283-5650
Email: queenanne@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere-queenanne.com

Compliance Account
Nicole Bailey
George Beasley
Kevin Bohnert
Nicole Christopher
Ann Clark
Chris Cooley
Internet Coordinator
Andres Garcia
Susan G. Gilbert
Stephanie Goode
Janet Haberbush
Scott Haveson
Kris Hendricks
Karla Hulse
Stephanie Imsande
Dana Johnston
Arison Knapp
Mary Lee
Susan Leonardson
Michael Macdonald
Randie Nelson
Leah Pham
Front Desk Queen Anne
Kamie Rasmussen
Holley Ring
Michael Schrepfer
Aaron Sean
Rene Stern
Scott Torre
Robbie Wald Tradal
Nancy Williams
Melanie Young

Windermere Seattle-Sand Point
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
5424 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105

Phone: 206-524-1100
Fax: 206-526-7614
Email: sandpt@windermere.com
Website: www.seattle-sand-point.windermere.com

Kate Allen
Chris R. Austin
Linda Balyeat
The Beach Team
Sue Bethke
Brenda Brake
I C
Dillon Chatriand
Mark Corcoran
Marissa Cram
Debbie Jenner Culp
Jessica Dales
Kim O. Dales
Isabelle Dowling
Carolyn Erickson
Nick Foote
Aaron Fredrickson
Carole Fredrickson
Mike Gannon
Katharine Gibson
Mary Gibson
Joie Gowan
Phyllis Haaland
Laura Halliday
Phyllis Hanen
Christine Henn
Mark Holden
Jonna Hood
Nat Hopper
OB Jacobi
Kristi Johnson
Dale Kaneko
Norm Kaneko
Colleen Keilbart
Cherie Keller
Donna King
Paula Knopf
Brad Knowles
Kim Knowles
Edward Krigsman
Dora Krupanics
Megan Kukull
Tom Lavigne
Timothy W. Lenihan
Rick Lubov
Tom Maider
Jordan Malloch
Renee Menti Ruhl
Cathy Millan
Elsa Nunes-Ueno
Sand Point Office
Leslie Ota
Georgia S. Perez
Kelly Pornour
Kian Pornour
Sandpoint Printer
Sue Rockwell
Jill Rotset
Janet Schanno
Barbara Shikiar
Jeri P. Smith
Sally Tafft
Patti Verschueren
Dave Weaver
Maggie Weissman
Jay West
Jeff Williamson
Doug Zeiler

Windermere Seattle-Wall Street
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street, Inc.
2420 2nd Ave. at Wall St.
Seattle, WA 98121

Phone: 206-448-6400
Fax: 206-448-3291
Email: wallst@windermere.com
Website: windermere-wallstreet.com

Office Legal Email Admin - Email for P&S Documents
Office Administration
Carol Ard
Gina Ard
Ginger Ard
Kay Asai
Lara Baca
Windermere
Joe Bills
Broker Care
Anne Carney
Cathleen Carney
Kelly Cash
Suzanne Charnos
Ying Chen
Mark Dagg
Suzanne Charnos Dan Petesch
Mary Ann Dickhoff
Claire Dion
Elinor Dofredo
Dan Drummey
Janine Duncan
Olga Dyckman
Mina Ellis
Don Ennes
Kathrin Faulkner
Wall St Fax
Rick Finer
Jennifer Fink
Mary Ann Fordyce
Joe Galindo
Rich Gangnes
Ellen Gillette
Carol Gilmore Sauter
Bill Gleason
Phillip Greely
John Grieco
Todd Hagan
Lauren Hendricks
Stephen Hicks
Leah Hill
Jake Jacobsen
Richard Kaiser
Stewart Karstens
Jed Kliman
Tom Knee
Chelise Kuhn
Gerry Ann Lanphier
Penny J. Lewis
Coleen Lovell
Mary McCrone
Amy McDavid
Jeff Morgan
Joseline Mucha
Jack O'Berg
Randall O'Dowd
Phyllis Ohrbeck
Sharon Parmenter
Melody Paxton
Dan Petesch
Shannon Praetorius
Windermere
Chris Sadowsky
Judie Sanders
Ed Santos
Jan Slawson
David Stelzer
Qasim Tanga
Andy Tonning
Stuart Vincent
Heidi Ward
Mary Welk
John Wellman
D. Lisa West
Christopher Wetzel
Mari Womack
Deborah Young
Matt Zaharias

Windermere Seattle-Wedgwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
8401 35th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115

Phone: (206) 522-9600
Fax: (206) 527-3818
Email: wedgwood@windermere.com
Website: http://seattle-wedgwood.windermere.com/

Mary Abbott
Nancy Bolin
Barbara Brandt
Ben Buckley
Blake Budden
Bill Cecil
Patrick J. Corr
Greg Cowan
John Cowan
Jill Cunningham
Marie Davis
Brenda Dimond
Mark Emily
Kevin Erickson
Tracy Erickson
Rhona Feldman
Michele Flinn
Rob Graham
Brian Griffin
Bryan Haworth
Anita Italiane Hearl
High Heermans, JD
Maddy Heinrich
Merritt Hess
Casey Holme
OB Jacobi
Pamela Jensen
DT Levy
Eileen Lindsey
Kelland Lindsey
Kelland & Eileen Lindsey
Bryan Loe
Kathy MacDuff
Jennifer Maher
Terri Maloney
Kim Marsh-Stearns
Stuart Miner
Jay Nemitz
Marsha Nemitz
Ann O'Neil
Wedgwood Office
Roberta Pletz
David Prater
Carissa Saffel
Nick Simonton
Laura Smith
Michael Strazzara
Tanya Thackeray Wilson
Gary Thompson
Wedgwood Transactions
Marina Vitasovic
Krystal Wade
Neale Weaver
Cisca Wery
Bill Wilson
Wedgwood Windermere
Katherine Zorich Walsh

Windermere Seattle-West Seattle
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street, Inc.
4526 California Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116

Phone: 206-935-7200
Fax: 206-937-6574
Email: westseattle@windermere.com
Website: http://www.windermerewestseattle.com/

Susan Anda
Doug Baldwin
John Benson
Anne Bentrott-Wise
Carla Brobeil
Kevin Broveleit
Baouyen Chan
Internet Coordinator
West Seattle Documentation
Tamera Duke
Natalie English
Bill Fazekas
Javier Fosado
Shelley Godwin
Teresa J. Grassley
Chloe Gubata
Rebecca Hartsook
Mara Haveson
Gayle Hellriegel
Tonya Hennen
Sandra Hines
Chuck Houston
Jim Jacobsen
West Seattle Junction Fax
Robert Kelly
Holly Kemery
Kate Kenney
Mike Kirk
Kevin Krout
Laura Krumwiede
Karen Lavallee
Meredith Laws
Dawn Leverett
Rick Lohr
Desiree Loughlin
Jessica Lynn
Kelly Malloy
Gina Malvestuto
Nancy McKallor
Jennifer McQuade
Vickie Mengedoht
Kurt Metzger
Cara Mohammadian
Scott Monroe
Margaret Nordahl
Joe Nye
Barb Ogden
Millie Osborne
DeAnna Piccini
Andria Pinkowski
Anastasia Reed
John C. Rockwood
Cori Roed
Lacie Roth
Lucas Roth
Dustin Schisler
Connie Sorensen
Matthew Spenny
Randie Stone
Karin Swendsen
James Tibbetts
Kim Tingley
Desirée Tkach
Mary Ann Vandergriff
David Warren
Cara Wass de Czege
Christina Waterhouse
Bill Wayburn
Britt Wibmer
Peter Wolf

Windermere Sedro-Woolley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/North Cascades
520 Cook Rd
Sedro Woolley, WA 98284

Office: (360) 856-4901
Email: sedrowoolley-@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeresedrowoolley.com

Shawn Danley
Cell/Direct:(360) 856-4901
Email: sdanley@windermere.com
Website :www.RentalsWPM.com

Tiffany Danley
Cell/Direct:(360) 298-4857
Email: Danley@windermere.com
Website :www.TheDanley-Group.com

Becky Elde
Cell/Direct:(360) 770-9427
Email: beckyelde@windermere.com
Website :www.beckyelde.com

Tahlia Honea
Cell/Direct:(360) 333-5815
Email: tahlia@windermere.com

Deborah McNeal
Cell/Direct:(360) 707-8073
Email: dsmcneal@windermere.com
Website:www.DeborahMcNeal.com

Amy Russell
Cell/Direct:(360) 856-4901
Email: amyrussell@windermere.com
Website:www.WindermereSedroWoolley.com

Windermere Sequim- East
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Sequim East
842 East Washington
Sequim, WA 98382

Phone: 360-683-4844
Fax: 360-683-1122
Email: wresequim@olypen.com
Website: www.sequimproperty.com/windermeresequimeast/

Melanie Arrington
Alan Burwell
SequimEast Coordinator
Carol Dana
Carolyn Dodds
Robert Dodds
Dianna Erickson
Heidi Hansen
Chuck Murphy
Sheryl Payseno Burley
Cathy Reed
Jean Ryker
David Sharman
Jan Sivertsen
Jessica Warriner

Windermere Sequim- Sunland
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Sunland
137 Fairway Dr
Sequim, WA 98382

Phone: 360/683-6880
Fax: 360/683-9614
Email: alanb@olypen.com
Website: http://sequim-sunland.windermere.com

Alan Burwell
Tyler Conkle
Bill Huizinga
Deb Kahle
Terry Peterson
Irene & Mike Schmidt Schmidt
Mike Schmidt
Dollie Sparks

Windermere Services Company 

Office Address:
Windermere Services Company
5424 Sand Point Way N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105 

Phone: 206-527-3801
Fax: 206-526-7629
mail: wsc@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com 
Selina Bowen
Susie Bustamante
Katie Clegg
Nellie DeBruyn
Chris Demco
Paul Drayna
Michael Fanning
Ashley Frei

Matthew Gardner
Greg Gustafson
OB Jacobi
Duane Johnson
Julia Jordan
Edward S. Krigsman
Chris Ma
Diane Madore-Anderson
Scott Mitchelson
Bill Murray
Mark Oster
Chip Painter
Carolyn Rathe
Don Riley
Military Services
Jim Shapiro
Amanda Sox
Chris Stephan
Shawn Sullivan
Lansing Teal
Mike Teather
Lai Tran
Kendra Vita
Lora Wilson
Christine Wood
Geoff Wood
Jill Wood

Windermere Services – Marketing
Office Address:
Windermere Services Company
815 Western Ave., Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: (206) 695-5959
Fax: (206) 357-2393
Email: support@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Tiana Baur
Noelle Bortfeld
Office Coordinator
Windermere Cup
Front Desk
Nicole Dundas
Ashley Eager
Margaret Eckert
Sam Everyagent
Kait Graettinger
Marketing Guest
Robyn Hallonquist
Jonah Hoskins
Gina Kim
Kate Ledbetter
Windermere Marketing
Vikki Nakamura
Kathleen Nolan
Sonja Riveland
Shelley Rossi
Tara Sharp
Summer Splash
Trudy Taylor
Mary Lynn Thompson
Marilou Ubungen
Kimi Wagoner

Windermere Services-Mountain West
Office Address:
Windermere Services Mountain West
25 West Cataldo, Suite A
Spokane, WA 99201

Phone: 509-468-2923
Fax: 509-468-3203
Email: wsmw@windermere.com
Website: www.experiencewindermere.com

John Becker
Diana Davis Hehn
Spokane Info@
Jim Lodato
Services Mountain West
Rebekah Singer
Social Spokane
Guest User
Janet Weldon
Scott Wetzel
Tracie Wetzel
Spokane@ Windermere

Windermere Shelton
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Himlie
920 Railroad Ave. / P.O. Box 729
Shelton, WA 98584

Phone: 360-426-2646/800-281-2740
Fax: 360-426-2698
Email: shelton@windermere.com
Website: shelton.windermere.com

Jeanne Blanton
Andy Conklin
Jef Conklin
Daralynne Fitzpatrick
Brady Fuller
Keith Fuller
Krisy Henry
Jill Himlie
Vince Himlie
Windermere Real Estate/ Himlie, Inc. - Shelton, WA
Stephanie Johnson
Denise Matylinski
Tracey McGlothlin
Bethany Simmons
Carolyn Vivian
Kelly Zoldak

Windermere Shoreline
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Shoreline
900 North 185th Street
Shoreline, WA 98133-3903

Phone: 206-546-5731
Fax: 206-546-5741
Email: shoreline@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereshoreline.com

Gary Alston
Therasa Alston
Mark Blackbourn
Bill Burns
Julie Carlton
Cheryl DeLaittre
Isabella DiLucca
Michael Dodge
Pat Dornay
Dave Douglas
Saihou Drammeh
Shawna Eden
Kim Edwards-Fukei
Kristine Emerson
Audra Farley
JC Gagnaire
Jennifer Gay
Bill Gibson
Henry Goss
Mary Jane Goss
Shoreline Graphic Designs
Chris Haynes
Nancy Huoth
Debbie Jaeger
Kira James
Rick Kalamar
Christine Kelly
Clint Kinzel
Laura Kinzel
Bob Koo
Steve Koon
Laura Kremer Carl
Lee Lageschulte
Jean Linhardt
John Lough
Billie Lunsford
Jack Malek
Anne Millman
Lella Norberg
David O'Connor
Ann O'Leary
Soo Paik
Tobiah Paik
Ranee Palacios
Scott T. Phariss
Sharon Seferos Pierce
Leslie Sharkey
Karen Sherrell
Windermere Shoreline
Sandra Simmons
Leif Stenfjord
Scott T. Phariss
Shelley M. Thompson
Ingrid Tollessen
Gary M. Turner
Hanneli Turner
Jamie Wang

Windermere Silverdale
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/West Sound, Inc
9939 Mickelberry Rd. NW
Silverdale, WA 98383

Phone: 360-692-6102 or 206-282-5340
Fax: 360-698-4614
Email: silverdale@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeresilverdale.com

Agent Assistant
Bill Bailey
Mike Bay
Deb Becker
Judy Bigelow
Rod Blackburn
Nick Blickhan
Donna Bosh
John C. Hays
Alan Cady
Lindsay Clark
Jamie Colon
Eric Cookson
Crystal Dahlhauser
Mark A. Danielsen
Dino Davis
Summer Davy
Steve Derrig
Carter Dotson
Tori Dotson
Molly Ells
Marie Flanders
Jason Galbreath
Bob Guardino
Judy Hartness
Tom & Marie Hooker
Mary Ellen Hooks
Julie Wurden Jablonski
Kevin Jennings
Christine Johnson
Dave Jones
Jessica Kennedy
Jennifer Kilkenny
Christina Kuske
Nancy Mackleit
Bonnie Michal
Joe Michelsen
Adam Moon
Erin Moon
Glenn Morrison
Stuart Nethery
Kathy Olsen
Jeanette Paulus
Mike Pitts
Belinda Rider
Carol Sue Rogers
Jordan Rogers
Christine Salo
Philip Scheer
Kim Stewart
Jack Stodden
Victor Targett, CCIM
Kristina Togia
Wendy Tonge
Kate Wilson
Silverdale Windermere

Windermere Snohomish
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Snohomish, Inc.
731 2nd Street
Snohomish, WA 98290

Phone: (360)568-1537
Fax: (360)568-1530
Email: wre.sno@windermere.com
Website: www.snohomishwindermere.com

Karalyn & Ron Andersen
Melinda Baena
Cindy Berg
Tina Cairns
Gayle Campbell
Tim Denton
Haley Duke
Marie Hartung
Amanda Hellman
Angie Kelleher
Alicia Kersavage
Jeff Larson
Rhonda LePoidevin
Todd Lipke
Maureen Loomis
Nonie Martin
Jayne Miller
Dani Miska
Tanya Mock
Kaysie O'Dell
Kathie Salvadalena
Mitzie L Schield
Kevin Shinn
Windermere Real Estate Snohomish Inc
Bill Steffener
Kathy Stevens
Sandy Trice
Kelly Turner
Cyndi Vannoy
Karen Young
Shanley Zinger

Windermere Spokane-City Group
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/City Group, LLC
1237 W Summit Pkwy., Suite B
Spokane, WA 99201

Phone: 509-323-2323
Fax: 509-323-2353
Email: citygroup@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerecitygroup.com

Denise Ashcroft
Michelle Baker
Daniel Bergmann
Windermere City Group
Cody Craig
Tina Craig
Cathy Dernbach
Joey Duris
Carrie Eutsler
Sandy Falkner
Joe Garst
Ryan Knudson
Ric Lake
Joe Lanet
Darren Lawson
Lisa Lembeck
Bob Maxwell
Donna Mergen
Linda Peters
Claire Peterson
Stephanie Peterson, MRP
Jan Roseleip
Laurie L. Ross
Margaret Sandusky
Kolby Schoenrock
Chris Siemens
Kara Siemens
Mom And Son Team
Tina Sowl
Jennifer Tiffany
Cathey Wells
Randy Wells

Windermere Spokane-Cornerstone
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Cornerstone
1420 N Mullan, #200
Spokane, WA 99206

Phone: (509) 927-7733
Fax: (509) 927-2999
Email: cornerstone@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerespokane.com

Office Administrator
Brian Anderson
Bruce Baldwin
Jeremy Bray
Bill Fatur
Kristy Hamby
Ross Hawkinson
Rusty Hayes
Claudia Hildahl
Steve Hildahl
Eric House
John Stirling Jeremy Bray
Helen Lavelle
Joyce Lingo
Pam Lyon
Sheridon Rennaker
Kevin Russell
John Stirling
Jerry Vanhook
Stuart VanZyverden
Steve Vizzini
Susan Wentz
Kim Williams

Windermere Spokane-Liberty Lake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Valley, Inc.
1429 N. Liberty Lake Rd., Suite A
Liberty Lake, WA 99019

Phone: (509) 340-8000
Fax: (509) 340-8010
Email: libertylake@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerelibertylake.com

Matt Allen
Char Detro
Rae Flynn
Breanne Jones
Kristi Kerkuta
Allyson Knapp
Josie Krahn
Windermere Liberty Lake
Shawna Lumley
Cate Moye
Louise Ortega
Mary Lou Shiley
Wendy Shiley
Liberty Lake Transactions
Bill White
Sandy Zoller

Windermere Spokane-Manito
Office Address:
Windermere/Manito LLC
2829 South Grand Blvd, Ste 101
Spokane, WA 99203

Phone: 509-747-1051
Fax: 509-747-9160
Email: manito@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremanito.com

Clark Betts
Khalil Beznaiguia
Chris Bornhoft
Marianne Bornhoft
Marianne Bornhoft
Carol Capra
Greg Durheim & Carol Groves
Bart Cloninger
Matthew Cocks
Internet Coordinator
Heidi Crawford
Jerry Crossett
Darlene Dawson
Katie DeBill
Yvonne DeBill
Suzy Dix
Gjonnette Dugger
Greg Durheim
Hilary Garber
Stephanie Gates
Mary Frances Gence
Carol Groves
M Guenther
Sue Hare
Brad Harris
Ashlie Hatchitt
Sam Hess
Kelly Hunt
Karen Jones
W. Michael Keller
April Key
Dusty Klink
Jill Klinke
Doug Koenig
Alex Kokkoris
Jim Lister
Mary O'Connell Marr
Jackie Mather
Maryanna Mayer
Brett McCandless
Dawn McKenna
Marcy Mongan
Marolee Morris
Roy Mortlock
Vickie Munch
Lana Neeley
Tom Neupert
Fritz W. Nichols
Joseph K. Nichols, Sr.
Pam Novell
Sally O'Brien
Nicole Ochoa
Barbara Parlet
Kathi Pate
Tim Penna
Janet Pittmann
Whitney Ramsey
Sola Raynor
Sandy Ridge
Judy Rowland
Jen Sawyer
D.J. Sebanc
Lori Sherfey
Gaye Shumaker
Brian Smith
Hollie Smith
Manito Tech
Bob Travis
Bob Travis (HUD)
Tony Vaughn
Connie Wilson
Rick Wood
Dan Wynia
Kathleen Wynia
Nancy Wynia

Windermere Spokane-North
Office Address:
Windermere North Spokane LLC
9017 N Country Homes Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99218

Phone: 509-467-6640
Fax: 509-466-3610
Email: windermerenorth@windermere.com
Website: www.yourwindermere.com

Dick Aagard
Suzette Alfonso
James Allen
Jeanne Barnes
Lorelei Barrett
Melissa Barton
Dallas Becker
John Becker
Marianne Becker
Howard Bergdoll
Ron Bledsoe
Josiah Boone
Tammy Brutschy
Michele Buck
Steve Cain
Howard Bergdoll and Catherine Sutherland
Chris Connelly
Martina Coordes
Esse Costello
Dyer Davis
Stacy Dunaway
Ken DuPree
Marjorie A. DuPree
Aaron Edwards
Jim Farrow
North Fax
Ken Garceau
Linda Gilroy
Mike Gleason
David Graesser
Brandi Graham-Snow
Hal Greene
Jim Greenup
Kerry Grimes
Karilynn Hardan
Kent Harrison
Nancy Haskell
Patti Helring
Jody Henderson
Dwight Hille
Bonnie Howell
Billy Iseman
Dale Johnson
Veronica Johnson
Nancy Jones
Wendy Kennedy
Laura Krauth
Dave Lawrence
Sue Lesher
Chris Lucas
Chris & Karie Lucas
Karie Lucas
Teena Maguire
John Markley
Floyd McDonald
Case McGinley
Roy McHaney
Darwin McKibbin, CRS
Shelly Monahan-Cain
Dana Morris
Jack Morse
Brigette Murphy
Bookkeeper North
Processor North
Windermere North
Bill O'Dea
Enju Park
Dan Pasby
Shelby Pearson
Marie Pence
Julie Fender Pohl
Gary Redding
Joi Rhodes
Ron Rogers
Michael Rubrecht
April Sherwood
Juliene Speck
Shelly Monahan-Cain & Steve Cain
Catherine Sutherland
Larry Urann
Steve Wallin
Julie Weaver
Robin Wendel
Kevin Wick
Don Williams
Amanda Wright
Jim Wynne

Windermere Spokane-Valley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Valley, Inc.
15812 East Indiana Avenue, Suite 203
Spokane Valley, WA 99216

Phone: (509) 928-1991
Fax: (509) 928-4250
Email: valley@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerevalleyspokane.com

Cheryl Boisen
Jim Bowden
Cindy Calvert
Brooke Carey, ABR, CNE
Micheal Chappell
Dustian Coates
Melissa Curryer
Dan Dhaenens
Maggie Dyko
Gayle Earling
Sharon Ehrhardt
Jacque Eide
Rae Flynn
Ken Fry
Don Hay
Tawny Hiett
Kim Hynes
Ellie Jones
Nila Jorden-Rosslow
Lori Joy
Bob Krafft, AB, CRS, MBA
Gary Kuster
Wendy Kuster
Jen Deming Lee
Andrea Malone
Annette McAlister
Keri McFarland
Terrence P McKanna
Social Media
Camilla Mounts
Cate Moye
Rick Pearman-Gillman
Doug Pecha
Dana Pendergrass
Lori Peters
Lori Peters, ABR, CRS, GRI
Sally Prete
Pam Reilly
B. Todd Rooks
Noreen Rooks
Becky Ruark
Glen Scott
Scott Sloane
Windermere Spokane Valley
Lisa Sweeney
Dave Syrcle, ABR
Valley Transactions
Debbie Turnbow
John Q. White
Fletcher Wilkens
Roger Williamson
Larry and Sharon Windhorst
Sharon Windhorst
Trevor Windhorst

Windermere Stanwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/CIR
7359 267th St. NW, Ste. D
Stanwood, WA 98292

Phone: 360-629-8233,877-602-8200
Fax: 360-629-2733
Email: stanwood@windermere.com
Website: www.camanorealestate.com

Molly Alumbaugh
Keith Bjornethun
Doris Blas
Michael Borthwick
Bill Duncan
Bill Duncan
Linda Gleadle
Marla Heagle
Randy Heagle
Michele Housner
Barbara Huff
Megan Johnson
Julie Love
Steve Love
Steve & Julie Love
Homeowners Association Management
Denise McDonald
Ray Mueller
Hans Ostrander
Robert Sandoz
Robert Sandoz

Windermere Stevenson
Office Address:
Windermere Glenn Taylor Real Estate
220 SW Second / P.O. Box 280
Stevenson, WA 98648

Phone: 509/427-2777
Fax: 509/427-2770
Email: stevenson@windermere.com
Website: windermerestevenson.com

Bob Anderson
Dave Bennett
Mary Lou Bennett
Kim Chadney
Frank Cox
Jim Joseph
Amanda Renner
Angela Rodriguez-Renner
Kim Salvesen-Pauly

Windermere Tacoma-North
Office Address:
Windermere Professional Partners
2209 N Pearl Street #200
Tacoma, WA 98406

Phone: 253-565-1189
Fax: 253-830-3500
Email: professional@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerepropartners.com

Dianne Adkins
Janet Armitage
Annette Beardemphl
Mark Bergman
Cyrus Bonnet
Lisa Carlson
Mark Carns
Nikki Carson
Leighanne Cheslik
Cathie Christie
Colleen Cook
Judi Duncan
Peter Elswick
Consuella Evans
Erin Farquhar
Peter J. Filmer
Zach Flowers
Matt Francis
Fenny Friis
Jenny Gullikson
Michael Handy
Mike Handy
Hilary Heim
Kelli Jo Hjalseth
Jim Hoiland
Stephen(Shu) Hsu
Jasmyn Jefferson
Kelsey Kovach
Mark & Mark
Michael McNiel
Ryan Meacham
Dawn Medling
Autumn Mills
Alex Munoz
Deanne O'Connell
Tanya Odom
Krista Osborne
Chase Peart
Mark Pinto
Windermere Professional Partners
Greg Pubols
WPP Realtors
Mandy Sakemi
Maggie Schauble
Monica Scott
Client Services
Kristy Skobel
South Sound Property Group
Dave Spencer
Michele Spencer
Amy Steele
CJ Stewart
Greg Stock
Sarah Stolberg
Diane Thomas
Amy Thor
Mike Tipton
Will Warren
Tameka Washington
Jeff Williams
Jeff A. Williams
Meagan Zacher
Debbie Zessin

Windermere Tacoma-Professional Partners
Office Address:
Windermere Professional Partners
4701 S 19th Street
Tacoma, WA 98405

Phone: 253-565-1189
Fax: 253-565-6178
Email: professional@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerepropartners.com

Nicole Alderson
Teresa Alderson
Shannon Bell-Peterson
Brandy Brazeau
Chip Butzko
Tracy Butzko
Christina Cardin
Shelly Crane
Linda Diehl
Stacie Dylan
Alison Easley
WPP Faxes
Fenny Friis
David Gala
Curtis Gibson
Marguerite Giguere
Diane Gilmore
Jennifer Golder
Bryan Hall
Amber Hight
Matt Hume
Tom Hume
Sloan Hunter
Jeff Jensen
Jacob Jezek
Anne Jones
Amanda Jorgensen
Ryan Knicely
Janet Lee
Brenna Lee Harrington
The Lee Team
Kirk Lent
Amy Lowry
Danni Lunt
Regina Madiera-Gorden
Corey Matney
Kevin Mullin
Windermere Professional Partners
Nancie Quach
Scott Schulz
Joyce Shipley
Weekend Staff
Jim Swanson
Brent Tornquist
Mark Van Antwerp
Cheryl Wilkerson

Windermere Tacoma-University Place
Office Address:
Windermere Professional Partners
2700 Bridgeport Way W, Suite F
University Place, WA 98466

Phone: 253-565-1121
Fax: 253-565-1371
Email: professional@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerepropartners.com

Mark Akers
Chris Barrett
Ray Bolinger
Elsa Borgen
Pat Busick
Patience Colkitt
Kaylee Colwell
The Commencement
Jerry Foss
Fenny Friis
Brandie Hassing
Debbie Homeyer
JoAnn Jett
Carrie LaRocque
Jason Leyes
WPP Marketing
Sandy McKenzie
Kristin Niebergall
Karen Noland
Garrett T Pessemier
Elisa Pierce
Windermere Professional Partners
Client Services
Client Services
Steve Sloboda
LeRoy Smith
Cindy Stewart
Ken Thiemann
Jeremy Vallery-Watson
D Wright

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere Tri-Cities Richland
Office Address:
Windermere Group One/Tri-Cities
490 Bradley Blvd.
Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-946-1188
Fax: 509-946-0284
Email: groupone@windermere.com
Website: www.grouponetricities.com

Lynn Affleck
Chris Albrecht
Jenny Albrecht
Kelly Allen
Don Bouchey
Toby Bouchey
Dan Bruchman
Christina Brunson
Janie Bunch
Tonya Callies
Alana Carter
Katie Copeland
Darla Cravens
Kyle Cravens
Carol-Lynn denHoed
Ruth Dingfield
Geri Fleming
Dani Gilchrist
Lisa Green
Windermere Group One
Dan Hansen
Kim Harty
Marilyn Hodgson
Jessica Hollandsworth
Garland Huff
Barb Keltch
John Keltch
John & Barbara Keltch
Damion Lalka
Ericka Lalka
Terry Loney
Tim May
Nancy Miskho
Tom Moore
Jed Morris
Joe Mullins
Melissa Niebuhr
Morgan Nielsen
Kyle Palmer
Cathy Preston
Lori Pruitte
Mike Punch
Melinda Robinson
Ashley Rubon
Wendy Rush
Sarah Sarver
Jenifer Sawby
Susan Shay-Johnson
Susie Si
Suzanne Siekawitch
Michelle Sisemore
Chris Smith
Shari Stringer
Jeff Thompson
Patti Thompson
Greg Tripp
Deanna Woods

Windermere Vancouver- Mill Plain
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
12500 SE 2nd Circle, Suite 205
Vancouver, WA 98684

Phone: 360-253-3600
Fax: 360-944-6199
Email: mplain1@windermere.com
Website: windermerevancouver.com

Mill Plain Agent
Cindy Anderson
John Anderson
Keith Anderson
Scott Anthony
Carrie Armstrong
Dan Barkley
Ed Beard
Donna Beck
Jennifer Belmore
Connie Bovee
Rebecca Brown
Judy Burke
Fred Castaldi
Karen Cleveland
Carol J. Curtis
Jason Curtis
Kelly Daniels
Debi Good Flanagan
Kevin Gorby, Sr.
Diane Gregory
Susan Gustafson
Linda Haring
David & LaVern Heiner
Laura Henderson
Rick Jenkins
Nancy Johns
Gary Kaster
Chiou Kolaks
Trent Latshaw
Scott Lewis
Brett Leyden
Charlotte Lien
Rowena C. Lusby
Travis Maley
Tony Manduley
Seth McCauley
Chris McCullough
Admin, Mill Plain
Mereloyd Owen
Linda Owens
Mike Owens
Brian Pelky
Jim Pool
Joanne Powell
Loretta Railing
Nick Redinger
Alan Reeves
Rod Rice
Phyllis Riikonen
Tim Selfridge
Kim Smith
Larry W Smith
Windermere Stellar
Dawn Swanger
Glenna Tanner
Jeff Tanner
James M. Tapio
Staci Uhey
Danny Vallelunga
Janet Voelz
Debra Warnock
David Weedman
Leona Weedman
Patrick Williams
Neelufer Yusef

Windermere Vancouver- Officers Row
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
850 Officers Row
Vancouver, WA 98661

Phone: (360) 694-4050 or 800-538-2038
Fax: (360) 694-4538
Email: therow@windermere.com
Website: windermerevancouver.com

Jeanne Able
Officers Row Agent
Curtis Ambrose
Omar Arriaga
Cindy Banzer
Marge Bare
Marie Baxter
Mary Benson
John Phillip Betz
Pasqual Contreras
Internet Coordinator
Barbara Corigliano
Sean Coster
Victoria Crumpacker
Kalani Davis
Mary Davis
Relocation Department
Mark Donnelly
Gerry Dowdy
Nathan Drake
Rachael Drake
Julie Drury
Kathy Frisbie
Roger Gantz
Fred Gibbs
Vicki Glasow
Richard Gonzalez
Patrick Gourley
Robin Hamilton
David Harris
Rebecca Harris
Gary D. Heller
Jennifer Hensley
Victor Holmgren
Karen Holove
David Horowitz
Linda Horowitz, CRS,
Ron Howard
Leann Hull
Randy Hunzeker
Kim Kelleher
Mike Lamb
Patty Lilly
Maggie Lind
Keri Lippold
Linda London
Donna Major
Reid Monroe Maritn
Wendy Martin
Carol Miller
Kori Miller
Matthew Morris
Hilda Naranjo
Denice Neddo
Deana Nerton
Mel Ott
Sue Pauley
Lisa Petersen
Patti Philip
Nancy Resnick
Kris Richardson
Ricardo Romagosa
Dan Rupp
Seth Russell
Emily Seelig
Linda Selfridge
Tracy Sheehan
Patti Shmilenko
Dennis Short
Jean Silver
Paula Standfill
Angela Swigert
Tracy Weedman
Erin E. Wright
Amy Zeggert

Windermere Vashon Island
Office Address:
Windermere Vashon
P.O Box 1867/ 17233 Vashon Hwy SW
Vashon Island, WA 98070

Phone: 206-463-9148
Fax: 206-463-2231
Email: vashon@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerevashon.com

Linda Bianchi
Richard Bianchi
Lisa Blair
Heather Brynn
Vashon CanonPrinter
Sue Carette
JR Crawford
Connie Cunningham
Cheryl Dalton
Nancy Davidson
Beth de Groen
John de Groen
Sophia de Groen Stendahl
Rose Edgecombe
Lisa Fiano
Paul Helsby
Julie Hempton
Denise Katz
Dale Korenek
Windermere Office
Kathleen Rindge
Sarah Sullivan
Salli Swift
Deborah Teagardin

Windermere Walla Walla
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Walla Walla
202 South First Avenue
Walla Walla, WA 99362

Phone: 509-525-2151
Fax: 509-529-2717
Email: wallawalla@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewallawalla.com

Bradley Beckner
Arda Blevins
Lynne Chamberlain
Debbie Clark
Jack Conley
Internet Coordinator
Assistant DiDario
Jayne DiDario
Michelle Dunham
Shelly Franklin
Sam Galano
Jackie Howard
Cheryl Husted
Erika Ingersoll
Christina Kennell
Julie Ligon
Assistant Martinez
Jose Martinez
Joshua Morris
Diane Pease
James D Pease
Sam Ramos
Michele Rennie
Judy Schlicher
Rebecca Selph
Doug Simcock
Tom Stokes
Toby Swank
Melissa Tetz
Doug Versteeg
Windermere Walla Walla
Rosalie Wheeler
Assistant Wright
Todd Wright
Dana Yarwood

Windermere Wenatchee
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/NCW
517 N. Wenatchee Avenue
Wenatchee, WA 98801-1158

Phone: 509 662-7184
Fax: 509 662-2656
Email: wenatchee@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewenatchee.com

Russ Andrews
Alex Arriaza
Jody Campbell
Pamela Cooke
Kathy Emerick
Wendy Fries
Maria Gion
Margo Hetterle
Claudia Hildahl
Steve Hildahl
Julie Jessup
Christie Kay
Cliff Larson
Becky Long
Ruth Macias
Wenatchee Office
Kele Osborn
Jerry Paine
Vera H. Salas
Cindy & Tim Seyster
Jolly Ann Seyster
Tim & Cindy Seyster
Jacqueline SwinDell-Hurst
Jamie L. Wallace

Windermere Westport
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Westport, Inc.
2601 Westhaven Drive, P.O. Box 2369
Westport, WA 98595

Phone: 360-268-1234 or 800-377-0787
Fax: 360-268-0375
Email: westport@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewestport.com

Tim Anderson
Lorraine Christensen
Mike Coverdale
Mike Coverdale - Commercial
Jennifer Custer
Steven F. Isaacson
Carol Minor
Donnell Shelton
Kevin Todd
Windermere Westport

Windermere Whidbey Island- Coupeville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whidbey Island
P.O. Box 610, 5 South Main St.
Coupeville, WA 98239

Phone: (360) 678-5858
Fax: (360) 678-6743
Email: centerisle@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewhidbey.com

Bruce Bryson
Mary Bryson
John Carr
Al Chochon
Marilyn Clay
Irene Echenique
John Harris
Jason Joiner
Carmen McFadyen
Clay Miller
Aleshia Mitten
Eric Mitten
Coupeville Office
Jennifer Roberts
Rebecca Robinson
Margaret Wing-Tassano
Jennifer Wynn

Windermere Whidbey Island- Freeland
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/South Whidbey
5531 Freeland Avenue
Freeland, WA 98249

Phone: 360/331-6006
Fax: 360/331-7252
Email: whidbey@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewhidbey.com

Bernadette Aguiar-Johnson
Linda L. Beeman
Dana Bieber
Sharon Boyle
Linda Casale
Peter Casale
Internet Coordinator
Jennifer Cox
Michelle Cussen
Alicia Dietrich
Jill Engstrom
Lori Ferrario
Amber Fouts
Daniel Fouts
Gordy Frederickson
Lyn Gray
Carol Hanson
Marlane Harrington
Libby Hayward
Jenny Hooper
Whidbey Info
Gail Klebold
Jody LaBissoniere
Kevin Lee
Bryan McCourt
Barbara Mearing
Joseph P. Mosolino
Ann Muniz
Louis Muniz
Jim Norman
Freeland Office
Diana Parker
Sw Pending
South Whidbey Property
Amy Raymond
DoNotDelete Revist123114
Ben Robinett
Jim Short
Sandra Stipe
Sheila White
Michelle Williams
Colleen Winslow
Diane Zwiebel

Windermere Whidbey Island- Langley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/South Whidbey
223 Second Street ~ P.O. Box 1068
Langley, WA 98260

Phone: 360/221-8898
Fax: 360/221-8878
Email: whidbey@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewhidbey.com

Julie Bean
Colin Campbell
Langley
Coordinator
Jennifer Cox
Bruce Enter
Barbara Golub
John D. Joynt
Mary Matthew
Shellie Moore
Joseph P.
Mosolino
Langley Office
Nancy Rowan
Steve Strehlau

Windermere Whidbey Island- Oak Harbor
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whidbey Island
32785 SR 20, Suite 4
Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Phone: 360-675-5953
Fax: 360-679-2619
Email: oakharbor@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewhidbey.com

Lila Barker
Ashley Barnette
Annie Cash
Laura Civinskas
Karen Cox
Heather Czlapinski
Linda Earnhart
Cheri English
Marissa Evans
Kristi Jensen
Anita Johnston
Thomas Kier
Julie Kinnaird
Sarah Konopik
Nikki Leith
Karen Lesetmoe
Cheryl Lueder
Erik Mann
Elaine McDowell
Jason McFadyen
Jennifer McGlothlin
Craig McKenzie
Bob McNeill
Debbie Merritt
Aleshia Mitten
Eric Mitten
Andrew O'Brien
Oak Harbor Office
Windermere Whidbey Property
Management
Diana Rasmussen, Admin
Teresa Reynolds
Mitch Richards
Danny Salinger
Stephania Schleipman
Kristen Stavros
David Stuart
Michael Tenore
Terry Reynolds & Tom Kier
Pamela White
Tina Wieldraayer
Jacki Wyatt
Jonathan Young
Judith Zapanta-Borras

Windermere Windermere Solutions
Office Address:
Windermere Solutions LLC
815 Western Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: 206-695-5959
Fax:
Email: info@windermeresolutions.com
Website: www.windermeresolutions.com

Georgia Admin
Joe Q. Agent
Patricia Aranda
Daniel Bailey
York Baur
Joshua Bentley
Randy Bruhl
Poptart Cat
Ben Cearlock
Josh Christenson
Jeff DeMelle
Solutions Foundation
Adam Griffin
Tom Hartnett
Jillian Igarashi
Biab Impersonation
OB Jacobi
R Jacobi
Regina Kelley
Krista King
Jason Lindsey
Bryan Link
Stephen Lloyd
Dawn McLellan
Luke Mongomery
Marissa Myers
Rachel Nickinovich
Solutions Ops
Nick Pollock
Paul A. Quinn
Appstore Review
Kylah Searing
James Smoak
Jim Smoak
Jim Smoak
Todd Steinberg
Elaine Stephens
Kelly Taylor
Override Test
Password Test
Rackspace Test
Windermere Training
Kate Wickersham

Windermere Woodinville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/HLC
13901 NE 175th Street Suite 100
Woodinville, WA 98072

Phone: 425-483-5100
Fax: 425-486-7165
Email: woodinville@windermere.com
Website: windermerewoodinville.com

Test Agent
Jennifer Beeler
Tom Berg
Michelle Blue
Nicole Bosko
Erin Bowersox
Kristina Branson
Kathy Brown
Will Bruce
Karal Cox
Jeff Dyer
Woodinville Email
Ashley Farrington
Maureen A. Goodlund
Rhonda Greer
Rick Grimes
Leah Hernandez
Leif Herrington
Sharon Hyde
Nicole Ji
Stacie Jonson
Sean Kelsey
Carl King
Andrew Koeppen
Steve Laccinole
Leslie Lee
Ann Luce-Bruce
Mallory Luemmen
Jen Moore
Gail Murchison
Bruce Rawlinson
Bonnie Reddick
Victor Reddick
Kevin Scott
Bruce Sellers
Beth Shephard
Jorge Silva
Jill Sjolin
Michelle Sullivan
Scott Taylor
Blue Team
Susan M. Webster
Cydny Wells
Keith Wells
Windermere Woodinville
Aaron Zehm
Aaron & Karen Zehm
Karen Zehm

Windermere Yakima
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Yakima
4002 Englewood Ave
Yakima, WA 98908

Phone: 509-965-6655
Fax: 509-574-8973
Email: yakimastaff@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereyakima.com

Freba Afzali
Sam Alvarez
Gary Bailey
Harry Collier
Holly Cousens
Cheri Daniels
Josh DeBoer
Dustin Dirks
Alex Haro
Christina Hoover
JoAnn Houfek
Sally Kobli
Cami Leonard-Corbin
Becki Mitchell
Daina Moore
Susan Riordan
Melissa Shea
Diana Siebol
Wendy Snipes-Heit
Office Staff
Tom Trepanier
Windermere Yakima

Windermere Yelm
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Yelm
PO Box 1257/ 709 Yelm Ave.East
Yelm, WA 98597

Phone: 360/458-3855
Fax: 360/458-1806
Email: yelm@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereyelm.com

Lida Cozzetti
Catie Crane
Stephanie Crone
Brooke Fairchild
Kristin Friis
Chuck Galambos
Christy Gerrish
Steve Gilling
John Graver
Terry Kaminski
Holly Kappert
Roger Rieke
Linda Roberson
Rick Simpson
Melissa Vadnais
Francine Waters
Sheryl Williams

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 FORMER WINDERMERE CALIFORNIA OFFICES DROP THE WINDERMERE BRAND:

(1) Former Windermere Real Estate Bay Area, Berkeley, CA, office has become a Keller Williams Realty office.

(2, 3, 4 and 5) Former Windermere Real Estate Welcome Home, with locations in Castro Valley, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, CA, have all become Prudential Real Estate Affiliates.

(6) Former proprietor of Windermere Silicon Valley Properties, Mountain View, CA, has moved to The Sereno Group.

(7) Windermere North State Properties, Redding, CA, has gone out of business.

(8 and 9) Former Windermere Dunnigan Realtors of Sacramento, CA, with locations in American River and Land Park has become Dunnigan Realtors.

(10 and 11) Former Windermere Pacific Coast Properties, CA, with locations in La Mesa and San Diego have joined the Sotheby’s International Realty Network.

(12) Former Windermere Property Professionals of Tracy, CA, have become RE/MAX Property Professionals.

(13) Former Windermere Placer County Properties of Auburn, CA, has become Gold Country Realty.

(14 and 15) The former Carlsbad Village Windermere Exclusive Properties has become Real Living Lifestyles Carlsbad Village; and the former Carlsbad Village Faire Windermere Exclusive Properties has become Real Living Lifestyles Carsbad Faire.

(16) Former Windermere Exclusive Properties Escondido has become Real Living Lifestyles Real Estate, Escondido.

(17) Former Windermere Exclusive Properties La Costa / Encinitas has become Real Living Lifestyles La Costa / Encinitas Real Estate.

(18) Former Windermere Exclusive Properties Rancho Bernardo has become Real Living Lifestyles Rancho Bernardo Real Estate.

(19) The former Windermere Exclusive Properties Rancho Santa Fe has become Real Living Lifestyles Rancho Santa Fe / Fairbanks Ranch Real Estate.

(20) Former Windermere Exclusive Properties San Diego — Carmel Valley / La Jolla has become Real Living Lifestyles Carmel Valley Real Estate.

(21) The former Windermere Exclusive Properties Solana Beach has become Real Living Lifestyles Solana Beach Real Estate.

(22) Internet predator and former Windermere Preferred Living of Brea, California, has gone out of business.

(23) Former Windermere Signature Properties of downtown San Diego, California, has dropped the Windermere brand and is now operating as Pacific Sotheby's International Realty.

(24) Former Windermere Yucca Valley, CA, has dropped the Windermere brand and is now Realty Professionals.

 

RE/MAX Files Registration Statement for Proposed Initial Public Offering: (Denver, CO) – RE/MAX, one of the world’s leading franchisors of real estate brokerage services, today announced that it has publicly filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relating to a proposed initial public offering of its common stock. MORE HERE

Windermere Real Estate Aberdeen, Washington, changes ownership to Travis and Jill Jelovich. CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

DOORS CLOSED and OUT OF BUSINESS: WINDERMERE PREFERRED LIVING, BREA, CALIFORNIA, CLAIMS TO BE WINDERMERE "PREFERRED PROPERTIESTM" IN FALSE AND PREDATORY WEBSITE TAKE-DOWN LETTER, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING SUED FOR USING THE "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" PHRASE.

 

THE FORMER WINDERMERE SIGNATURE PROPERTIES OF DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO DROPS THE WINDERMERE BRAND AND BEGINS OPERATION WITH PACIFIC SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY.

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE ANNOUNCES A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, OFFICE

Heather Adkinson and Barry Lawson (at left, respectively) take over as co-owners of Windermere Real Estate K-2 Realty. “We are excited to start this new chapter with Windermere,” comments Adkinson..." and “Our team is ready to share exceptional service, commitment to excellence, and high integrity with our community” notes Lawson."

Windermere Real Estate K-2 Realty is located at 2900 W Broadway, Moses Lake, WA, and currently houses 15 agents: April Adams, Heather Adkinson, Sierra Becken, Walt Bumgarner, Jane Doe, Sandy Eslick, Lisa Garmon, Lynn Garza, Tammy Garza, Lisa Hanley, Norman & Lisa Hanley, Jay Kincaid, Lois Kincaid, Ralph Kincaid, Barry Lawson, Susan McMillan, Vivian Richard, Denise Varney, Pat Wold. GET MORE INFO and THE GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WINDERMERE K2 LAWSUIT LISTINGS HERE.

 

 

 

CONSUMERS ARE URGED TO EXERCISE CAUTION IN THEIR SELECTION OF REAL ESTATE SERVICES...

What everyone who is currently doing business with Windermere Real Estate—or what anyone who is CONSIDERING doing business with Windermere Real Estate—should know about this predatory and consumer-abusive company:

In most cases, your home is the single biggest and most important investment you will ever make. Your ability to afford a home, and your home itself, are at the core of your happiness and human survival. If you can, just imagine for a moment what it would mean to lose your home; or what it would mean to lose the financial resources you’ve toiled so hard to earn—that allow you to own a home. This website is about the many individuals who have actually lost their homes or financial resources—or both—because they had the misfortune to deal with public predator Windermere Real Estate. And the cases presented here are only the ones we KNOW about—we’re finding more all the time. Please consider this next information VERY carefully, for how diligently you consider it may determine if you are willing to risk losing EVERYTHING you have ever worked for, including your home itself.

There are plenty of deceitful Realtors out there, Realtors who are willing to ruin your whole life just to make a buck. Have you ever thought about what might happen if something goes wrong with your home transaction? Most of the national brand real estate companies have policies in place to address agent or broker misconduct, but not Windermere Real Estate—it’s privately held by a single family, with no stockholders.

After all, your home is not a shirt from Macy’s you can return under a well-mandated return policy. It’s true that most home sales and purchases go smoothly, but have you ever asked yourself… “Who will be responsible if I end up with a crooked real estate agent who lies, or who doesn’t disclose something awful they know about the property I’m buying? Who will be responsible if I’m dealing with some agent who’s running a financial scam they’re not revealing? Who will be responsible if my agent is in cahoots with a dishonest seller, or is conspiring with an inspector who looks the other way at serious problems so the agent will recommend him again?”

The answer is, in most cases, it’s the franchise owner and/or the broker to whom the agent is licensed, that is responsible for agent malfeasance. And nobody would be willing to buy a Windermere franchise, or be a Windermere broker, if they’d actually end up being legally responsible for all the damage a dishonest Realtor will cause, because that damage is not done to a simple shirt from Macy’s that you can return: THAT DAMAGE IS DONE TO SOME INNOCENT AND UNSUSPECTING HUMAN BEING’S HOME, LIFE and FINANCIAL FUTURE.

If you're a buyer and some variety of agent misconduct has occurred, the subject property may not be habitable for various reasons, which will turn your life upside down, fast. There’s enormous money and emotional distress at stake. And there will be lawyers, lots of lawyers. Windermere Real Estate employs and profits on so many corrupt franchise owners, brokers and agents, that it maintains its own fulltime, in-house legal services, the Demco Law Firm. If you think for one moment that when your Windermere home deal goes bad, your Windermere broker or franchise owner is going to run over, apologize, and ask what they can do to help you, you’ve got another, very serious think coming. When your Windermere agent crosses over the Realtor code of ethics line, YOU AND YOUR HOME BECOME THE ENEMY.

That broker and/or franchise owner are legally on-the-hook for their agent’s misconduct, and the Windermere Legal War Machine will come down on you like a supersonic ton of bricks. If Windermere did not provide its franchise clients such hardcore legal resources, nobody would even BE a Windermere broker or franchise owner—the exposure is too great. And make no mistake, Windermere will do nothing—and spend nothing—to settle your problem amicably, no matter what indecency the agent or broker has committed. Windermere will force you to sue. Windermere's much-ballyhooed and heavily promoted commitment to "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," is nothing but a marketing lie designed to induce business volume.

Windermere's Demco Law Firm is so unethical, so deceitful and intimidating, that it’s famous in law circles. Its lead attorney, Matthew F. Davis, is renown for his dishonesty, dubious legal tactics, lack of decency and disrespect for the rules of professional conduct. He will do absolutely anything to win—without regard for truth or justice. He will lie to courts and opposing parties. He will file fallacious and erroneous documents with the court. He will email opposing parties telling them not to hire a lawyer when he has just served them a lawsuit. He will call a judge's chambers and request more time without informing the opposing party. He will file orders for a bench trial when he knows a jury trial has been demanded and paid for. He will trick, stall, coerce, menace and threaten. He will invent and extend costly, mendacious Windermere litigation and abuse the legal process for no other reason than to exhaust an opponent’s pocketbook. If he can, he will get YOUR attorney to quit—a favorite tactic.

Windermere, Davis and Demco Law will push a $5 cat poop case all the way to the state supreme court, just to avoid paying damages, because it’s all in the Windermere operating budget—while your legal expenses will be coming out of your savings, retirement account, home equity or credit cards, if you even have those resources. And in the end, Windermere/Davis/Demco will try to coerce silence about your bad Windermere experience by forcing you into signing a legal "settlement" agreement that terminates your speech rights, so you can't ever tell anybody or inform the public about your Windermere debacle. When you sign, they'll let you out of the bogus lawsuit.

Don't be fooled when your particular local Windermere office says "Oh... OUR Windermere franchise doesn't work that way." Every Windermere franchise in every state pays a portion of every commission to franchise policy-maker Windermere Services Company, and its legal war chest. If you are dealing with Windermere Real Estate, you are unwittingly being duped into funding Windermere's financial genocide against other damaged Windermere customers.

If anything does indeed go wrong with your Windermere home transaction—like it has for so many—you may never recover. When these profoundly devastating problems occur, the resulting irreversible human toll of precious time, money and brutal emotional distress will forever ruin your life and future. If you are considering doing business with Windermere Real Estate, think VERY carefully about doing so.

REMEMBER: IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH YOUR WINDERMERE DEAL, IT'S FAR EASIER—AND CHEAPER—FOR WINDERMERE LAWYERS TO STALL AND SLOWLY WASTE YOUR ENTIRE NET WORTH ON LITIGATION, THAN IT IS FOR WINDERMERE TO STEP UP AND MAKE YOU WHOLE.

 

WINDERMERE'S PRIVITY ARGUMENT

DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL DISPUTE WITH WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE? YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ADD FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY TO YOUR COMPLAINT.

Franchiser Windermere Services Company prevailed in a motion in which it has admitted that it is in tradename privity with its Windermere network owner franchisees. (Access the motion here)

Are you suing or litigating against Windermere Real Estate? Are you the victim of a dishonest Windermere agent, broker, or franchise owner who is forcing you to sue to recover honest damages? Franchiser Windermere Services Company has prevailed in a motion in which it has admitted that it is in tradename privity with its franchisees, which may allow you to add  Windermere Services and/or the entire Windermere Real Estate Network of franchise owners to your complaint. Ask your lawyer. Read what follows here, then print out Windermere’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and take it to your legal counsel, or send your legal counsel the link to this story.

In King County Superior Court case number 05-2-34433 SEA, to dispose of a defendant’s counterclaims in their  defamation and trade libel lawsuit of intimidation brought against a buyer who publicized Windermere lies and its refusal to honor its public commitment to the “highest ethical standards, uncompromising honesty and integrity,” franchiser Windermere Services Company and franchisee broker Windermere Real Estate/Northeast—and their lawyer, Matthew Davis of Demco Law Firm—argued in a motion for partial summary judgment that “It is true that Windermere Services Company was not itself a party to the first lawsuit, but as the owner of the Windermere tradename, it is in privity with Windermere Real Estate/Northeast.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines privity as:

privity (priv-e-tee) 1. The connection or relationship between two parties, each having a legally recognized interest in the same subject matter (such as a transaction, proceeding, or piece of property); mutuality of interest <privity of contract>

The court agreed with Windermere’s argument and granted its motion. But when it was clear Windermere would face a jury, it voluntarily dismissed its own lawsuit under CR 41, after first pressuring the defendant without success to be silent and sign away his protected speech rights.

While this writer is not an attorney or legal expert, and this news coverage is not intended in any way to be legal advice, it has been noted that privity works both ways, and suggested that the court’s ruling on Windermere tradename privity could be interpreted or construed to mean that Windermere Services Company shares automatic mutual liability for any harmful act or violation of law committed by any Windermere franchisee broker, because the parties share the same tradename; and/or that ALL Windermere Network franchisee brokers share automatic mutual liability for ANY OTHER Windermere Network franchisee broker’s harmful act or violation of law, through sharing the same tradename. When you are damaged by any Windermere broker or agent, the entire Windermere Network may now be mutually liable.

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE PROVIDERS:
• COLDWELL BANKER
• CENTURY 21
• JOHN L. SCOTT
• RE/MAX
• PRUDENTIAL
• KELLER WILLIAMS
• HELP-U-SELL
• ASSIST-2-SELL

 

_______________

 

 
Smart Consumer SideBar:
 
Read the FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK REPORT...

"SUSPECTED MONEY LAUNDERING IN THE RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY"

Courtesy of www.FinCEN.gov
Download this important info here.

AGGRESSIVE, HARDBALL LEGAL TACTICS:

WINDERMERE ABUSES THE LEGAL PROCESS THROUGH FILING FALSE AND MENDACIOUS LAWSUITS TO INTIMIDATE, BANKRUPT, SILENCE AND COERCE DAMAGED CUSTOMERS OUT OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RIGHTS

REALTY GIANT DEMANDS "DARK CLAUSE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS" THAT TERMINATE DAMAGED CUSTOMER SPEECH RIGHTS, BUT THEN RUNS AWAY AND VOLUNTARILY DISMISSES ITS OWN LAWSUIT WHEN VICTIMS WON'T SIGN...

As WindermereWatch proves, there are many Windermere victims—more all the time—and when those victims use the media to complain and warn others, franchiser Windermere Services Company and local franchise owners sue them for libel and defamation through specious lawsuits that are intended to intimidate and silence. Read one of the phony lawsuits here.

Then Windermere tries to coerce victims into signing a “dark clause settlement agreement” that permanently terminates their speech rights.

In the Mark and Carol DeCoursey case dark clause, Windermere even tried to dictate what the DeCourseys could say to other individuals in simple conversation: "The DeCourseys agree that they shall not communicate with any person about their dispute with Windermere unless asked, and if asked, will only state that they have resolved their claim to their satisfaction." Read the DeCoursey Case Dark Clause here.

And in another of its dark clauses, Windermere required "...that he will cease all efforts of any kind (c) to publicly state opinions or beliefs about Windermere Real Estate." Read that Dark Clause here.

This predatory legal tactic is known as abuse of process or malicious prosecution. When a victim refuses to sign, Windermere runs away and voluntarily dismisses its own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41—just before trial, after costing the victim years of distress and yet thousands more to defend against the false action.

In one example, franchisor Windermere Services Company served an outspoken victim a fallacious lawsuit for libel and defamation, and then immediately sent them an email instructing that they "...need not hire an attorney," and further stating, “…we will try to resolve this directly and outside the legal system." Incredibly, Windermere implements both the aggression and arrogance to overtly and unabashedly order that a damaged customer it has falsely sued be unrepresented by counsel and resolve their dispute outside the very same legal system in which Windermere has brought suit against them.

In this day and age it all sounds so inconceivably Orwellian—but it's true.

 

Windermere Real Estate Opens Rogue River Office: Rogue River, OR - Susan Jaeger and Marian Szewc, Principal Brokers/Owners of Windermere Real Estate Southern Oregon proudly announce the grand opening of their new Windermere Real Estate Office in Rogue River, OR. The mother/daughter team began converting their office from River City Realty & Mgt, LLC to Windermere in October of this year and will make it official by hosting a grand opening event in January of 2015. MORE

 

 

 

 

 

CLICK BLUE TEXT LINKS TO

REPORTS & COURT CASES AS OF:

 

 

Civil Jury Trial Scheduled 05/04/2012 VACATED on 4/26/2012. Superior Court Minute Order states in part: "...Plaintiff discusses with the Court with regards to the settlement agreement and requests an exparte hearing..." FURTHER CASE UPDATE: Superior Court Minute Order from Ex Parte hearing of 5/2/2012 states in part "...Counsel addresses the Court on the proposed request for PARTIAL dismissal. (emphasis added)

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL BY COURT on 06/01/2012

FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY and WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUE SAN DIEGO'S FORMER WINDERMERE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTIES FRANCHISEES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT/WARRANTY

john jacobipaul drayna

 

Above L to R, 1-5: John W. Jacobi is Chairman and Founder of franchiser Windermere Services Company; Geoffrey P. Wood, Current Governing Person and Windermere Services Company CEO; Jill Jacobi-Wood, Windermere Services President and current Governing Person; current Governing Person and Windermere Services General Manager, John O'Brien "OB"Jacobi; Windermere Services Company General Counsel and Governing Person, attorney Paul Drayna—WSBA# 26636

 

Above L to R, 6&7: Bob Deville, Principal, Broker, Owner, and President of Windermere Services Southern California; Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Coachella Valley, California. Bob Bennion, Principal and Owner of Windermere Services Southern California; Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Coachella Valley, California.

Windermere Real Estate Services Company vs. Lifestyles Services Corp.

"67. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants contend that the plaintiffs, in protecting their rights under the Franchise Agreements in light of defendants’ defaults, have somehow unlawfully interfered with defendants’ rights under the respective Franchise Agreements alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs dispute any such contention and allege that they have at all times acted properly and in accordance with the express terms of the Franchise Agreements and California law."

—From the SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION in Plaintiff Windermere's

Complaint for Breaches of Contract and Declaratory Relief

Read the Lifestyles Cross-Complaint and Answer HERE

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Case No. 37-2011-00089709-CU-BC-CTL

COMPLAINT FOR BREACHES OF CONTRACT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, a Washington corporation; and WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation;

Plaintiffs;


v.

 

LIFESTYLES SERVICES CORP., a California corporation; LIFESTYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/RSF CORP., a California corporation; MRJR, Inc., a California corporation; STEPHEN D. RODGERS, an individual; MARK LOSCHER, an individual; MAUREEN LOSCHER, an individual; JAMES BROWNE, an individual; SHARON BROWNE, an individual; LARRY ANDERSON, an individual; BARBARA ANDERSON, an individual; ROBERT BEHIC, an individual; ROBIN BEHIC, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Windermere Real Estate Services Company and Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. allege as follows:

PARTIES

1.            Plaintiff Windermere Real Estate Services Company (“WSC”) is a Washington Corporation. WSC owns certain trademarks including the trade names “Windermere” and Windermere Real Estate” and associated logo (the “Trademark”); and WSC has developed certain standards, techniques, methods, specifications, procedures and programs for the operation of a real estate brokerage business (the “Windermere System”). WSC has the exclusive right to use and license others to use the Trademark and the Windermere System and other WSC services. WSC is qualified to do business in California.

2.             Plaintiff Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. (“Windermere Southern California”) is a California corporation. Windermere Southern California is an “Area Representative” for WSC. Windermere Southern California and WSC offer licenses to use the Trademark and Windermere System in San Diego County, California. 1

3.            Defendant Lifestyles Services Corp. is a California corporation and a licensee pursuant to a Franchise License Agreement dated April 17, 2009, and amendments thereto (the “Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement”). A copy of the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement with its amendments is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and incorporated by reference.

4.            Defendant Lifestyles Services Solana Beach/RSF Corp. is a California corporation and a licensee pursuant to a Franchise Agreement dated March 23, 21010 (the “Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement”). A copy of the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement with its amendments is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated by reference.

5.            Defendant Stephen D. Rodgers (“Rodgers”) is a California resident. Resident is the sole principal of defendant Lifestyles Services Corp. and defendant Lifestyles Services Solana Beach/RSF Corp. Rodgers is a party to both the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement and the and the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement. Rodgers executed a personal guaranty in connection with the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement, and is thus a guarantor of the licensee’s obligations under this Franchise Agreement. A copy of Rodger’s personal guaranty is included within Exhibit 1. Rodgers also executed a personal guaranty in connection with the Lifetstyles 2010 Franchise Agreement, and is thus also a guarantor of the licensee’s obligations under this Franchise Agreement. A copy of Rodger’s personal guaranty is included within Exhibit 2.
_______________________

1 Collectively WSC and Windermere Southern California will be referred to herein as “Windermere” or simply “plaintiffs.”

6.            Defendant MRJR, Inc. (“MRJR””) is a California corporation and a licensee pursuant to a Windermere Real Estate License Agreement dated April 1, 2001 ((the “MRJR Franchise Agreement”). A copy of the MRJR Franchise Agreement with its amendments is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and incorporated by reference.

7.            Defendant Mark Loscher is a California resident. Mark Loscher is a principal of MRJR, and guarantor of the licensee’s obligations under the MRJR Franchise Agreement.

8.            Defendant Maureen Loscher is a California resident. Maureen Loscher is a guarantor of the licensee’s obligations under the MRJR Franchise Agreement.

9.            Defendant James Browne is a California resident. James Browne is a principal of MRJR, and a guarantor of the licensee’s obligations the MRJR Franchise Agreement.

10.            Defendant Sharon Browne is a California resident. Sharon Browne is a guarantor of the licensee’s obligations under the MRJR Franchise Agreement.

11.            Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendant Larry Anderson is a Montana resident. Larry Anderson is a principal of MRJR, and a guarantor of the of the licensee’s obligations under the MRJR Franchise Agreement, and these agreements were entered into within California.

12.            Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendant Barbara Anderson is a Montana resident. Barbara Anderson is a principal of MRJR, and a guarantor of the of the licensee’s obligations under the MRJR Franchise Agreement, and these agreements were entered into within California.

13.            Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Robert Behic is a California resident. Robert Behic is a principal of MRJR, and a guarantor of the licensee’s obligations under the MRJR Franchise Agreement.

14.            Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant Robin Behic is a California resident. Robin Behic is a guarantor of the licensee’s obligations under the MRJR Franchise Agreement.

15.            As alleged herein, the act and omissions upon which the claims alleged herein are based occurred in San Diego County.

16.            Plaintiffs are informed and believes and thereon alleges that the defendants sued under the fictitious named Does 1 through 50 are individuals or entities that have engaged  in the acts and omissions alleged herein and are also responsible for the harm caused (or to be caused) to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of these fictitiously named defendants, and will amend this complaint to include their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.

THE MRJR FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS AND RELATED PROMISSORY NOTES

17.            In or about April 1, 2001, plaintiff WSC entered into the MRJR franchise agreement that is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The parties entered numerous amendments in connection with the MRJR Franchise Agreement. Plaintiff Windermere Southern California is a party to the most recent amendments.

18.            Defendants MRJR, Loscher, Browne, Anderson and Behic incurred and now owe substantial past due franchise fees to Windermere under the MRJR Franchise Agreement. That past due fees were reduced to two promissory notes in favor of WSC.

19.            The first promissory note is dated March 15, 2009, executed by defendant Mark Loscher, is in the amount of $892,212.46 (the “March 2009 Promissory Note”). A copy of the March 2009 Promissory Note is attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and is incorporated herein by reference. The sum of $810,949.37, plus interest, is past due and owing on this note.

20.            Defendants Mark Loscher, Maureen Loscher, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Robert Behic and Robin Behic executed an “Unconditional Guaranty of Payment” dated March 15, 2009 (the “March 2009 Guaranty”). These defendants thus personally guaranteed the payment of all amounts owed under the March 2009 Promissory Note. A copy of the March 2009 Guaranty is attached hereto as Exhibit 5, and is incorporated herein by reference.

21.            Neither defendants MRJR, Mark Loscher nor any of the guarantors have made all payments due and owing on the March 2009 Promissory Note and each are in default now. The March 2009 Promissory Note contains an acceleration clause. The sum of $810,949.37 remains due and owing under the March 2009 Promissory Note and the March 2009 Guaranty, plus interest which continues to accrue. The final amount due will be determined at trial.

22.            The second promissory note dated December 1, 2009, executed by defendant Mark Loscher, is in the amount of $96,112.29 ((the “December 2009 Promissory Note”). A copy of the December 2009 Promissory Note is attached hereto as Exhibit 6, and is incorporated herein by reference. The sum of $76,547.60, plus interest, is past due and owing on this note.

23.            Defendants Mark Loscher, Maureen Loscher, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Robert Behic and Robin Behic also executed an “Unconditional Guaranty of Payment” dated December 1, 2009 (the “December 2009 Guaranty”). These defendants thus personally guaranteed the payments of all amounts owed under the December 2009 Promissory Note. A copy of the December 2009 Guaranty is attached hereto as Exhibit 7, and is incorporated herein by reference.

24.            Neither defendants MRJR, Mark Loscher nor any of the guarantors have made all payments due and owing on the December 2009 Promissory Note and are each in default now. The December 2009 Promissory Note contains an acceleration clause. The sum of $76,547.60 remains due and owing under the December 2009 Promissory Note and the December 2009 Guaranty, plus interest which continues to accrue. The final amount due will be determined at trial.

25.            Since December 2009, defendants MRJR, Mark Loscher, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Larry Anderson, and Robert Behic continued to accrue past due franchise fees in the sum of $171,965.60 under the MRJR Franchise Agreement, which remain unpaid, plus interest which continues to accrue. Accordingly, these defendants are also in default under the MRJR Franchise Agreement. The final amount due will be determined at trial.

THE LIFESTYLES SERVICES FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS

26.            In or about April 17, 2009, defendants Lifestyles Services Corp. and its principal, defendant Stephen Rodgers entered into the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement that is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As explained above defendant personally guaranteed the obligations of the licensee under the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement.

27.            Pursuant to this written agreement (Exhibit 1), monthly reports and fee payments are due by the fifth of each month and are considered delinquent if received after the 10th day of each month. Defendant Rodgers failed to make all payments due under the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement and is now in default. Defendant Rodgers owes $35,884.20, and interest continues to accrue on the unpaid amount.

28. In or about March 23, 2010, defendants Lifestyles Services Solana Beach/RSF Corp. and its principal, defendant Stephen Rodgers entered into the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement that is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. As set forth above, defendant Rodgers personally guaranteed the obligations of the licensee under the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement.

29.            Pursuant to this written agreement (Exhibit 2)), monthly reports and fee payments are due by the fifth of each month and are considered delinquent if received after the 10th day of each month. Defendant Rodgers failed to make all payments due under the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement and is now in default. Defendant Rodgers owes $14,534.18, and interest continues to accrue on the unpaid amount.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract — March 2009 Promissory Note)

(Plaintiff WSC against Defendants MRJR, Mark Loscher, Maureen Loscher, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Robert Behic, Robin Behic and Does 1 through 10)

30.            Plaintiff WSC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.

31.            As alleged above, on or about March 15, 2009, WSC and defendants MRJR, Mark Loscher, Maureen Loscher, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Robert Behic and Robin Behic entered into the March 2009 Promissory Note and March 2009 Guaranty as described above, and attached hereto as Exhibits 4 and 5 respectively.

32.            The March 2009 Promissory Note and March 2009 Guaranty constitute valid and binding written contracts.

33.            Plaintiff WSC has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required by the terms and conditions of these written agreements.

34.            Defendants’ failure to pay all amounts now due and owing on the March 2009 Promissory Notes constitutes a breach of this agreement.

35.            Defendants’ breaches of the March 2009 Promissory Note have caused damage to plaintiff WSC in an amount that will be proven at trial.

36.            Pursuant to the express terms of the March 2009 Promissory Note and March 2009 Guaranty, plaintiff WSC is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract — December 2009 Promissory Note)

(Plaintiff WSC against Defendants  MRJR, Mark Loscher, Maureen Loscher, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Robert Behic, Robin Behic and Does 11 through 20)

37.            Plaintiff WSC realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.

38.            As alleged above, on or about December 1, 2009, WSC and defendants MRJR, Mark Loscher, Maureen Loscher, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Robert Behic and Robin Behic entered into the December 2009 Promissory Note and December 2009 Guaranty as described above and attached hereto as Exhibits 6 and 7 respectively.

39.            The December 2009 Promissory Note and December 2009 Guaranty constitute valid and binding written contracts.

40.            Plaintiff WSC has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required by the terms and conditions of these written agreements.

41.            Defendants’ failure to pay all amounts now due and owing on the December 2009 Promissory Notes constitutes a breach of this agreement.

42.            Defendants’ breaches of the December 2009 Promissory Note and December 2009 Guaranty have caused damage to plaintiff WSC in an amount that will be proven at trial.

43.            Pursuant to the express terms of the December  2009 Promissory Note and December 2009 Guaranty, plaintiff WSC is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract — MRJR Franchise Agreement)

(Plaintiffs WSC and Windermere Southern California against Defendants MRJR, Mark Loscher, Maureen Brown, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Larry Anderson, Barbara Anderson, Robert Behic, Robin Behic, and Does 21 through 30)

44.            Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.

45.            As alleged above, on or about April 1, 2001, plaintiffs and defendants MRJR, Mark Loscher, Maureen Browne, James Browne, Sharon Browne, Larry Anderson, Barbara Anderson, Robert Behic, and Robin Behic entered into the MRJR Franchise Agreement and personal guaranty of all licensees’ obligations under that agreement, as set forth in Exhibit 3.

46.            The MRJR agreement ia s valid and binding written contract.

47.            Plaintiffs have performed all conditions required by the terms and conditions of the MRJR Franchise Agreement.

48.            Defendants’ failure to pay all amounts now due and owing on the MRJR Franchise Agreement constitutes a breach of this agreement.

49.            Defendants’ breaches of the MRJR Franchise Agreement have caused damage to plaintiffs in an amount that will be proven at trial.

50.            Pursuant to the express terms of the MRJR Franchise Agreement, plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract — Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement)

(Plaintiffs WSC and Windermere Southern California against Defendants Lifestyles Services Corp., Stephen Rodgers, and Does 31 through 40)

51.            Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.

52.            As alleged above, on or about April 17, 2009, plaintiffs and defendants Lifestyles Services Corp. and Stephen Rodgers entered into the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement and personal guaranty of all licensees’ obligations under that agreement, as set forth in Exhibit 1.

53.            The Lifestyles 2009 Franchise  is a valid and binding written contract.

54.            Plaintiffs have performed all conditions required by the terms and conditions of the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement.

55.            Defendants’ failure to pay all amounts now due and owing on the Lifestyles  2009 Franchise Agreement constitutes a breach of this agreement.

56.            Defendants’ breaches of the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement have caused damage to plaintiffs in an amount that will be proven at trial.

57.            Pursuant to the express terms of the Lifestyles 2009 Franchise Agreement, plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract — Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement)

(Plaintiffs WSC and Windermere Southern California against Defendants Lifestyles Services Corp. Solana Beach/RSF and Stephen Rodgers, and Does 41 through 50)

58.            Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.

59.            As alleged above, on or about March 23, 2010, plaintiffs and defendants Lifestyles Services Corp. and Stephen Rodgers entered into the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement and personal guaranty of all licensees’ obligations under that agreement, as set forth in Exhibit 2.

60.            The Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement is a valid and binding written contract.

61.            Plaintiffs have performed all conditions required by the terms and conditions of the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement.

62.            Defendants’ failure to pay all amounts now due and owing on the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement constitutes a breach of this agreement.

63.            Defendants’ breaches of the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement have caused damage to plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at trial.

64.            Pursuant to the express terms of the Lifestyles 2010 Franchise Agreement, plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this action.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Relief)

(All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants and Does 1 through 50, inclusive)

65.            Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.

66.            A dispute has arisen between plaintiffs on the one hand, and defendants, on the other hand, regarding the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the Franchise Agreements alleged in this action.

67.            Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants contend that the plaintiffs, in protecting their rights under the Franchise Agreements in light of defendants’ defaults, have somehow unlawfully interfered with defendants’ rights under the respective Franchise Agreements alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs dispute any such contention and allege that they have at all times acted properly and in accordance with the express terms of the Franchise Agreements and California law.

68.            Accordingly, plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that plaintiffs actions have been justified, privileged, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreements, without any unlawful interference of defendants’ right under those agreements.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Windermere Real Estate Services Company and Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. pray for relief as follows:

1.            For an award of general and special damages against the defendants according to proof at trial;

2.            For interest as set forth in the written agreements;

3.            For costs of suit;

4.            For attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Franchise Agreements, Promissory Notes, and Guaranty’s alleged herein; and

5.            For such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

April 15, 2011

PESTOTNIK + GOLD LLP

______________________________
Timothy R. Pestotnik
Russell A. Gold
Russell F. Winslow
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Windermere Real Estate Services

Company, and Windermere Services Southern California, Inc.

 

 

 

Cross-Complaint filed by former Windermere Exclusive Properties franchisees Lifestyles Services Corp., Lifestyles Services Solana Beach/RSF Corp., MRJR, Inc., and Rodgers, Loschers, Brownes, Andersons and Behics, alleges...

"Cross-Defendants [Windermere Real Estate Services Company and Windermere Services Southern California] Engage in a Scheme to Disrupt and Destroy Cross-Complainants' Current Businesses and Future Business Endeavors"

"17.            From the time that the Cross-Complainants exercised their contractual right to terminate the Franchise License Agreement, and while Cross-Complainants were still operating as Windermere franchisees, Cross-Defendants engaged in a pattern of unlawful and predatory acts designed to specifically harm Cross-Complainants and destroy their businesses as Windermere franchisees and their future business endeavors.

18.            Namely, Windermere SoCal actively solicited Cross-Complainants' agents and managers and did, in fact, hire some of these individuals away from Cross-Complainants. This act is specifically prohibited by Windermere. These newly retained agents and managers were hired away to work at a Windermere franchise that is owned or operated by Windermere SoCal and which was located 1/2 of a block across the street from one of Cross-Complainants' Windermere franchises." JUMP TO THESE ALLEGATIONS HERE

CROSS-COMPLAINT CHARGES FRANCHISER WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY AND WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WITH INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS, INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, TRADE LIBEL, AND VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR/UNLAWFUL COMPTETTION LAW

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE CROSS-COMPLAINT HERE

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION

CASE NO. 37-2011-00089709-CU-BC-CTL

Assigned for All Purposes:
Judge: William R. Nevitt
Dept.: C-64

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND RESTITUTION

Complaint Filed: April 15, 2011

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, a Washington corporation; and WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation

Plaintiffs,           

LIFESTYLES SERVICES CORP., a California corporation; LIFESTYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/ RSF CORP., a California corporation; MRJR, INC. a California corporation; STEPHEN D. RODGERS, an individual; MARK LOSCHER, an individual; MAUREEN LOSCHER, an individual; JAMES BROWNE, an individual; SHARON BROWNE, an individual; LARRY ANDERSON, BARBARA ANDERSON, an individual; ROBERT BEHIC, an individual; ROBIN BEHIC, an individual; and DOES I through 50, inclusive,           

Defendants.

LIFESTYLES SERVICES CORP., a California corporation; LIFESTYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/ RSF CORP., a California corporation; MRJR, INC., a California corporation;

Cross-Complainants,

vs.

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, a Washington corporation; and WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; and ROES I through 50, inclusive.

Cross-Defendants.

Cross-Complainants, LIFE STYLES SERVICES CORP., LIFE STYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/RSF CORP., and MRJR, INC. (hereinafter also collectively referred to as "Cross-Complainants"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sue Cross-Defendants, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY CORPORATION and WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., as follows:

Jurisdiction and Venue

I.            Jurisdiction in the Superior Court of the County of San Diego is proper under article 6, section 10 of the Constitution of the State of California.

2.           Venue in the Superior Court of the County of San Diego is proper under section 395.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the liability of Cross-Defendants arose in the County of San Diego.

Parties

3.            Cross-Complainant, LIFE STYLES SERVICES CORP. (individually referred to as "LS"), is a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego, California.

4.            Cross-Complainant, LIFE STYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/RSF CORP. ("LS Solana"), is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Solana Beach, California.

5.            Cross-Complainant, MRJR, INC. ("MRJR"), is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Escondido, California.

6.             Cross-Defendant, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY CORPORATION ("Windermere"), is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business located at 5424 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, Washington. Windermere is a franchisor which offers franchises for the establishment, development, and operation of businesses that specialize in providing real estate brokerage services. Upon information and belief, Windermere has filed necessary registration documents with the California Department of Corporations in order to offer and sell Windermere franchises in California and has designated an agent for service in California.

7.            Cross-Defendant, WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. ("Windermere SoCal"), is a California corporation with its principal place of business located at 71-691 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California. Windermere SoCal is an Area Representative of the Windermere franchises system charged with the responsibility of directing growth and operation of the Windermere franchise in Southern California, and overseeing the development of the Windermere brand in Southern California. Windermere contracts with Windermere SoCal to administer the Windermere System in Southern California.

8.            Cross-Complainants are unaware of the true names and capacities of cross-defendants sued herein as DOES I through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these cross-defendants by such fictitious names. Cross-Complainants will amend this Cross-Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Cross-Complainants are informed and believe and based thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named cross-defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this Cross-Complaint.

9.            Cross-Complainants are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned each of the cross-defendants, including the fictitiously names cross-defendants, was the agent and employee of each of the remaining cross-defendants and, in doing the things alleged in this Cross-Complaint, was acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment.

General Allegations

10.            In or about April 1, 2001, MRJR executed a Windermere Franchise License Agreement for the operation of a Windermere franchise. (A copy of the subject franchise agreement is annexed hereto as Exhibit "A").

11.            On April 17, 2009, LS executed a Windermere Franchise License Agreement for the operation of a Windermere franchise. (A copy of the subject franchise agreement is annexed hereto as Exhibit "B").

12.            On March 23, 2010, LS Solana executed a Windermere Franchise License Agreement for the operation of a Windermere franchise. (A copy of the subject franchise agreement is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C").

13.            As a result of the operation of these Windermere franchises, Cross-Complainants have developed substantial business relationships with numerous clients and real estate agents.

14.            Under the terms of each of the Franchise License Agreements, either party may terminate the Franchise License Agreement at any time and for any reason so long as notice of intent to terminate is provided 180 days prior to the termination date.

15.            In December, 2010, Cross-Complainants exercised their right to terminate their respective Franchise License Agreements by supplying written notice to Cross-Defendants of their intent to terminate the Franchise License Agreements.

16.            Each of the Cross-Complainants intended to no longer operate its business as a Windermere franchisee after the end of the 180 days, and instead intended to operate a business competitive to Windermere.

Cross-Defendants Engage in a Scheme to Disrupt and Destroy
Cross-Complainants' Current Businesses and Future Business Endeavors

17.            From the time that the Cross-Complainants exercised their contractual right to terminate the Franchise License Agreement, and while Cross-Complainants were still operating as Windermere franchisees, Cross-Defendants engaged in a pattern of unlawful and predatory acts designed to specifically harm Cross-Complainants and destroy their businesses as Windermere franchisees and their future business endeavors.

18.            Namely, Windermere SoCal actively solicited Cross-Complainants' agents and managers and did, in fact, hire some of these individuals away from Cross-Complainants. This act is specifically prohibited by Windermere. These newly retained agents and managers were hired away to work at a Windermere franchise that is owned or operated by Windermere SoCal and which was located 1/2 of a block across the street from one of Cross-Complainants' Windermere franchises.

19.            In addition, Windermere SoCal placed a full page advertisement in local newspapers that not only advertised its new Windermere franchises in extremely close proximity to Cross-Complainants' Windermere franchises, but also listed the offices and addresses of Cross-Complainants' franchises, absent receiving prior written authorization from Cross-Complainants.

20.            Although Windermere SoCal apparently found it appropriate to list Cross-Complainants' businesses in the advertisement, the only website address that was listed is that of Windermere SoCal, thus ensuring that any internet leads generated by this advertisement would be directed solely to Windermere SoCal (even though Cross-Complainants' businesses are being used as part of the advertisement).

21.            Clearly, this is a direct effort by Windermere SoCal to mislead consumers and to gain a competitive advantage using tactics that are unprofessional and contrary to law.

22.            Cross-Complainants recognized that once they ceased being Windermere franchisees, Windermere and Windermere SoCal intend on competing against them in the marketplace.

23.            However, Cross-Complainants did not anticipate that such "competition” would take place while they were still operating as Windermere franchisees.

24.            At the time that the Franchise License Agreements were signed, it was disclosed to Cross-Complainants that Windermere and Windermere SoCal would be involved in approving the location of each of the Cross-Complainants' franchises.

25.            A clear and unequivocal conflict of interest exists in Windermere and Windermere SoCal opening, operating and advertising a Windermere franchise in direct competition with Cross-Complainants' businesses when they were still operating as Windermere franchisees. This is especially so given the access to information that Windermere and Windermere SoCal possess in relation to the general location, neighborhood, and traffic patterns of Cross-Complainants' business locations.

26.            It is particularly distasteful and improper that Windermere's new businesses are now being staffed by Cross-Complainants' former agents.

27.            Indeed, such intentional and wrongful conduct by Windermere and Windermere SoCal interfered with Cross-Complainants' ability to operate their businesses when they were still Windermere franchisees, and constituted a tortious interference of the rights that Cross-Complainants possessed pursuant to the Franchise License Agreements.

28.            What has also become apparent is that Windermere and Windermere SoCal have capitalized upon the knowledge that they possessed regarding Cross-Complainants' intention to terminate the Franchise License Agreement and the expiration of their Lease Agreements for their own personal benefit.

29.            For example, knowing full well that MRJR's lease was due to expire, Windermere SoCal entered into negotiations with MRJR's landlord for purposes of trying to enter into a lease agreement at the very premises where MRJR's current Windermere franchise is located.

30.            As a result, the landlord initially refused to enter into discussions with MRJR about extending/renewing the current lease agreement. After several discussions with the landlord, it was ultimately agreed that the landlord would enter into a new Lease Agreement with MRJR.

31.            However, such a Lease Agreement came at a substantial increase in the monetary terms of the Lease Agreement that were provided to MRJR. Again, Windermere SoCal's actions, with knowledge of and/or participation by Windermere, have had a direct, adverse impact on Cross-Complainants' businesses.

32.            In addition, Windermere SoCal has engaged in a campaign to disparage the Cross-Complainants to other Windermere franchisees in the Southern California market and to other competitors of the Cross-Complainants. Namely, when one of LS Solana's top agents was being recruited recently by another Windermere franchisee, an act which is specifically prohibited by Windermere, the agent was being solicited with a cautionary sales pitch that if he did not leave the employ of LS Solana, "he would be on the wrong team." When asked what that meant, the rival franchisee stated that they were aware that LS Solana and LS owed One Million Dollars to Windermere and Windermere SoCal and that Windermere SoCal was out to "get" LS Solana and LS.

33.            The amount of money allegedly owed to Windermere and Windermere SoCal was
not common knowledge, and would only be known to another Windermere franchisee by virtue of Windermere and/or Windermere SoCal stating this to the franchisee. However, such a statement that One Million Dollars was owed was knowingly false and misleading. At the time, Windermere was only claiming that it was owed an amount substantially less than One Million Dollars. There is certainly no reason for another Windermere franchisee to have access to Cross-Complainants' financial situation, much less know that Windermere SoCal has targeted our clients.

34.            Clearly, such disparaging and untrue comments were designed to damage Cross-Complainants and destroy any possibility that they could continue to carry out the remainder of their Windermere franchises, much less their respective future business endeavors.

35.            Because of Windermere and Windermere SoCal's injurious and anticompetitive conduct, Cross-Complainants transitioned over to their new brand, Real Living, as of April 26, 2011. Cross-Complainants simultaneously accomplished a complete de-association with and de-identification of their business from their former posture as Windermere franchises. Windermere and Windermere SoCal's injurious conduct has continued unabated however.

36.            As a result, Cross-Complainants have suffered damages.

37.            All conditions precedent to the commencement of this action have occurred, or have been performed, excused, satisfied or waived.

38.            Cross-Complainants have been compelled to retain the services of the undersigned attorneys and have agreed to pay their attorneys a reasonable fee for services rendered. Cross-Complainants are entitled to recover from Cross-Defendants their attorney's fees and costs.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against All Cross-Defendants For Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations)

39.            Cross-Complainants incorporate each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs I through 38, supra, as if fully set forth herein.

40.            Cross-Complainants possess several valid and enforceable contractual relations with agents for the purposes of providing real estate brokerage services.

41.            Cross-Defendants knew about the agreements between Cross-Complainants and their agents and, were, indeed, compensated by virtue of royalty payments as a result of these agreements.

42.            Cross-Defendants arbitrarily, wrongfully, and intentionally interfered with the agreements between Cross-Complainants and their agents. Cross-Defendants' intentional acts were designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationships that Cross-Complainants enjoyed with their agents.

43.            Cross-Defendants' intentional acts caused an actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationships that Cross-Complainants enjoyed with their agents.

44.            Cross-Defendants' actions as explained above, were undertaken in outrageous disregard for the rights of the Cross-Complainants, and as such support an award of punitive damages.

45.            As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Cross-Defendants' intentional and tortious interference with the contractual relations between Cross-Complainants and their agents, Cross-Defendants have caused Cross-Complainants to suffer substantial damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against All Cross-Defendant for Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage)

46.            Cross-Complainants incorporate each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs I through 38, supra, as if fully set forth herein.           

47.            Cross-Complainants have economic relationships with their agents, with the probability of future economic benefit to the Cross-Complainants.

48.            As described above, Cross-Defendants committed intentional acts designed to disrupt the relationships between Cross-Complainants and their agents. Specifically, Cross-Defendants' actions are designed to deceive Cross-Complainants' former agents that the business relationships maintained with Cross-Complainants are in some way unlawful.

49.            Cross-Defendants' actions were independently unlawful, in addition to interfering with Cross-Complainants' relationship with their agents, to the extent that they violate California's Unfair/Unlawful Competition Law and constitute a tortious violation of duties imposed by law.

50.            Cross-Defendants' intentional acts of interference have resulted in actual disruption to the relationships between Cross-Complainants and their agents, and have proximately caused economic harm to Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Complainants have suffered substantial damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Against All Cross-Defendants for Trade Libel)

51.            Cross-Complainants incorporate each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs I through 38, supra, as if fully set forth herein.

52.            Cross-Defendants have made false statements concerning the quality of services of Cross-Complainants' business.

53.            Cross-Defendants' false statements were intended to cause Cross-Complainants' business financial harm.

54.            Cross-Defendants' false statements have in fact caused financial harm to the Cross-Complainants' business.

55.            Cross-Defendants' intentionally false statements have proximately caused economic harm to Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Complainants have suffered substantial damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
           
(Against All Cross-Defendants for Violation of the California Unfair/Unlawful Competition Law)

56.            Cross-Complainants adopt and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 55, supra, as if fully set forth herein.

57.            Pursuant to § 17201, Cross-Complainants possess standing to bring an action under the State of California's "Unfair Competition Law," Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

58.            At all times material to this action, Cross-Defendants have violated and continue to violate California's "Unfair Competition Law" by engaging in "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices" by using such tactics as, but not limited to, contacting Cross-Complainants' agents for the purpose of interfering with and misappropriating the business relationships enjoyed by Cross-Complainants with these agents.

59.            Cross-Defendants' conduct is likely to, and, in fact, has deceived members of the public.

60.            Specifically, Cross-Defendants' actions are designed to deceive Cross-Complainants' former agents that the business relationships maintained with Cross-Complainants are in some way unlawful.

61.            As a result of Cross-Defendants' continuing "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent
business practices," Cross-Complainants have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial harm. As such, Cross-Complainants seek restitution and disgorgement of all profits gained as a result of Cross-Defendants' wrongful conduct.

62.            Cross-Complainants have developed and maintained business relationships with their agents.

63.            Cross-Defendants have misappropriated assets from the Cross-Complainants' businesses which have served to destroy the Cross-Complainants' businesses as an ongoing concern.

64.            In addition, Cross-Complainants maintain existing and prospective business relationships with their agents, which Cross-Defendants have interfered with and are attempting to destroy.

65.            Cross-Complainants have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claims.

66.            There is no legal remedy available to address the loss of goodwill, reputation and customer base that the Cross-Complainants will suffer if Cross-Defendants continue to engage in the aforementioned conduct until these claims are resolved on the merits.

67.            Cross-Defendants' actions have and will continue to destroy the Cross-Complainants' businesses and prevent the Cross-Complainants from operating their business.

68.            Public interest factors also weigh heavily in favor of granting the requested injunctive relief. Most notably, if Cross-Defendants refuse to cease engaging in the subject conduct, Cross-Complainants will have no other alternative than to cease operating their businesses.

69.            The relief sought by the Cross-Complainants will not harm Cross-Defendants, but will only assure that the status quo is preserved pending resolution of this controversy.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

            WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainants pray that judgment be entered against the Cross-Defendants, and each of them, on all claims for relief, as follows:                      

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

A.            As against Cross-Defendants for actual and compensatory damages according to proof at trial;

B.            For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred in the prosecution of this action pursuant to the Franchise License Agreement between the parties;

C.            For punitive or exemplary damages which sum should be sufficient to punish Cross-Defendants' conduct and by way of example;

D.            For interest at the maximum legal rate on all sums awarded; and

E.            For such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

A.            As against Cross-Defendants for actual and compensatory damages according to proof at trial;

B.            For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred in the prosecution of this action pursuant to the Franchise License Agreement between the parties;

C.            For punitive or exemplary damages which sum should be sufficient to punish Cross-Defendants' conduct and by way of example;

D.            For interest at the maximum legal rate on all sums awarded; and

E.            For such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

A.            As against Cross-Defendants for actual and compensatory damages according to proof at trial;

B.            For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred in the prosecution of this action pursuant to the Franchise License Agreement between the parties;

C.            For punitive or exemplary damages which sum should be sufficient to punish Cross-Defendants' conduct and by way of example;

D.            For interest at the maximum legal rate on all sums awarded; and

E.            For such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.          

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

A.            As against Cross-Defendants for restitution and disgorgement of all profits gained as a result of their wrongful conduct;

B.            For a preliminary and permanent injunction against Cross-Defendants requiring Cross-Defendants to cease contacting any of Cross-Complainants' agents for the purpose of interfering with and misappropriating the business relationships enjoyed by Cross Complainants with these agents.

C.            That the requested TRO remain in effect until such time as the Cross-Complainants' Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction can be heard by this Court, and a full hearing can take place; and

D.            For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit incurred in the prosecution of this action pursuant to the Franchise License Agreement between the parties;

E.            For interest at the maximum legal rate on all sums awarded; and

F.            For such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

Dated: May 23, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
Winton Larson & Solecki, LLP

By: ______________________
Steven W. Winton
Attorneys for Cross-Complainants

 

 

 

Windermere Services Pleads Twenty Affirmative Defenses in Answer To LifeStyles' Unverified Cross-Complaint:

 

DOWNLOAD THE ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT HERE

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Case No. 37-2011-00089709-CU-BC-CTL

Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Lisa Foster

Dept: C-60

ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, a Washington corporation; and WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation;

Plaintiffs;

v.

LIFESTYLES, SERVICES CORP., a California corporation; LIFESTYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/RSF CORP., a California corporation; MRJR, Inc., a California corporation; STEPHEN D. RODGERS, an individual; MARK LOSCHER, an individual; MAUREEN LOSCHER, an individual; JAMES) BROWNE, an individual; SHARON BROWNE, an individual; LARRY ANDERSON, an individual; BARBARA ANDERSON, an individual; ROBERT BEHIC, an individual; ROBIN BEHIC, an individual; and DOES I through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

LIFESTYLES SERVICES CORP., a California corporation; LIFESTYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/RSF CORP., a California corporation; MRJR, INC., a California corporation; 

Cross-Complainants;

v.

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, a Washington corporation; and WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; and ROES I through 50, inclusive, 

Cross-Defendants.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 431.30(d) and all other relevant and applicable law, cross-defendants Windermere Real Estate Services Company and Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. (collectively "Cross-Defendants") deny generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in cross-complainants Life Styles Services Corp., Life Styles Services Solana Beach/RSF Corp., and MRJR, Inc.'s (collectively "Cross-Complainants") unverified cross-complaint (the "Cross-Complaint").

Cross-Defendants further deny that Cross-Complainants have sustained, or will sustain, any injury, damage, or loss by reason of statement, act, omission, breach or any other conduct, or the absence thereof that is alleged by Cross-Complainants in the Cross-Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

As separate and distinct affirmative defenses, Cross-Defendants allege on information and belief as follows:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Failure to State Facts Sufficient to Constitute a Cause of Action)

The Cross-Complaint, and the purported causes of action alleged therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against Cross-Defendants.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Estoppel)

As a result of the acts, conduct and omissions of Cross-Complainants and their agents, each of the claims alleged in the Cross-Complaint is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.

THIRD AFFIMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Waiver)

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendants because their purported causes of action are barred by the doctrine of waiver.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Laches)

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendants because their purported causes of action are barred by the doctrine of laches.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Lack of Causation) 

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendants because no act or omission allegedly committed by Cross-Defendants (which Cross-Defendants deny) was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any injury or damage alleged by Cross-Complainants.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(No Damages)

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendants because Cross-Complainants have suffered no damages.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE       

(Unclean Hands)

Cross-Complainants, by their own conduct, are barred by their unclean hands, shared fault and otherwise from all legal and equitable relief sought in their Cross-Complaint.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Privilege/Justification)

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendants because Cross-Defendants' conduct was justified and/or privileged.

NINTH AFFERMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Truth and/or Opinion)

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendants because Cross-Defendants' alleged statements were opinions and/or true statements.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Set-off)

Any recovery sought by Cross-Complainants is subject to Cross-Defendants' claims for relief against Cross-Complainants.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(No Wrongful Conduct)

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendants because Cross-Defendants did not engage in any wrongful acts or conduct.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Contributory Fault)

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendant because a loss, if any, sustained by Cross-Complainants was proximately caused and contributed to by the negligence, improper conduct, or intervening acts of Cross-Complainants or Cross-Complainants' agents, officers, or employees.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

(Third-Party Fault)

Cross-Complainants are not entitled to any relief from Cross-Defendant because Cross-Complainants' alleged damages and loss were proximately caused or contributed to, in whole or in part, by the fault of third parties.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATWE DEFENSE 

(Failure to Minimize or Mitigate Damages)

Cross-Complainants have failed to take adequate steps to mitigate, alter, avoid, or otherwise diminish their alleged injury and damages, if any, and any damages awarded to Cross-Complainants should be reduced accordingly by such failure to minimize or mitigate damages.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Punitive Damages)

Cross-Complainants' claims for punitive damages cannot be sustained because, among other things, all award of punitive damages under California law without proof of every element by clear and convincing evidence would violate California law and Cross Defendants' rights under the due process clauses of the United States and California Constitutions.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Uncertainty)

Cross-Defendants object to the Cross-Complaint on the grounds that the Cross-Complaint is uncertain in material respects and falls to allege any wrongful, actionable conduct by the Cross-Defendants.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Unfair Competition)

Cross-Defendants have not engaged in unfair competition as alleged in the Cross-Complainants. Further, Cross-Defendants are informed and believe that the conduct of Cross-Defendants as alleged in the Cross-Complaint is not an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice within the meaning of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Adequate Remedy at Law)

Without conceding that Cross-Complainants are entitled to any relief whatsoever, to the extent Cross-Complainants seek equitable relief, any alleged injury or damage claimed by Cross-Complainants can be adequately compensated in an action at law. As such, Cross-Complainants are not entitled to equitable relief under the Unfair Competition Law statute, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., or otherwise.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Business Justification)

Cross-Complainants' alleged Unfair Competition Law claims are barred because the alleged conduct of Cross-Defendants was at all times lawful, justified, fair, and undertaken in the good faith exercise of a valid business purpose.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Reservation of Rights)

Cross-Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge upon which to form a belief as to whether they may have additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses available. These Cross-Defendants hereby reserve their night to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event that further investigation and discovery indicates that such defenses would be appropriate.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Cross-Defendants pray:

            1. That Cross-Complainants' Cross-Complaint be dismissed with prejudice,

            2. That Cross-Complainants take nothing by their Cross-Complaint;

            3. For costs of this suit;

            4. Reasonable attorneys' fees incurred herein; and

            5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

June 22, 2011                       

PESTOTNIK + GOLD LLP

__________________________________________

Timothy R. Pestotnik

Russell A. Gold

Russell F. Winslow

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants

Windermere Real Estate Services Company, and

Windermere Services Southern California, Inc.

 

 

 

OTHER PERTINENT CASES OF INTEREST:

WINDERMERE SUED FOR UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AGAIN... Windermere Coachella Valley and franchiser Windermere Services sued for Unfair Trade Practices in California: Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Realtor Peggy Shambaugh, sued for Professional Negligence and other claims in $30 million-plus deal. Complaint alleges Windermere Services is an "unlicensed entity." READ THIS REPORT

 

 

Maxwell Answer and Counterclaims: “Plaintiff's claims are barred by Plaintiff’s fraud, duress, and unclean hands.” $4,000,000 in Damages and Violation of Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act alleged:

"13. In early 2006, WSC and Jacobi decided to open another WSC office in the territory in which WPCR was operating, despite the objections of Maxwell. As a result of the opening of this new WSC office, WPCR lost a significant number of its real estate agents and revenue that transferred to the new office in Graham, Washington.

14. As a direct result of these actions taken by WSC and Jacobi, WPCR was left with a large debt burden and overhead, and WPCR’s revenue was significantly reduced.

15. Maxwell made repeated verbal and written complaints to WSC and Jacobi about the decision to open the office in Graham. Maxwell filed a formal written complaint with WSC’s internal dispute resolution board. WSC and Jacobi did not take any action in response to Maxwell’s complaints.

16. After WPCR opened the Tacoma office as agreed, Jacobi and WSC agreed to the opening of another WSC franchise located only blocks away from WPCR’s Tacoma office. This was done without the knowledge or consent of Maxwell." and...

"22. On September 14, 2010, Maxwell heard from a real estate agent working at WPCR that the agent had received and email from WSC notifying him WPCR’s franchise had been terminated. This notice was sent to WPCR’s real estate agents before Maxwell learned of the termination of WPCR’s franchise." READ THIS REPORT

 

 

Lifestyles Services Corp's. Answer to Windermere Services' Complaint

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE ANSWER HERE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION

CASE NO. 37-2011-00089709-CU-BC-CTL

Assigned for All Purposes:
Judge: William R. Nevitt
Dept.: C-64

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Complaint Filed: April 15, 2011

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, LLC, a Washington corporation; and WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation

Plaintiffs,           

LIFESTYLES SERVICES CORP., a California corporation; LIFESTYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/ RSF CORP., a California corporation; MRJR, INC. a California corporation; STEPHEN D. RODGERS, an individual; MARK LOSCHER, an individual; MAUREEN LOSCHER, an individual; JAMES BROWNE, an individual; SHARON BROWNE, an individual; LARRY ANDERSON, BARBARA ANDERSON, an individual; ROBERT BEHIC, an individual; ROBIN BEHIC, an individual; and DOES I through 50, inclusive,           

Defendants.

Defendants LIFESTYLES SERVICES CORP., a California corporation; LIFESTYLES SERVICES SOLANA BEACH/ RSF CORP., a California corporation; MRJR, INC. a California corporation; STEPHEN D. RODGERS, an individual; MARK LOSCHER, an individual; MAUREEN LOSCHER, an individual, JAMES BROWNE, an individual; SHARON BROWNE, an individual; LARRY ANDERSON, an individual, BARBARA ANDERSON, an individual; ROBERT BEHIC, an individual; and ROBIN BEHIC, an individual, for themselves alone, and for no other person, corporation or legal entity, answer the unverified Complaint on file herein as follows:

1.            Pursuant to the provisions of Section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Defendants deny, generally and specifically, each and every allegation in each and every paragraph, in each and every cause of action, of the unverified Complaint, and the whole thereof, and further deny that Plaintiffs have been injured or damaged in the sum or sums alleged, or in any sum or sums at all, and state that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought in the Complaint, or any other relief whatsoever.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

(Failure to State a Claim)

2.            Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted

Second Affirmative Defense

(Unclean Hands)

3.            Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. As set forth in Defendants' Cross Complaint, filed concurrently herewith, Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs' prior breaches of the franchise agreements with Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiffs wrongfully and intentionally interfered with Defendants' ability to operate their businesses when they were still Windermere franchisees, constituting a tortious interference of the rights that Defendants possessed pursuant to the Franchise License Agreements.

Third Affirmative Defense

(Failure to Mitigate Damages)

4.            Plaintiffs have failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate their alleged damages. Plaintiffs failed to take any action to cure the breaches of contract and other wrongful conduct alleged in Defendants' Cross-Complaint. But for Plaintiffs' actions and inactions, Plaintiffs' alleged damages, to the extent they are proven, to exist, would have been mitigated.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

(Plaintiffs' Wrongful Conduct)

5.            Any damages suffered by Plaintiffs resulted from their own wrongful actions and wrongful conduct, as alleged in Defendants' Cross Complaint.

Fifth Affirmative Defense

(Set Off)

6.            Defendants assert that to the extent the Plaintiffs are awarded any damages, liability for which Defendants wholly deny, that Defendants are entitled to claim a set-off for the amounts owed to Defendants by Plaintiffs.

Sixth Affirmative Defense

(Plaintiffs' Breach)

7.            As to any alleged breaches by Defendants, even if true, such breaches are excused by earlier repeated and substantial breaches by Plaintiffs of the franchise agreements.

Seventh Affirmative Defense

(Estoppel)

8.            Any recovery by Plaintiffs is barred by the doctrine of estoppel.

Eighth Affirmative Defense

(Waiver)

9.            Any recovery by Plaintiffs is barred by the doctrine of waiver.

Ninth Affirmative Defense

(Failure of Consideration)

10.            The consideration relied upon by Plaintiffs in assertion of their claims against these Answering Defendants failed in all material respects as to certain of these Answering Defendants.

Tenth Affirmative Defense

(Reservation of Rights to Amend Answer)

11.            These Answering Defendants expressly reserve their right to amend this Answer to assert additional affirmative defense hereafter and to supplement those asserted herein upon further investigation and discovery.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:

I.            That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs;

2.           That the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice;

3.           That Defendants be awarded their attorney's fees;
4.           That Defendants be awarded their costs of suit incurred herein; and
5.           That Defendants be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just.

Dated: May 23, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
Winton Larson & Solecki, LLP
By: _______________________
Steven W. Winton
Attorneys for Cross-Complainants

 

 

SINGLE LARGEST WINDERMERE FRANCHISEE DUMPS THE BRAND

Windermere SoCal / Bennnion & Deville Quit Windermere;

29 California Offices, 1,200+ Agents Become "bennion deville HOMES" Independent Brand

Windermere SoCal / Bennion & Deville Sue Windermere Services Company

"...this was no longer the Windermere they had joined over a decade earlier."

 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—Case No. 2:15-CV-07322

 

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE COMPLAINT HERE

DOWNLOAD EVIDENCE 1 HERE

DOWNLOAD EVIDENCE 2 HERE

Franchiser Windermere Real Estate Services Company (WSC) Sued by Multi-Windermere-Franchisee Bennion & Deville Fine Homes and Windermere Services Southern California, on Five Breach of Contract Claims, also Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations, and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, in a Thirty-Five Page Complaint, Alleging in Part:

“The Windermere Watch anti-marketing campaign has had a very significant and monetarily damaging effect on Plaintiffs..”

...In truth, the technology services provided by WSC were underwhelming at best, and more recently had become antiquated and irrelevant. The technology made available by WSC had became outdated, unstable, and not a viable option for the needs of the Southern California region. Notwithstanding WSC's failure to provide these technology services, it has substantially increased these fees and threatened franchisees with termination for refusing to pay for this unstable, antiquated technology...

...[WSC Senior Vice President Michael] Teather directed Plaintiffs to "bring on" as many franchisees as possible, and if/when they failed, resell the territory to a new franchisee..." and;

PERTINENT SIDEBAR: LEGACY OF WINDERMERE'S UNETHICAL FRANCHISING PRACTICES:

A REAL ESTATE FRANCHISE OWNER'S ULTRA-NIGHTMARE: "...Jacobi decided to open another Windermere office in the territory in which WPCR was operating..."

john jacobi"On September 14, 2010, Maxwell heard from a real estate agent working at WPCR that the agent had received an email from WSC [franchiser Windermere Services Co.] notifying him WPCR's franchise had been terminated. This notice was sent to WPCR's real estate agents before Maxwell learned of the termination of WPCR's franchise." (Windermere founder John Jacobi, left.)

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, KITSAP COUNTY—NO. 15-2-00369-2

(Download the Complaint here.)

Windermere Bainbridge Island (owner Carter Dotson, left) and Agents Diane Sugden and Jan Johnson, Sued for Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, in Arsenic Contaminated Water Well Non-Disclosure Case, Alleging:

“For a number of years, Ms. Engle was well aware of the fact that the well and water on the Premises was contaminated with arsenic. Over the years, she took action to attempt to ameliorate the negative repercussions of the arsenic contaminated well and water. She installed an arsenic filter and had a significant amount of work performed on the well to deal with the arsenic contamination.

 

Ms. Engle notified her real estate broker, Jan Johnson, of the arsenic issues prior to the Premises being sold. Ms. Engle shared with Ms. Johnson and Ms. Sugden her understanding of the arsenic problem at the Premises.

 

Neither Mrs. Engle, Mrs. Sugden, nor Ms. Johnson ever disclosed the arsenic problem...”

Pertinent Sidebar: Another Windermere Bainbridge Island Case:

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA—NO. CV-05401: Windermere Real Estate Bainbridge Island and Associate Broker Debbie Nitsche (left) Sued for Copyright Infringement, Violation of the Lanham Act, and Unfair Competition:

 

 

Prior Defendants Do Business "The Windermere Way," Under New Name at New Location: Kalafatich and Robinson Reappear at Windermere Gig Harbor Builder’s Choice

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF PIERCE—CASE NO. 09 2 08671 6

(Download Complaint here.)

Windermere Agent Maria Kalafatich, Sued for Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud and Fraudulent Concealment, Rescission, Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Professional Negligence and Violation of RCW 18.86.030; and Former Windermere Professional Partners Owner Michael Robinson, Sued for Vicarious Liability Under RCW 18.85.155 as Liable for the Tortius Conduct of Defendant Kalafatich. Allegations Complained of Include:

“...KALAFATICH was a licensed real estate salesperson... employed by broker PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS LLC as a real estate agent.

KALAFATICH availed herself of certain real estate services from defendant PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS-LLC d.b.a. WINDERMERE/ PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS to facilitate the sale of the residence... The Form 17 disclosure provided by KALAFATICH to Plaintiffs is inaccurate in that there are serious and systemic defects in the Project common elements...

 

...KALAFATICH knew of the intrusive investigation and concealed defective conditions in the Project common elements and limited common elements. KALAFATICH negligently or intentionally did not update her Form 17 disclosure, or otherwise communicate this knowledge to Plaintiffs.”

CASE SIDEBAR: More Windermere Defendant Owner Parties in Kalafatich-Pro Partners Action Go Bankrupt...

BK Petitions of Windermere Real Estate Commencement Associates Owners Dick Beeson and David Sinding: Total Assets of (left) Richard E. Beeson—aka Dick Beeson—and Robin L. Beeson, $556,426.00; Total Liabilities, $2,795,696.00. Download the Beeson Bankruptcy Petition here. Petition States Beeson is Currently a Real Estate Broker at RE/MAX Professionals, Tacoma. Total Assets of (2nd from left) David C. Sinding, $482,600.00; Total Liabilities, $1,952,497.00. Download the Sinding Bankruptcy Petition here.

 

WINDERMERE BELLEVUE COMMONS SUED YET AGAIN IN STUNNiNG "COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD"

SUPERIOR COURT KING COUNTY—CASE NUMBER: 14-2-13149-6 SEA

(Download Complaint here.)

Windermere Real Estate Bellevue Commons and Agent Kenny Pleasant, RE Investors Sean and Margaret Stewart, Sued for Fraud, Fraudulent Concealment, Negligent Misrepresentation, Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and Breach of Broker Duties, in Complaint Alleging:

"...At the time of the listing, Windermere and Pleasant knew that the seller was required to obtain necessary permits and inspections for the extensive remodel as required by the City Residential Code..." and "...Pleasant and Windermere represented both the buyer (Wubbels) and the seller (Stewart) in the transaction as dual agent.

Shortly after receiving a copy of the NOV [Notice of Violation], Pleasant telephoned Simpson and asked what would happen if the pending sale went through without the required permits and inspections. Simpson explained to Pleasant that the new owner would be responsible to obtain the permits and make the required corrections. Defendants persisted in concealing the facts of the illegal remodel and resulting NOV from Wubbels, knowing that when she closed, she would be responsible for the expense and consequences of the City Residential Code violations. "

(L to R) Windermere Bellevue Commons agent Kenny Pleasant, who states on his Windermere web page, "I know that buying or selling a home is one of the most important things you will ever do, and I want to help make that experience as smooth and successful as possible." Windermere Bellevue Commons owners Courtney Adams, and Amy Adams—whose Windermere web page states, "I strongly believe that everyone should be treated with kindness, fairness, caring, and honesty."

 

Windermere's most dishonest franchise? Read more Bellevue Commons cases: WINDERMERE BELLEVUE COMMONS ASSOCIATE BROKER DICK PELASCINI'S FORECLOSURE RESCUE RIPOFF SCAM; WINDERMERE BELLVUE COMMONS TONY FERELLI'S "NOT MY PROBLEM" CASE.

 

The Tragic and Predatory Social Conduct Shared by Windermere Real Estate and San Diego City Ex-Mayor Bob Filner: Subjecting Female Employees to an Abusive Work Environment.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT—D.C. No. CV-98-01184-RSL

Appeals Court Declares that Windermere "...condoned a rape by a business colleague..."

In Little v. Windermere Relocation, the Court stated: "In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her [Windermere] employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career[ ]."

 

john jacobi(Left to right) Windermere CEO Geoff Wood (far left) is listed as a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation. Peggy Scott (second from left), also a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation, "... did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint..." Windermere attorney Paul Stephen Drayna (third from left) is listed as the registered agent of RELO LLC, the entity name of Windermere Relocation. Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi (fourth from left) along with Gayle Glew (far right) are listed as Governing Persons of Windermere Relocation during the Little case. Glew told Ms. Little he did not want any "clouds in the office," and after she would not accept a pay cut, that she should "...clean out her desk."

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY—CASE NO: 37-2013-00058613-CU-OE-CTL

In Irene McCormack Jackson v City of San Diego; Robert ("Bob") Filner, Plaintiff Jackson's Complaint for Damages, Employment Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, alleges at ¶ 19 that her boss, San Diego Mayor Robert Filner (left), said to her in sum or substance, "you know you are beautiful. I have always loved you. Someday I know that you are going to marry me. I am so in love with you. Wouldn't it be great if you took off your panties and worked without them on?" Plaintiff was aghast and pushed him away. Defendant Filner then stated "Come on. Give me a kiss."

And Ms. Jackson further alleges at ¶ 35:"... (1) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was an employee of Defendant City of San Diego; (2) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because she is a woman; (3) the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive; (4) a reasonable woman in Plaintiff McCormack Jackson's circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; (5) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; (6) Defendant Filner participated in the harassing conduct;" READ THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT HERE

Guilty Plea to Criminal Charges: San Diego Ex-Mayor Bob Filner Pleads Guilty to Felony False Imprisonment and Battery In the same California Jurisdiction where Windermere Real Estate Operates its San Diego Windermere Homes & Estates Santaluz Franchise

San Diego Ex-Mayor Bob Filner pleaded guilty to a felony charge of false imprisonment by violence, fraud, menace and deceit, stemming from an incident where he forcibly overcame a woman's resistance at a fundraiser, violating her liberty. Filner also pleaded guilty about two misdemeanor counts of battery, one from an incident where he kissed a woman on the lips during one of his "Meet the Mayor" events; and another incident wherein Filner improperly touched a woman's posterior while posing for a photo.

Jackson v City of San Diego; Robert ("Bob") Filner Complaint here.

Defendant City of San Diego's Answer to Complaint here.

Defendant City of San Diego's Cross-Complaint Against Robert Filner here.

Jump to the Court's full Opinion for Little v. Windermere Relocation here.

Click to the Windermere Real Estate Santaluz San Diego page here

 

 

Windermere franchise owner twice builds allegedly defective homes,

then sells them to unsuspecting buyers who are forced to sue:

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, FOR PIERCE COUNTY—CASE NO. 14-2-08793-0

(Download the Complaint here)

(Download the Motion to Compel Discovery here)

 

Valley Haven Home Owners file MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY from Windermere Auburn-Lakeland Hills, Bonney Lake, Lake Tapps Owner Tom Tollen, and his Highmark Homes brand, in construction defects case. Plaintiffs want Tollen/Highmark to identify “...each home that has an associated "Warranty of Construction Completion" (a document Defendant Highmark signed on behalf of each purchaser who has an FHA insured loan)” and;

 

 “As Highmark is aware, for every home where the mortgage is FHA insured (more than 17 of the 29) Highmark was presented with a one page FHA document it must sign. The document is entitled "Warranty of Construction Completion” and provides written assurances in the body of the document that the homes Highmark constructed are free from defective construction or materials," and;

 

“...it shouldn't take 8 or 6 months and it shouldn't take a Court Order to get Highmark to respond."

 

THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT STATES: "37. Defendant Tom Tollen is a licensed Real Estate Agent. 38. Defendant Tom Tollen is a licensed Real Estate Broker. 39. Defendant Tom Tollen acted as Broker on behalf of Highmark for the purchase and / or the sale of the Valley Haven homes constructed by Defendant Highmark. 40. Defendant Tom Tollen acted as Broker on behalf of one or more named Plaintiffs pertaining to his/her or their purchase of a Highmark constructed home located within Valley Haven community development, located in Fife Washington." JUMP TO THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, SNOHOMISH COUNTY—CASE NO. 13-2-07751-3

(Download the First Amended Complaint here)

Lambert Creek Condominium Association, and 32 Lambert Creek Resident Homeowners, sue Windermere Auburn-Lakeland Hills, Bonney Lake, Lake Tapps Owner Tom Tollen, and his Highmark Homes brand; SDE Holdings; First Savings Bank Northwest; plus other coporate entitities and individual defendants, for Breach of Warranty, Violation of the Washington Condominium Act, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misrepresentation, and Breach of Contract, in condo construction defects action alleging:

“Defendants were required to deliver to the Association copies of Certificates of Occupancies or the equivalent for each home constructed and sold. Defendants failed to provide the information and documentation identified herein and the Plaintiff is harmed thereby in an amount to be proven at time of trial,” and;

“Defendants violated their fiduciary duty, in part, by failing to ensure the construction of the homes complied with applicable standards, including ensuring each is in receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy or other indication the homes are adequately inspected and habitable prior to their occupancy.” JUMP TO THE FULL FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT HERE

MORE WINDERMERE AUBURN-BONNEY LAKE-LAKE TAPPS REVIEWS:

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE—CASE NO. 08-2-13824-6

FEMALE EMPLOYEE SUES WINDERMERE FOR HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT...

Windermere Real Estate Auburn, Inc., sued by employee for Constructive Discharge, Hostile Work Environment, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Civil Conspiracy in Pierce County, Washington, Complaint. Owner of Windermere Real Estate Auburn and Windermere Real Estate Lake Tapps, Thomas Tollen, sued for Civil Assault and Battery, Trespass, Invasion of Right to Privacy, Civil Stalking and other charges—Pleads guilty to related criminal counts.

...WINDERMERE FRANCHISE OWNER TELLS HER, "WE DON'T DATE, YOU DON'T HAVE A JOB!"

Complaint alleges Windermere Auburn and Lake Tapps owner, Thomas Tollen, told employee: "You're nothing without me! We don't date, you don't have a job! ... Tollen grabbed Clark and threw her against garbage cans. She fell. While she was lying on the ground Tollen kicked her at least ten times, yelling 'You're a piece of shit! You're nothing without me! You won't have a job!'"

OWNER OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE AUBURN AND WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE LAKE TAPPS, THOMAS TOLLEN, SUED FOR CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY, TRESPASS, INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY, CIVIL STALKING AND OTHER CHARGES—PLEADS GUILTY TO RELATED CRIMINAL COUNTS

Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Damages and Foreclosure of Landlord's Lien against Windermere Real Estate/Auburn, Inc., and Windermere Real Estate/Cascades Group, Inc. Judgment for Plaintiff: $128,105,63, costs of $342.80 and attorney's fees of $7,420.00 CASE HERE

 

Windermere Charged with Financial Elder Abuse—AGAIN.

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, PALM SPRINGS COURTHOUSE—CASE NO. PSC 1400430

(Download Complaint here.)

Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, Palm Desert, Portola Agent Faith Messenger (left), and Windermere Real Estate SoCal (Owners Bennion & Deville, left respectively) Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Financial Elder Abuse, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Breach of Contract, in Complaint Alleging:

"Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that the misrepresentations, concealments, and non-disclosures of Messenger and all other wrongful acts alleged in this complaint were carried out within the course and scope of her duty as an agent for Windermere. Furthermore, Windermere contracted directly with Dr. Glancz and assigned Messenger to work for Dr. Glancz and had a duty and responsibility to oversee Messenger's conduct. As a consequence, Windermere is responsible for Messenger's conduct and is directly liable to Dr. Glancz not only for Windermere's failures, but for Messenger's failures and wrongful conduct under principles of agency and because Messenger's conduct is imputed to Windermere under the doctrine of respondeat superior," and;

"Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’ conduct constituted oppression, fraud, and malice in the commission of financial abuse, and Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing Defendants for financial elder abuse pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and California Civil Code section 3294."

READ THIS WiNDERMERE ELDER ABUSE CASE NEXT WASHINGTON APPEALS COURT, DIVISION 1—NOS. 58439-9-I, 58531-2-1: WINDERMERE AGENTS' ABUSE, UNDUE INFLUENCE and EXPLOITATION OF A VULNERABLE ADULT AT WINDERMERE ATTORNEY JOHN DEMCO'S SOUTH WHIDBEY ISLAND FREELAND WINDERMERE FRANCHISE.

 

SUPERIOR COURT WASHINGTON, SPOKANE COUNTY—Cause No. 15203564-3

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE COMPLAINT HERE

cate moyeWindermere Agent Don Hay and Windermere Real Estate Spokane Valley (Hay and Spokane Valley Owner Cate Moye at left) Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Statutory Washington Real Estate Law, in Complaint Alleging “...Hay's many failures as alleged above, including but not limited to, his failure to verify that the repairs were safely completed, his failure to provide the radon results or advise Plaintiffs to seek the expertise of another, breached the duty as a broker and a buyer's agent." and;

6.2 Defendant Hay, acting as an agent on behalf of Windermere Real Estate, owed Plaintiffs the non-waivable duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, to deal honestly and in good faith, and to disclose all existing material facts known by the broker or agent and not apparent or readily ascertainable to a party. RCW 18.86.030.            

Pertinent Windermere Spokane Valley Sidebar:

granlyAfter Nearly 7 Years Producing Commissions for Windermere Services and Windermere Spokane Valley Owner Cate Moye, Convicted Robbery Felon and Shotgun-Shootout Windermere Agent, Nicholas Granly, Mysteriously Disappeared from the Windermere Roster—just as Owner Moye is Nominated for Vice Chair of Washington’s Real Estate Commission

 

WINDERMERE OWNER DEMANDS AGENTS PAY EVEN WHEN THEY SELL NO HOMES...

"It's time for the MLS grievance committee to take action and stop her from stealing commissions from agents."

 

Current John L. Scott managing broker and former agent at Windermere Real Estate North in Lynnwood says owner Lena Maul (left) “...cheats her agents out of commissions...” and "...breaks all the rules. If an agent leaves her office, she escalates the threshold amount and expects the agent to write her a check for the balance. That's even if they haven't earned enough commissions to pay it.”

 

 

I have been a real estate agent for over 35 years. In May of 2013, my daughter came into the business. We were to work together as a team and eventually she would take over my business. Since moving to the Pacific Northwest in 2005 I had worked at a John L. Scott office.

 

Lena Maul of Windermere Real Estate North, in Lynnwood, WA, spent months trying to hire me away from the John L. Scott office. When she learned I had brought my daughter into the business, she gave us a song and dance promise that she could help us build a successful team. We moved to her Windermere office in November, 2013. Nothing she told us was true. We got no special assistance for team building, and, in fact, the opposite was true. The working conditions and lack of support were so bad, my daughter checked out completely. By June, 2014, I announced to Lena Maul that we were disappointed and would be leaving her office. We returned to my original John L. Scott office immediately. Our total time at her office was 7 months. Those were the worse 7 months of my real estate career.

 

My main complaint is that Lena Maul, as a franchise owner, cheats her agents out of commissions. All agencies have their agents sign a contract that they will pay a portion of their commissions back to the agency. The threshold amounts vary, and the payments usually run at 50-50 until the threshold is met. Once the threshold amount is met, the agent then gets 100% of the commissions, less incidental charges by the office.

 

Lena Maul breaks all the rules. If an agent leaves her office, she escalates the threshold amount and expects the agent to write her a check for the balance. That's even if they haven't earned enough commissions to pay it. She ignores the contract provision of 50-50 commission split, and demands a balloon payment of the difference between the threshold amount and the amount earned and paid to date. No other broker in the industry does that. This is totally unethical and she has burned many bridges with agents in our real estate community. Since I left the Windermere office (now 6 months ago), there have been 4 other agents call me who experienced the same unethical practices with Lena Maul. We have banded together and hired an attorney who supports our quest to get the commissions from her that we earned.

"New agents, who do not yet have a book of business, are particularly at risk"...

Agents beware! The charming Lena Maul will tell you anything to get you in the door. But cross her by leaving, and the claws come out. It's time for the MLS grievance committee to take action and stop her from stealing commissions from agents. New agents, who do not yet have a book of business, are particularly at risk. The threshold amount for a new agent would be $25,500, but if they leave or have to quit and haven't sold any houses, she would come after them for the full $25,500. Again, her contracts do not support that action according to our attorney. It's her greed and anger that runs that engine.

 

She also promotes to the community that she donates to many charitable institutions. She does not. She mandates withdrawals from each agent's commission checks to make those contributions. They do not come from her but she wants the community and organizations to believe otherwise.

 

Lonnadeen Bullock

Managing Broker

John L. Scott

RELEVANT SIDEBARS—Former Windermere Personnel Sue Windermere:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION 1—No. 65159-5: Windermere’s legal strategy of costly, interminable, vexatious litigation drives a dispute over a $16,800 agent commission to a judgment of $186,195.41, in favor of the agent: "In Retaliation Windermere Sought to Make the Litigation as Expensive and Time Consuming as Possible to Dissuade Mr. Rodriguez and other Agents from Asserting Claims against Windermere."

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ORANGE COUNTY—No. 30-2013-00663429-CU-FR-CJC: Former Windermere agent sues Windermere owners James and Andrea Marquez for Fraud, Conversion, and Negligence, seeking unpaid commissions owed of $22,938.75, in Complaint alleging: “Defendants instructed Plaintiff to commit perjury when he testified," and "...alleges that Defendants falsified a document signed by Seller..."

SUPERIOR COURT, WASHINGTON STATE, COUNTY OF PIERCE—Case No. 12-2-15705-2: Homestreet Bank Countersued for Violation of Fiduciary Duties in Crossclaims Alleging Improper Kickbacks and Conspiracy to Commit Bribery with Third Party Defendant Windermere Mortgage Services Company: "WSC [franchiser Windermere Services Company] tracks loan and Title referrals by WRE office and individual agent. ... It is believed that WRE agents are generally ignorant that their "legal fund" is a profit center for the WRE office in which they work."

WINDERMERE'S SALES ASSOCIATE and COMMISSION AGREEMENT: Read the Windermere “2008 Broker/Sales Associate Agreement and Addendum A, Windermere Commission Agreement – Fee Office” revealed in case evidence, listing MANDATORY AGENT CONTRIBUTiON TO THE WINDERMERE FOUNDATION.

 

 

Windermere SoCal Coachella Valley, Brokers Thomas Angone and Joseph R. Deville, Sued for Fraud and Deceit, Failure to Disclose Material Facts

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, PALM SPRINGS BRANCH—CASE NO. PSC 1405468

(Download The First Amended Complaint here.)

Windermere SoCal and Rancho Mirage Broker Thomas A. Angone, and Windermere SoCal Owner-Broker, Joseph R. Deville (at left, respectively); Bennion and Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc., dba Windermere Real Estate Southern California; dba Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley; and Individuals Mark. B. and Janice L. Gordon, Terri Lynn Munselle, Sandra Ann Deering, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Peter E. Theophilos and Saxony Real Estate, Inc., Sued for Claims of Civil Code Violation, Failure to Disclose Material Facts, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud, Fraud, and Negligence, in First Amended Complaint Alleging:

"46. Prior to the close of tho Property transaction, Sellers, Sellers' Agents and DOES 1-20 became aware of the planned Clubhouse Expansion, but concealed the same from Plaintiffs with the intent to induce Plaintiffs to complete the purchase of the Property. Specifically, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Sellers were personally advised of the planned Clubhouse Expansion by the developer of Andalusia at Coral Mountain (T.D. Desert Development) and/or by the common interest association that governs the Property sometime prior to the close of the Property transaction. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Angone was previously employed by the developer of Andalusia at Coral Mountain (T.D. Desert Development) and was aware of the full build-out plans for said development; that he had full access to the sales office at Andalusia at Coral Mountain, as well as to information published by Andalusia at Coral Mountain on its website, Facebook page and in printed materials; that he visited the sales office at Andalusia at Coral Mountain and reviewed the Information published by Andalusia at Coral Mountain on its website and/or Facebook page and/or in printed materials; and that he was thereby made aware of the planned Clubhouse' Expansion sometime prior to the close of the Property transaction...

 

48. The aforementioned conduct of Sellers, Sellers' Agents and DOES 1-20 was an intentional deceit or concealment of a material fact known to Sellers, Sellers' Agents..."

 

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, PALM SPRINGS—CASE NO. PSC 1403783

(Download the full Complaint here.)

Windermere Agent John Piro (left), Windermere Real Estate SoCal and Franchisor Windermere Real Estate Services Company, Individuals Cesare and Marzia Mannini Rossi, Sued for Nondisclosure of Material Facts, Negligent Misrepresentation, Concealment and Deceit, Suppression of Material Fact; Rossis Additionally Sued for Breach of Contract, in Complaint Alleging:

"...All Defendants knew that the garage-to-dining room conversion was not permitted," and "...All Defendants knew that the house was located in Palm Springs, where Palm Springs Municipal Building Codes apply. Section 93.06.00(29)(a) of the Zoning Code states that single family residences in the City of Palm Springs must have two (2) covered parking spaces. Defendants were aware that the home, having no covered parking spaces, was non-compliant."

BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. DBA WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND JOHN PIRO'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Indemnity Against all Cross-Defendants); SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Equitable Contribution Against All Cross-Defendants); THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Apportionment of Fault Against all Cross-Defendants); FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief Against All Cross-Defendants)

 

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INDIO—CASE NO. INS1401100: Small claims action names Windermere Real Estate Services Company and Windermere agent George Colombotos (left) as Defendants, and alleges, “Real estate agent Colombotos sabatoged [sic] the sale of my home by picketing and verbally disuading potential buyers at a real estate open house.” DOWNLOAD THE FULL SMALL CLAIMS COMPLAINT HERE

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, KING COUNTY—NO. 15-2-17975-6 KNT
(Download the Complaint here.)

James & Tyra Wong; Windermere Agent Lisa Lam (left) & Gordon Lam; Windermere Broker Marcie Maxwell (2nd from left); Windermere Renton (Owner Jason Moore, left) Sued for Allegations of Fraud & Deception, Fraudulent Concealment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, in Home Flipper Construction Nondisclosure Case.

 

MAXWELL SUED AGAIN: READ ANOTHER MARCIE MAXWELL ALLEGED NONDISLlOSURE CASE NEXT: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 98-2-17607-5

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 13-2-00452-6 KNT

COMPLAINT ALLEGES:

"In fact, the copy of the Repair Recommendations forwarded by Mr. Freed HAD BEEN MANIPULATED TO CONCEAL the portion of the repair recommendations which informed the Boyers that the drain field piping was collapsing and needed to be replaced." (Emphasis added.)

WINDERMERE BONNEY LAKE-LAKE TAPPS and OWNER / DESIGNATED BROKER KEN FREED (left), SUED FOR FRAUD, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, BREACH OF CONTRACT, CPA VIOLATION and RESCISSION. Update 8/22/13: Plaintiffs' attorney files Stipulation for and order of dismissal of Freeds and Windermere Lake Tapps

 

WASHINGTON STATE COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION 1—NOS. 58439-9-I, 58531-2-I

WINDERMERE AGENTS' ABUSE, UNDUE INFLUENCE and EXPLOITATION OF A VULNERABLE ADULT AT WINDERMERE ATTORNEY JOHN DEMCO'S SOUTH WHIDBEY ISLAND FREELAND WINDERMERE FRANCHISE: Windermere mother-and-daughter agents Saul and Gabelein take advantage of an elderly woman: “Emma has sold property to members of the Gabelein family for a fraction of its value, jeopardizing her ability to remain in her home for the remainder of her life." (Demco, Saul and Gabelein above.) READ THE COURT'S SHOCKING OPINION HERE.

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II—NO. 35740-2-II

MORE INNOCENT AND UNSUSPECTING LIVES RUINED BY THE COST OF CHASING WINDERMERE CROOKS THROUGH THE COURTS: Windermere Real Estate Allen & Associates Agent Lance Miller's Deliberate Non-Disclosure of Home's Prior Use as Pot Farm and Methamphetamine Laboratory

Eva and Eddie Bloor relocated to Longview, in Washington State, and purchased a home from Charmaine and Robert Fritz through Lance Miller at Windermere Real Estate/Allen & Associates, who served as dual agent for both parties. The Fritzes and Miller both opted to withhold their knowledge that the one-time rental property had been a site for marijuana farming and methamphetamine production. Windermere and Miller were cognizant of the property’s prior use because Windermere staff managed the rental home months earlier when a drug raid occurred, and they subsequently issued a notice of eviction on the tenants after learning of their illicit operation. Locals all herd the news, including the Fritzes, who conversed about it with others. (At left, Lance Miller of Windermere Allen & Associates.) CLICK TO THE COURT'S OPINION HERE.

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON—NO. 59321-8-I

WINDERMERE BELLEVUE COMMONS ASSOCIATE BROKER DICK PELASCINI'S FORECLOSURE RESCUE RIPOFF SCAM: "...When Pace-Knapp signed further documents at the closing agent’s office, she first realized she had sold her house to the Pelascinis. Nevertheless, she proceeded with the sale. As a result of this transaction, the trustee’s sale did not proceed... She lived in the house under lease agreements with the Pelascinis for two and a half years, during which time she paid rent to the new owners. She was evicted when the Pelascinis declined to renew her lease a third time." CLICK HERE TO THE COURT'S OPINION.

 

STEALING COMPETITOR STRATEGY: IS PROMOTION THEFT THE WINDERMERE MARKETING PLAN?

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—CASE NO. EDCV-01242 JGB (OPx)

Coldwell Banker Sues Windermere Services Southern California for Lanham Act Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, and Common Law Unfair Competition in Federal Complaint Alleging:

"23. On or about March 2013, Windermere's Counsel indicated that Windermere would take immediate steps to change the formatting of its WINDERMERE@HOME magazine to alleviate Coldwell. Banker's concerns of trade dress infringement. 24. As of the filing of this Complaint, Windermere has not taken any steps to change the formatting of its WINDERMERE@HOME magazine and continues to incorporate the VIEW Trade Dress in the WINDERMERE@H0ME magazine." DOWNLOAD THE COMPLAINT HERE

Similar lawsuit from another Windermere competitor: U.S.DISTRICT COURT—NO. SACV10-01589 JVS (ex): JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, BOB BENNION, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES [WINDERMERE COACHELLA VALLEY], A&L PARTNERS, ANDREA MARQUEZ, SUED FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

Similar lawsuit: U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE—CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-cv-271: WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COMPANY AND SEATTLE-WEDGWOOD BROKER, CARISSA TURBAK [SAFFEL], SUED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN AND UNFAIR COMPETITION—VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT—BY FINITO SERVICES LLC, DBA SUNSPOT INNS, RESORTS & VACATION RENTALS

Similar lawsuit: U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA—NO. CV-05401: WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND AND ASSOCIATE BROKER DEBBIE NITSCHE SUED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION.

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY / PALM SPRINGS / BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES REVIEWS

PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS: WINDERMERE COACHELLA VALLEY/BENNION and DEVILLE FINE HOMES AGENT, PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, CHARGED IN CONCURRENT CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

FEDERAL INDICTMENT No. CR 12 00441: Windermere Coachella Valley Indian Wells, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes Agent Peggy Anne Shambaugh and Husband, Attorney Gary Edward Kovall (left), Indicted on Federal Bribery, Conspiracy and Money Laundering Charges in Palms Springs Region Spotlight 29 Casino Kickback Scheme. Also named are Paul Phillip Bardos and David Alan Heslop. Click here to read or download a .pdf copy of the complete indictment.

 

COMPANION CIVIL CASE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE—CASE NO. RIC10006101

Federally Indicted Windermere Coachella Valley Indian Wells Agent Peggy Shambaugh, Windermere Coachella Valley and Owner Bob Deville, Charged by Spotlight 29 Casino Owner Indian Tribe with Breach of Conract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services, Charged with Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Professional Negligence; Windermere Coachella, Bob Deville and Windermere Services Charged with Unfair Trade Practices in $30 Million-Plus Deal—Complaint Alleges Windermere Services is an Unlicensed Entity.

SHAMBAUGH, BENNION & DEVILLE, WINDERMERE COACHELLA, WINDERMERE SERVICES and JOSEPH R. DEVILLE SETTLE BEFORE TRIAL: Notice of Ruing & Entry of Judgment— “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Motion for Good Faith Determination filed by Moving Parties PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY and JOSEPH R DEVILLE ("SETTLING PARTIES") came on for hearing on January 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 07 of the above-reference court, located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California. Cheryl D. Davidson, Esq. appeared for SETTLING PARTIES. Gordon Bosserman, Esq (appearing telephonically) and Scott Spolin, Esq. appeared for Plaintiffs. Connie Anderson, Esq. appeared telephonically for David Alan Heslop and Diversification Resources. [¶] The Court, after considering the moving papers and the lack of opposition thereto, found that the proposed settlement was within the ball park of SETTLING PARTIES' proportionate share of liability and was reasonable and equitable pursuant to the terms of Tech-Bilt, Inc. vs. Woodward-Clyde and Associates (1989) 38 Cal.3d 488. The court found no evidence of collusion or conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling parties. The Court granted the Motion for Good Faith Settlement…”

john jacobi(L to R: (1) Joseph R. "Bob" Deville and (2) Bob Bennion of Windermere Services Southern California, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., and Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley. (3) Peggy Shambaugh, Realtor at Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, Indian Wells office. (4) Current Windermere Services Company governing persons John W. Jacobi, (5) Geoffrey P. Wood, (6) Jill Jacobi-Wood, (7) John O'Brien "OB"Jacobi, (8) attorney Paul Drayna—WSBA# 26636.

 

CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE ABOVE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY—N0. RIC 10019843

"..FAIR MARKET VALUE, AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF PURCHASED IT, WAS ONLY $80,000, OR $230,000 LESS THAN PLAINTIFF HAD PAID FOR IT, ON THE ADVICE OF WINDERMERE." (emphasis added)

BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, DBA WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, SUED FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND OTHER CLAIMS, ALLEGING: "...10. As Plaintiff’s real estate broker, Windermere owed an affirmative obligation to Plaintiff to exercise the utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty to Plaintiff. Despite the recognition and acknowledgment of this relationship, Windermere never disclosed the fact that Heslop had a preexisting and ongoing financial arrangement with Windermere, through Shambaugh and her then boyfriend, now husband, Gary Kovall ("Kovall"), or the fact that the Tribe was paying substantially more than the market value for the Baseline Property..."

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE—N0. 30-2009 00311045

Complaint alleges, " ...the purchase price was raised to $31 million, apparently to compensate for the reduction in the percentage of the commission to Windermere and Shambaugh." Nada L. Edwards, Gary E. Kovall, Robert A. Rosette, Rosette & Associates PC, Monteau & Peebles LLP, Fredericks & Peebles LLP, Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP, sued in case referencing Windermere Coachella Valley's Peggy Shambaugh, officially listed as an "Interested Party."

CASE UPDATE: Following his federal indictment on bribery and conspiracy charges, the Court has granted a stay of this civil action against Defendant Gary Kovall, based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT—N0. INS1201085

"We are still experiencing cash flow issues...." —Windermere Controller Marie D. Wooten

JUDGMENT AGAINST BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES INC., DBA WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, SUED FOR RENT PAID LATE AND UNPAID RENT: Documents in evidence state: "Late Fees which have accumulated for the last ten months total: $10,937.10... Rent has been delinquent January thru November. With the exception of a late fee paid for September... Please remit balance due of: $33,904.96 ..."

 

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INDIO BRANCH—CASE N0: INC 10005449

Windermere Real Estate Services Company, Windermere Coachella Valley Agent Charles Stewart Smith (left), Bennion & Deville Fine Homes Inc., dba Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, Sued for Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness, Statutory Failure to Make Written Disclosures, Fraud: Fraudulent Concealment and Failure to Disclose, Fraud: Intentional Misrepresentation, Fraud: Negligent Misrepresentation, and Constructive Fraud.

Windermere Coachella agent Charles Stewart Smith says on his Windermere web page that he has "... a track record of proven sales and outstanding client service results."

Charles Stewart Smith review from the WindermereWatch e-mailbag: "...This guy is trouble. I interviewed him to sell my home. I researched his background after we met. I did not hire him. I learned that he does not use his real name Charles Smith. And the guy and his real estate partner Patrick Jordan were in foreclosure and did not notify the DRE. It turns out that there is a reason agents can't use nick names with out notifying clients. You don't find much under Stewart Smith."

 

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT OF, RIVERSIDE COUNTY—CASE N0: INC 1203722

Bennion & Deville Agent Scott Palermo (left), individually; Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. a California corporation, dba Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley; Louise Hampton, individually; HLH Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation dba Prudential California Realty, sued for General Negligence.

 

 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—CASE NO. EDCV-01242 JGB (OPx)

Coldwell Banker Sues Windermere Services Southern California for Lanham Act Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, and Common Law Unfair Competition.

 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT NO. SACV10-01589 JVS (ex)

A&L Partners, Andrea Marquez, Joseph R. Deville, Bob Bennion, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Sued for Trademark Infringement.

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INDIO—CASE NO. INC 1204647

OOPS!!! WINDERMERE'S DAVID CARDEN AND DALE MAGUIRE (at left respectively); RE/MAX SPECIALISTS, BOB STALLINGS and PIERRE BALLARD; and SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER RONNY THARPE, SUED BY SALES PROSPECT WHO FELL INTO OPEN, UNFENCED and ALMOST EMPTY SWIMMING POOL. READ THE ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS BENNION & DEVIILE FINE HOMES, AGENTS CARDEN AND MAGUIRE HERE

 

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE—NO. INC 1205192

Windermere Real Estate [Coachella Valley], Broker Chris Anderson DRE #01400606 and Agent Tony Otten DRE #01400038 (at left, respectively), Sued for Comparative Indemnity and Apportionment of Fault; and Total Equitable Indemnity, in Capitis Southeby's International Realty Cross-Complaint Alleging "...Windermere, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Otten owed a duty of honest dealing to Plaintiff..." DOWNLOAD THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE CASE HERE; DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE CROSS-COMPLAINT HERE.

Second Amended Cross-Complaint alleges: "...Stephen LoCascio and Michael Russell lived together as legally married spouses... the escrow under which Mr. LoCascio would buy the Subject Property was supposed to close on or about June 26, 2012... The Addendums allowed the buyer, Mr. LoCascio to rent the Subject Property and to take possession of the Subject Property, under the Addendums, on April 5, 2012, as a tenant, three months before the close of escrow... the truth was that Mr. LoCascio and Mr. Russell had no place to live...

While in sole possession of the Subject Property, Mr. LoCascio and Mr. Russell committed waste, in that inter alia they ripped large holes in the walls and ceiling, took down a wall, removed all the landscaping, including mature trees, either urinated or allowed their two dogs to urinate throughout the house on the carpeting, changed and damaged electrical wiring, damaged wallpaper, damaged the ceiling and custom made drapery, damaged the plumbing system,, and otherwise committed acts of destruction and waste to the Subject Property, physically rendering the house uninhabitable, and substantially lowering the fair market value...

...Mr. Anderson was the real estate broker and Mr. Otten the real estate agent for Mr. LoCascio and Mr. Russell... Windermere, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Otten breached the duties owed to Plaintiff when they failed to disclose to Plaintiff that LoCascio/Russell's property has been foreclosed upon and that they did not have the finances to purchase Plaintiff's home..."

A customer of Andrea Turnage (left) from the now-defunct Windermere Real Estate, Indian Wells, California, says: "One of the worst experiences in real estate I've ever had..." and "...extremely unprofessional and unethical..." READ ANDREA'S REVIEW HERE

 

 

 

 

Aaron Shriner Seattle Real Estate Review: Former Owner / Managing Broker of the now defunct Windermere Real Estate SCA Redmond, Aaron Shriner, has become a Seattle Realogics Sotheby's International Realty Agent! Astute realty service consumers have the right to know Mr. Shriner's Windermere history before enlisting his services at Sotheby's:

CASE #1: Windermere SCA Redmond was proud home to certified Windermere swindler, Paul Stickney, officially adjudged by Washington courts (Click to the Court's Opinion here) as having a conflict of interest and failing to disclose it to his Windermere SCA clients. Download the $1,030,627.00 judgment against Windermere Real Estate SCA and Paul Stickney here.

CASE #2: Windermere Chairman John W. Jacobi's Washington Loan Company, Windermere Real Estate SCA Redmond and agent Christopher Judd, sued for Intentional Misrepresentation and other claims in alleged "...unlawful scheme to enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiffs and others..." Click to the full Complaint in the case here. (Shriner and Stickney at above left, respectively.)

 

 

Windermere City Group maintaining "...the highest ethical standards..."

Despite Two Washington State Criminal Counts for First Degree Theft in Realty Transactions, Windermere Spokane City Group Employed Accused Agent Ryan S. Bishop (left), and Exposed Unsuspecting Realty Service Consumers to Bishop's Predatory Ethics.

Shortly after John L. Scott, Spokane, terminated his employment for inappropriate conduct when his clients' transaction file was mysteriously not found by management, Spokane Realtor Ryan S. Bishop went to work the next three years at Windermere City Group, Spokane, and even continued working for Windermere City Group several months after Washington State officially charged Mr. Bishop with two counts of First Degree Theft in realty transactions.

Count #1 arose from the John L. Scott case “…by color and aid of deception, by means of failing to reveal essential information regarding a real estate transaction,” where Bishop allegedly manipulated loan documents to have himself paid an “assignment fee” of $196,435.00 from his clients' loan proceeds. The clients didn’t learn of the scheme until March of 2012, when they reviewed the complete and final HUD-1 Settlement Statement. Count #2 from the same case pertains to “...deception, by means of misappropriating rent money, with intent to deprive” the same clients of rent proceeds from the newly-purchased residence while they had yet to relocate and occupy it. Further, “…the defendant used his or her position of trust, confidence, or fiduciary responsibility to facilitate the commission of the current offense, as provided by 9,94A.535(3)(n).” 

Although the criminal charges were filed in Spokane Superior Court on October 1, 2012, records indicate that Bishop was still employed by Windermere City Group, Spokane, well into 2013. A total of two civil actions plus the aforementioned criminal charges were pending against Bishop during his employment at Windermere City Group, where owner Joe Garst (left) states on his Windermere web page, “I will represent your best interest and be attentive to your needs, maintain the highest ethical standards, and conduct myself with integrity and honesty.” Bishop's criminal trial is set for 02-03-2014 in Spokane, and his real estate license is now reported as “Delinquent" by DOL. Incredibly, Bishop is currently listed on Linkedin as an Adult Family Home Administrator at Legacy Gardens of Spokane Adult Family Home. DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE RYAN S. BISHOP SPOKANE SUPERIOR NO. 12103480-1 CHARGING INFORMATION HERE

 

 

WINDERMERE EAST REVIEWS & WINDERMERE-VESTUS FORECLOSURE GROUP REVIEW & CASES

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON—CASE NO. 12-2-08537-4 SEA

March 13, 2012: Vestus LLC, Windermere Real Estate East, and "Investment Specialist & Foreclosure Expert" Christopher Hall, Sued for Negligent or Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Violation of Washington Real Estate Law, including Chapters 18.85 and 18.86 RCW, and Violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW, in Complaint Alleging:

"9. The Defendants hold themselves out as experts in the purchase of foreclosing real property. Defendants provide training and information on purchasing foreclosing property, and facilitate the financing and acquisition of foreclosing properties. 10. Vestus advertises that it gathers "real time market data" on foreclosing properties, "mines" the data, physically drives to the properties in order to ensure the accurate analysis of each property, and rigorously and carefully analyses the information it has collected.... 18. Information readily available to real estate professionals, but not to the public, included agents' remarks that the foundation of the Property had settling issues. 19. The Defendants did not disclose the settling problems to McGrath."

DOWNLOAD THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE; OR READ IT ON THE VESTUS FORECLOSURE GROUP REVIEW PAGE HERE; JUMP TO THE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER HERE

CASE HISTORY

January 11, 2013: After Windermere/Demco's FIRST Summary Judgment Motion, Judge orders that Plaintiff's claims for Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Concealment, Negligent Misrepresentation, CPA and violation of RCW 18.86 agency statute will remain. Windermere Vestus Demco Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff files jury demand. Vestus Foreclosure Group, Windermere Real Estate East, and Christopher Hall to stand trial for Fraudulent Concealment and other charges on August 12, 2013.

June 21, 2013: Vestus, Windermere East, Christopher Hall and Demco lawyers lose big again. Court denies SECOND Motion for Summary Judgment. DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE SECOND SUMARY JUDGMENT MOTION HERE; AND THE ORDER DENYING IT HERE

From Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgement: "Well before the April 7, 2011 meeting, Vestus acquired an Agent Detail Report on the Property. On March 13, 2011, Hugh Stewart, one of Vestus' principals, pulled the Agent Detail Report from the MLS site. Hall Dep 21-22. At about one third of the way down the page contains the words, "Partial Slope." At the bottom, in a section called "Agent Only Remarks," is "settling issues"... The Agent Detail Report is not available to the public. Hall, Dep 63-64 ("Can ordinary citizens go on the MLS site and get the agent remarks, the agent-only remarks?" "No; because it is agent-only remarks."). The Agent Detail Report for the Property WAS NOT IN the Auction Packet Vestus distributed on April 7,2011." (Emphasis added.)

July 22, 2013: Just 2 weeks before trial, a Stipulation and Order to Amend Complaint to Remove Claim and Parties has been filed with an Amended Complaint that removes Hall and the Fraudulent Concealment charge. The newly Amended Complaint names defendant parties as Vestus LLC, and Windermere Real Estate East, Inc., and states in part: "...Hall provided McGrath information and recommendations on properties... Information readily available to real estate professionals, but not to the public, included agents' remarks that the foundation of the Property had settling issues... Defendants did not disclose the settling problems to McGrath."

After Stipulation and Amended Complaint, Trial to Proceed against Vestus Foreclosure and Windermere East for Breach of Contract, Negligent Misrepresentation, violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and Breach of Statutory Duty, on August 12, 2013.

Plaintiff's Trial Brief: "Since the hearing on Vestus' motion, [Plaintiff] McGrath has notified Vestus' attorney that she intends to drop her claim for fraudulent concealment. She has decided to drop Christopher Hall as a defendant. She has filed a motion to amend to reflect these changes in a stipulation and order agreed upon by defendants' attorney." Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions and Proposed Special Verdict Form

Defendants' Trial Brief: "...Vestus does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information it makes available..." Demco Doubles Down: Vestus/Windermere East Proposed Jury Instructions and Proposed Special Verdict Form. Defendants' Motions In Limine.

Pre-Trial Updates: Joint Statement of Evidence; Defendants' Admissible Docs Notice, ER 904; Mediation Compliance: "The mediation did not resolve the dispute." Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness, also filed on July 22, states trial is estimated to take 5 days. Defendants' Notice of Admissible Docs, Evidence Rule 904; Notice of Mediation Compliance: "The mediation did not resolve the dispute."

August 8, 2013: Notice Of Settlement Filed.

 

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, KING COUNTY—NO. 13-2-36032-2 SEA

Windermere Real Estate East and Agent Stephen C. Hender (left) Sued in Complaint Alleging Negligent Breach of Duty, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Violation of the Consumer Protection Act and Claim for Injunctive Relief, by Plaintiff Charging Irretrievable Loss of $100,000.00 Earnest Money Deposit to Steven D. Smith Construction of Redmond. MORE HERE

Complaint alleges: "...Plaintiffs' aforesaid irretrievable loss and legal forfeiture of Plaintiffs' aforesaid One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollar earnest money deposit was proximately caused by Defendant Hender's aforesaid tortious conduct of practicing law in violation of RCW 2.48.170-190..." and "...Plaintiffs allege that the unauthorized practice of law tortious actions of Defendant Hender and related negligent supervision of Defendant Windermere East are of such nature that other consumers are likely to be harmed by the Defendants' joint and several ongoing and continued repetition of such unauthorized practice of law." DOWNLOAD THE FULL COMPLAINT

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 07-2-08247-6 SEA

YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT A WINDERMERE EAST ASSOCIATE BROKER MIGHT BE DOING:

" Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Ivan G. Popchoi and Varvara M. Popchoi and against Csaba Kiss (left) in the total amount of $44,885,39, ... "On October 17, 2006, Melanie A. Leary, an attorney with the Demco Law Firm, P.S., sent Mr. Williams a written response to his October 6, 2006 letter. Ms. Leary advised Mr. Williams that she represented Mr. Kiss and relayed Mr. Kiss’s position that the Popchois were not entitled to the protection of the warranties provided by the Statutory Warranty deed executed by Mr. Kiss. Ms. Leary’s letter notified Mr. Williams that Mr. Kiss was “far more inclined to let a court decide” the Popchois’ warranty rights “than to spend money to settle” the Popchois warranty claim.”

 

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SPOKANE—No. 13200611-6

"...so what if we are off $20,000 sometimes."

Vestus LLC and Windermere Spokane City Group agents Brian Sandusky and Aaron Cunningham (at left respectively) Sued in Class Action Complaint (Certification Pending) for Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, Alleging "...Vestus was not a licensed real estate brokerage firm." 10/18/2013: Previously litigated in lower court where plaintiff's claims were dismissed. Court awards summary judgment based on collateral estoppel.

Spokane Class Action against Windermere's Vestus Foreclosure alleges Plaintiff "...lost a significant amount of money... on her purchase of the Liberty Lake property based on the representations made by Vestus," and that Vestus Defendant Cunningham stated: "...so what if we are off $20,000 sometimes." Allegations further state that Cunningham told the Plaintiff that he requested another Vestus client bidder to refrain from bidding as a "favor" to the Plaintiff.

The Class Action Complaint's Prayer for Relief Includes: 4. That it be declared that Vestus' fee/compensation structure is unfair and/or deceptive in violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act; 5. That the Court rescind the contracts between Defendant Vestus and Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals; 6. That Defendant Vestus be held liable to Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals for any commissions or fees paid pursuant to rescinded contracts."

July 17, 2013:Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of Certain Claims Against Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham: "...Plaintiff, and Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham, through their respective counsel of record and hereby stipulate and agree that all claims against Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham in § IV of Plaintiff's Complaint for Violations of Consumer Protection Act, including ¶¶ 4.1 - 4.8 thereunder, may be dismissed without prejudice and without costs. UPDATE 8/29/2013: Trial scheduled for Monday, August 14, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.

Download the complete Class Action Complaint here. Jump to the Vestus Answer here. September 9, 2013: Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim of Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham. September 13, 2013: Defendant Vestus LLC's First Motion for Summary Judgement.

 

john jacobi REALTY PREDATOR and WINDERMERE CHAIRMAN (left) JOHN W. JACOBI'S HUGE and HORRIFIC LEGACY OF GREED, LOSS, DISTRESS and FINANCIAL RUIN FOR WASHINGTON STATE HOMEBUYERS: THE COMPLETE WINDERMERE WASHINGTON LITIGATION HISTORY in comprehensive listings of Windermere Real Estate lawsuits from KING and PIERCE and SNOHOMISH counties, and all Washington counties where Windermere cases have been filed:

Benton Chelan Clallam Clark Columbia Cowlitz Franklin Grant Grays Harbor Island Jefferson Kitsap Kittitas Lewis Mason Pacific Pend Oreille San Juan Skagit Spokane Stevens Thurston Wahkiakum Walla Walla Whatcom Whitman Yakima Download the complete Windermere litigation history from ALL Washington counties here.

 

IS HE AMERICA'S MOST UNETHICAL LAWYER? Lying to judges and knowingly filing false complaints and other fraudulent documents in their courts. Violating defendant civil rights and attempting to coerce illegal, unjust settlement agreements through intimidating emails, excessive legal expense and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Running away and voluntarily dismissing his own company's phony and process-abusive lawsuits on the eve of trial. He'll even try deliberately subverting a previously demanded and paid jury proceeding by surreptitiously ordering a bench trial. Is Windermere General Counsel, Lying Lawyer and Legal Process Cheat, Paul Stephen Drayna (left), the nation's most obtuse, unscrupulous and dishonest corporate attorney?

 

"A good reputation is more valuable than money." —Publilius Syrus

ARE YOU CONSIDERING A WINDERMERE FRANCHISE? CONSIDER CAREFULLY: Does franchiser Windermere Services Company disclose the Windermere network's pervasive professional misconduct, countless lawsuits and vast PR troubles to renewing and prospective Windermere franchisees? Under Federal Trade Commission Rules, Part 436, Disclosure Requirements, any franchiser has a legal duty to disclose: "16 CFR 436.2 (5)(n) ...any fact, circumstance, or set of conditions which has a substantial likelihood of influencing a reasonable franchisee or a reasonable prospective franchisee in the making of a significant decision relating to a named franchise business or which has any significant financial impact on a franchisee or prospective franchisee."

 

WINDERMERE'S UNLAWFUL SALES OF LOW-GRADE SECURITIES:

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 10-2-30838-5 SEA

Windermere Real Estate Northwest, Inc., Agent Howard Johnson, Broker and Branch Manager Loretta Larson, Sued for Violation of the Washington State Securities Act (WSSA), Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Negligent Supervision (Against Windermere and Larson), Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act

(Above left to right) President April Kieburtz, Designated Broker and Owner, Windermere Real Estate/Northwest; the generic silhouette head of Steven Kieburtz, CEO and Owner, Windermere Real Estate/Northwest; and Loretta Larson, Manager and Broker, Windermere Real Estate/Northwest.

ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT: "19. Windermere and Larson were “control persons” of Johnson under the WSSA with respect to Simmons’ SCI investment, pursuant to RCW 21.20.430 and common law... 20. Windermere and Larson had the power to control Johnson’s offers or sales of products to the public and Larson was the branch manager, charged with monitoring and managing the activities of the agents and brokers affiliated with such branch, including Johnson... 21. In connection with the SCI investment, Johnson misrepresented material facts to Simmons or omitted to state material facts necessary to make Johnson’s other material representations, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading." Read the complete report here

Case Updates: MOTION REGARDING PRETRIAL MATTERS: Windermere Northwest argues that the Court should not allow expert testimony interpreting the Securities Act: "The Court Should Exclude Witnesses from the Department of Financial Institutions." Parties stipulate to trial on June 4, 2012. Notice of Settlement dated 6/1/2012 filed on 6/5/2012.

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA—2012 MT 144A

Montana Supreme Court Reverses the Partial Summary Judgment of Windermere Helena Broker Rick Ahmann's (left) "Acquiron" Real Estate and Business Brokerage After Elderly Victim Seeks Damages of $4,635,485.51, Claims Unlawful Sale of Securities, Negligence and Fiduciary Breach: "The examiner found that DBSI was running a Ponzi scheme."

 

 

Are you considering LISTING YOUR HOME with Windermere, or BUYING A HOME LISTED by Windermere? Despite Windermere's false promotion of "Uncompromising honesty and integrity," if anything goes wrong in your Windermere home deal, WINDERMERE WILL FORCE YOU TO SUE. Before you buy or sell with Windermere, focus on the risk of Windermere's well-documented history of unethical misconduct in home transactions:

 

WINDERMERE REDMOND REVIEW

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON—NO. 62912-3-I

PAUL STICKNEY WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE'S (A.K.A. STICKNEY TEAM) MILLION-DOLLAR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Plundering Paul Stickney (left) was officially adjudged by Washington courts as having a conflict of interest and failing to disclose it to his Windermere SCA clients—Mark and Carol DeCoursey—when he sold them a house in Redmond, Washington, and then recommended a remodeling company to the DeCourseys. But Stickney neglected to mention he was AN OWNER of the remodeling company he was recommending, which absolutely ruined their home. Stickney testified that he DID NOT KNOW he was named as the remodeling company's VP until AFTER the DeCoursey's lawsuit began. STORY HERE.

READ THE PAUL STICKNEY/WINDERMERE REDMOND SUPERSEDEAS APPEAL BOND HERE. READ THE WINDERMERE REDMOND SCA/PAUL STICKNEY $1,030,627.00 JUDGMENT HERE.

 

SNEAKY: When the Craig Shriner family's former Windermere Redmond office became Windermere Redmond/East, conflict-of-interest swindler Paul Stickney was deleted from its roster, his listings tendered in the name of Windermere Redmond East agent Patricia "Patty" Ennis (left). But Ms. Ennis' email address was listed as "stickneyteam@windermere.com," and her "Cell/Direct: (206) 954-6475" was Paul Stickney's number. CONSUMERS BEWARE. Jump to the Court's Opinion on Mr. Stickney here.

 

In King County Superior Case No. 13-2-17465-1 SEA, Stickney, who literally destroyed the home and finances of his Windermere Redmond SCA clients (story here), has been SUED FOR MONIES DUE AND OWING OF $5688.06 BY AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK. (Read the Amex Stickney Complaint here; and the Amex Motion for Default here.) Perhaps Predator Paul is tasting the same distress and disgrace that he and Windermere have provided to so many others.

After thoroughly wrecking his unsuspecting clients' lives for nearly six years, Windermere Redmond crook Stickney now whines to the court: "...Although innocent, I was found guilty of things I never did, by a jury that did not hear the other sides of the story at trial... Further, to add insult to injury, the on-line attacks have become supported by judicial credibility..." and "...I am now behind on my house payments, I owe money to the IRS, and I have four other debts that are in arrears. I have been paying on the debts until I could pay no more. This ordeal has exhausted my assets and I am barely hanging on." —Click here for Paul Stickney's complete response to Plaintiff American Express. Update: Amex Motion to Strike Stickney's Answer as "...immaterial or impertinent..." Order Granted on Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Answer. 9/26/2013 Order of Dismissal.

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON STATE, KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 09-2-46671-8 SEA

Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi's Washington Loan Company, Craig and Rosalie Shriner's Windermere Real Estate S.C.A. Redmond, and its Agent Christopher Judd, Sued for Intentional Misrepresentation and Other Claims in Alleged "...unlawful scheme to enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiffs and others..."

john jacobi(Above, left to right) Governing Persons of the Washington Loan Company: 1) Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi is listed as President of the Washington Loan Company; 2) Kendra Vita, Manager of franchiser Windermere Services Company is listed as Secretary of the Washington Loan Company; 3) franchiser Windermere Services Company General Counsel, attorney Paul S. Drayna—WSBA #26636—is listed as Registered Agent of the Washington Loan Company; 4) Don Riley, Washington Loan Company manager; 5) Windermere Real Estate S.C.A. Redmond owner Craig Shriner; 6) Windermere Redmond SCA managing broker Aaron Shriner; 7) Windermere Redmond SCA agent Christopher Judd.

From Yahoo Reviews... Comments for Aaron Shriner—Windermere Real Estate: "This office represented the buyer of our home, the agent failed to communicate information in a timely manner, nearly missed several deadlines to extend the offer, and when we expressed our frustration to the broker, we were met with a condescending response, lacking even the semblance of an apology. Find another office to work with - the customer service in this office is VERY poor."

Typical Windermere Network Office Scams: A Windermere Redmond Review That Every Realty Service Consumer Should Read

 

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION 1, STATE OF WASHINGTON—NO. 58533-9-I

THE GRUELING HUMAN TOLL OF CHASING WINDERMERE CROOKS THROUGH THE COURTS: $311,304.67 IN LEGAL FEES, 5 YEARS DISTRESSING LITIGATION, and DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE TO BUILD A NEW ONE...

COURT SAYS WINDERMERE CAMANO ISLAND'S SONYA EPPIG "...DID NOT SO UNEQUIVOCALLY SET FORTH THE PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROBLEMS..." and "...[WINDERMERE] CAMANO LEARNED ABOUT THE PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROBLEMS BUT DID NOT INFORM THE RUEBELS."

(Left) Sonya Eppig and Windermere Real Estate/CIR Owner Marla Heagle, producing for fanchiser Windermere Services Company. "...Eppig did not tell the Ruebels about the addendum Nelson prepared disclosing that the engineering work was not complete and that the building plans did not meet the UBC requirements. Instead, Eppig helped draft a revised addendum that did not so unequivocally set forth the permitting and inspection problems. And when Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for approximately two years, Camano learned about the permitting and inspection problems but did not inform the Ruebels....

... Eppig did not tell the Ruebels that the Building Department had suspended the building permit. Sometime after May 6, Eppig obtained some engineering information from Preview Realty and requested building plans from Hovis’ architect.... On May 7 or 8, Eppig sent the Ruebels an extension until May 15 for the feasibility study and assured them that there was no problem with complying with the Building Department's request for the engineering information.... Contrary to Eppig’s assurances, VanDuine testified that he told Eppig the engineering data she provided was inadequate...

...Rather than proceed with remodeling, the Ruebels decided it was less costly to demolish the house and build a new house."

 

 

PRUDENT LEGAL MANAGEMENT: Consider Adding Franchiser Windermere Services Company To Your Windermere Complaint... 

Attention Attorneys and Windermere Fraud Victims: Forced by outrageous ethical breach into suing a local Windermere franchise, broker or agent? Windermere advertises "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," but in truth runs away from its own unethical misconduct and forces damaged Windermere fraud victims to sue and endure years of legal expense, distress and strategic delay. 

Opinions state that Franchiser Windermere Services Company has a bona fide legal fiduciary interest in every local Windermere office transaction because it gets money from those transactions: When local Windermere franchises are sued and Complaints name "Windermere Real Estate Services Company," as a party, franchiser Windermere Services claims it has been "erroneously sued" and aggressively seeks its own dismissal from the lawsuit—but don't let that happen. If you're forced to sue your local Windermere franchise, remember: Franchiser Windermere Services Company HAS ALREADY PROFITED on your unethical Windermere transaction through its local franchise, and it therefore shares potential liability for your damages and attorney fees.  

LEGAL PRECEDENT: Windermere Services Company has previously argued affirmatively in King County Superior Court No. 05-2-3443 SEA that it is in privity with its Windermere franchisees: In its duplicitous pleading to escape counterclaims, Windermere Services Company ACTUALLY PREVAILED in a Partial Summary Judgment Motion that states it is in "privity" with a Seattle Windermere franchisee because, "...as the owner of the Windermere tradename, it is in privity with Windermere Real Estate/Northeast." Privity is defined as: a.) A relation between parties that is held to be sufficiently close and direct to support a legal claim on behalf of or against another person with whom this relation exists. b.) A successive or mutual interest in or relationship to the same property. 

FOR MAXIMUM POSSIBLE RECOVERY, PRUDENT LEGAL MANAGEMENT DEMANDS WINDERMERE FRAUD VICTIMS and THEIR COUNSEL SHOULD CONSIDER ADDING FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY TO ANY COMPLAINT THEY FILE.  Access Windermere Services Company's Partial Summary Judgment Privity Motion & Order here.

 

 

Franchiser Windermere Services Company suing

and competing against its own franchisees:

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 10-2-36192-8 SEA

 

THE SAGA OF WINDERMERE PUYALLUP CANYON ROAD (WPCR) IS A REALTY FRANCHISE OWNER'S ULTRA-NIGHTMARE: Franchiser Windermere Services Chairman "...Jacobi decided to open another Windermere office in the territory in which WPCR was operating."

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO—CASE NO. 37-2011-00089709-CU-BC-CTL

"From the time that the Cross-Complainants exercised their contractual right to terminate the Franchise License Agreement, and while Cross-Complainants were still operating as Windermere franchisees, [Windermere Services] Cross-Defendants engaged in a pattern of unlawful and predatory acts designed to specifically harm Cross-Complainants and destroy their businesses as Windermere franchisees and their future business endeavors."

 

Attention agents: Considering a business

association with Windermere Real Estate?

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION 1—No. 65159-5:

"In Retaliation Windermere Sought to Make the Litigation as Expensive and Time Consuming as Possible to Dissuade Mr. Rodriguez and other Agents from Asserting Claims against Windermere."

"The trial court's award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to Mr. Rodriguez was both appropriate and necessary pursuant to Washington law and its public policies. A finding otherwise would have validated a unilateral fees clause and resulted in the precise inequity the statute intends to remedy. This Court should disregard Windermere's attempt to truncate the relevant contractual language and misconstrue the law, and affirm the trial court's award of attorney's fees award to Mr. Rodriguez. Likewise, the trial court's award of prejudgment interest at 18%, as the parties had agreed was the reasonable rate of interest between them, was correct and should be affirmed."

 

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SPOKANE—No. 13201539-5

Complaint Alleges: "Durheim and Groves told Solerno not to inform the [buyer] Mitchells of this fact."

Husband and Wife Windermere Spokane Agents Greg Durheim and Carol Groves (left) and Windermere Manito Spokane (Joseph K. Nichols, Windermere Manito Owner, 2nd from left) Sued for Breach of Contract, Breach of Statutory Duties and Negligent Misrepresentation in Complaint Alleging that Durheim and Groves Told Co-Defendant "...not to inform..." Plaintiffs that Mortgage Lender Would Not Agree to Partial Release of Property.

"Sometime in the fall of 2011, Solerno told Durheim and Groves that his mortgage lender would not agree to a partial release of his property and that the closing on the Solerno property could not happen. Durheim and Groves told Solerno not to inform the Mitchells of this fact." DOWNLOAD A COMPLETE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE

Motion for default of defendants Windermere and Groves: " ...More than twenty (20) days have expired since service of process, and Defendants have failed to file or serve an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, and are now wholly in default... He told me that an Answer would be filed no later that May 29, 2013. May 29, 2013 has come and gone without any Answer having been filed or served."

Defendants Windermere and Groves finally file an Answer on June 14, 2013: "...Windermere admits contacting Solernos at Plaintiff's request, to seek Solerno's participation in a boundary line adjustment but denies that the adjustment was to operate a commercial dog kennel."

 

 

WINDERMERE HIMLIE SHELTON REVIEW

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON EN BANC—No. 83660-4

Windermere Himlie Shelton Review: Nearly seven years litigation all the way to the Washington Supreme Court, and still going: Windermere's "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," brings unsuspecting waterfront homebuyers...

An Interminable Windermere Himlie Legal Ordeal in Shelton, Mason County, Washington

"The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Jackowskis' claims for breach of statutory fiduciary duties. The Court of Appeals also properly acknowledged that chapter 64.06 RCW does not bar common law rescission, and it properly reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Jackowskis' causes of action relating to fraud concerning the fill issue. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings."

"The trial court permitted the Jackowskis to amend their complaint against Hawkins Poe and Johnson to include an allegation of failure to meet statutory duties under 18.86.050(1)(c) and against the Borchelts, Windermere Himlie, and Conklin for fraud and fraudulent concealment of cracks in the basement."

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT'S OPINION HERE

(At left) Vince Himlie, owner and designated broker of Windermere Himlie, who states that he has been honored as "Realtor of the Year." And Windermere Himlie agent Jef Conklin, whose Windermere web page states, "Jef has the experience to make sure your transactions go as smoothly as possible," and "With Jef and Windermere in your corner you can`t help but come out a winner."

 

 

 

HOMESTREET BANK REVIEW • WINDERMERE MORTGAGE SERVICES SERIES LLC REVIEW

SUPERIOR COURT, WASHINGTON STATE, COUNTY OF PIERCE—Case No. 12-2-15705-2

Allegations against Homestreet Bank, Windermere Real Estate Services Company, Windermere Real Estate South, and Windermere Mortgage Services Series, LLC., all named as Cross-Claim Defendants:

john jacobi"WSC tracks loan and Title referrals by WRE office and individual agent. ... It is believed that WRE agents are generally ignorant that their "legal fund" is a profit center for the WRE office in which they work. ... 57. John Jacobi [left], majority owner of WSC is also 70% owner of voting shares of stock in WRE South."

"52. It was likely any suit against the Escrow Company would result in a counterclaim against WMSS South and WRE South. 53. Demco did not pursue any claim against the Escrow Company."JUMP TO THE COMPLETE CROSS-CLAIMS HERE

In response to Plaintiff Homestreet Bank's boilerplate Judicial Foreclosure Complaint against former Windermere Franchise Owner and Defendant Michael M. Ratcliffe, Ratcliffe's estranged wife, Co-Defendant and 3rd Party Plaintiff, Joyce M. Feeley, blows the lid off the Windermere / Homestreet partnership in her Answer, Counter-Claims and Cross-Claims, which in part allege:

"44. The WMIA fund runs a substantial surplus each year in excess of $500,000 that is distributed to the WRE office owners. 45. It is believed that WRE agents are generally ignorant that their "legal fund" is a profit center for the WRE office in which they work."

"...Mr. Bennion exerted substantial pressure through Windermere Mortgage Services Series and Mr. Ratcliffe to compel Ms. Feeley to return and re-sign the deed of trust without any qualifier."

1. VIOLATION OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES. Homestreet Bank violated its fiduciary duties when its agent, RICHARD BENNION, overstepped his role as a managing board member and assumed the role of the lender. Homestreet committed this violation when its agent, RICHARD BENNION, assumed the responsibility of making the final decision to fund the Milton property loan despite the numerous underwriting and processing shortcomings of that loan..." (Emphasis added.)

2. RESPA VIOLATIONS. Because WMSS and Homestreet Bank reimburse WSC and discrete WRE offices in relation to the volume of loans they refer, those payments CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER KICKBACK in violation of CFR 3500.14. ..." (Emphasis added.)

3. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BRIBERY. Because WMSS, Homestreet Bank, and the other crossclaim defendants profited from unlawful bribery and the conspiracy to commit such acts, they have acted in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a) and (c). ..." (Emphasis added.)

DOWNLOAD JOYCE M. FEELEY'S ANSWER, COUNTER-CLAIMS and CROSS-CLAIMS HERE

 

GERACI v. HOMESTREET BANK: Is HomeStreet Bank a socially responsible financial institution?

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY—No. 08-2-34857-1 SEA

$1,278,418.00 JUDGMENT DEBTOR—WINDERMERE AFFILIATED COMPANY COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND—IS NOW "CW TITLE" OF BELLEVUE AFTER A QUICKIE NAME CHANGE. SHOULD THE PUBLIC TRUST INCOMPETENT WINDERMERE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES LIKE CW TITLE? Read the original Complaint in the case here. Read the Third-party Answer and Counterclaim here. Read the "$1,278,418.00 plus interest" Agreed Order against Defendant Commonwealth here.

As prior counsel to Plaintiff Seawest Investment, and then later as counsel for Defendant Commonwealth—IN THE VERY SAME CASE—Windermere-Demco lawyer Matthew F. Davis (left) is deposed as a WITNESS: Read his amazingly evasive and equivocal 80-page deposition in which he states, "I was not involved with this transaction at the time that it was negotiated. And as a result, I assumed that a disclosure statement was provided in connection with the initial contract formation... And it, because I was involved so much later than contract formation, IT SIMPLY DID NOT OCCUR TO ME AS A POSSIBILITY IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED." (Emphasis added.) Mr. Davis is also well-known for lying to the court and a defendant, and for abusing process through intimidation and coercion in another Windermere case.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO—CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00522-CWD

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/CAPITAL GROUP of BOISE, IDAHO, SUED FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT—TITLE VIII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1968. WINDERMERE AGENT MARY LIESE ALLEGED TO HAVE TOLD AN IFHC TESTER, "WE PREFER PEOPLE 55 AND OVER."

 

Complaint Charges: "The Defendants have engaged in coercion, intimidation..." CASE UPDATE 07/19/2011: Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Intermountain Fair Housing Council. Defendants Steve Osburn and Mary Liese are now listed as employees at Windermere Boise—Access Realty.

 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE—CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-cv-271

Windermere Real Estate Company and its Seattle-Wedgwood Office Broker, Carissa Turbak [Saffel], Sued for Copyright Infringement, False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition—Violation of the Lanham Act—by Finito Services LLC, dba Sunspot Inns, Resorts & Vacation Rentals. The Complaint Alleges: "Without the permission of Sunspot, Defendants selected, modified and published no fewer than 53 Sunspot photographs in their real estate marketing materials on multiple Internet websites..." Above left: Windermere Real Estate Company Owner John "OB" Jacobi; Windermere Real Estate Company Seattle-Wedgwood Broker Carissa Turbak Saffel.

 

WINDERMERE FRANCHISE OWNERS' BANKRUPTCY and TAX WARRANTS; MISCELLANEOUS WINDERMERE LEGAL, CREDITOR and DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS:

 

BK Petition of Windermere Real Estate Capital Group, Inc., Owner Steven Alan Osburn: Total Assets of Steven Alan Osburn (left) $25,804.12; Total Liabilities, $1,368,534.85. Creditor Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claim, Windermere Services Company, $130,000.00. Download the Osburn Bankruptcy Petition here. Mr Osburn is currently a real estate agent at 43 Forty Three Degrees North Real Estate, Boise, Idaho; M2 Idaho, LLC. Osburn's Windermere Capital Group was sued for Violation of the Fair Housing Act.

 

BK Petitions of Windermere Real Estate Commencement Associates Owners Dick Beeson and David Sinding: Total Assets of (left) Richard E. Beeson—aka Dick Beeson—and Robin L. Beeson, $556,426.00; Total Liabilities, $2,795,696.00. Download the Beeson Bankruptcy Petition here. Petition States Beeson is Currently a Real Estate Broker at RE/MAX Professionals, Tacoma. Total Assets of (2nd from left) David C. Sinding, $482,600.00; Total Liabilities, $1,952,497.00.

 

STATE WARRANT FOR UNPAID TAXES #167188A: CATALYST COMMERCIAL PARTNERS INC (a corporation) WINDERMERE COMMERCIAL. Catalyst President Robert Regan (left) was "...Broker/Owner of Windermere Commercial/Metro and the Director of Commercial Real Estate for all of Windermere Real Estate throughout the Western United States..."

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE BONNEY LAKE - LAKE TAPPS Owner Tom Tollen's Highmark Homes WARRANT NO. 13-00771-SC For Unpaid Construction Compliance Penalties, An Unregistered Contractor, Infraction No. NSLOD00507, Compliance Penalty, Interest, Filing Fees and Surcharges, $3070.00. Satisfaction of Warrant No. 13-00771-SC. Click to Windermere Bonney Lake - Lake Tapps lawsuits here.

 

"Windermere Real Estate Expanding its Brand into Colorado. Eric Thompson, (left) former president of The Group, Inc. will spearhead growth starting in Fort Collins: September 10, 2014, Seattle – OB Jacobi, second-generation leader and president of Seattle-based Windermere Real Estate has announced the company’s plans to expand the Windermere brand into Colorado, starting in Fort Collins." Initial startup personnel include Paul Hunter, Chris Murdza, Greg Rittner, Siduri Taylor, and Janet Tharpe. MORE HERE

The COLORADOAN reports that Eric Thompson’s departure from The Group, Inc., was a “mutually agreed upon decision.” A June 2014 COLORADOAN Newspaper report about Thompson states that, “Eric Thompson is out as president of The Group, Inc., ..." and “...The Group’s board of directors said Thompson’s departure was “a mutually agreed upon decision,“ and “...Susie Ewing, vice president, said “Eric did a great job while he was here, but the company was looking for a new direction.”

 

 

WINDERMERE FEDERAL WAY REVIEW

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE—NO. C07-1808 JCC

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/WEST CAMPUS, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AND ITS AGENT DAN DENNIS, SUED FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION.

Complaint alleges that “…Windermere Real Estate/West Campus, Inc. and Dan Dennis SUPPLIED FALSE INFORMATION to AMERCO in its business transaction…" (Above left and right) Windermere Defendant Dan Dennis, the generic silhouette head of John A. Tidwell, Manager, Owner and Designated Broker of Windermere West Campus.

 

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING —CASE NO. 08-2-30394-2

Windermere Real Estate West Campus Federal Way; Agents Dan Dennis and Cheryl Crutcher Sued by Newport Village Condominium Owners Association for Misrepresentations and/or Omissions of Material Fact, Fraudulent Concealment, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

(Above left to right) Windermere Real Estate/West Campus Federal Way Defendants Broker Dan Dennis and Salesperson Cheryl Crutcher. The generic silhouette of John A. Tidwell, Owner and Designated Broker of Windermere West Campus Federal Way. Complaint alleges "... intentionally and/or negligently  failed to disclose facts regarding known defects and physical hazards..."

 

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF PIERCE No. 09-2-08369-5

Tacoma, Gig Harbor, Federal Way Agent John Siridakis, Sued for Misrepresentation and Violation of RCW 18.86.030(1)(a)(b)(d).

The Complaint in part alleges: "...Defendant John Siridakis knew prior to closing that the City of University Place would not allow the property to be subdivided into additional building lots and knew that Plaintiff were [sic] making the purchase with the express understanding that such subdivision would be allowed..."

From the WindermereWatch e-mailbag: Selling a home the Windermere Way, through bullying female clients with threats, harassment and intimidation...

Windermere Tacoma, Gig Harbor, Federal Way West Campus Agent John Siridakis Review: "Trying to get me and my two young (age 6&7) "kicked out" of our house..."

"This is my third experience with four Windermere agents, three in Gig Harbor and one in Tacoma. These people truly have zero professionalism and worse than that, feel they are entitled to treat their clients as if we work for them not the other way around."

John Siridakis of Tacoma, Gig Harbor, and Windermere Federal Way West Campus, emails HIS OWN CLIENT, HIS OWN CLIENT'S LAWYER, AND HER EX-HUSBAND'S LAWYER to demand "...It is now VERY OBVIOUS that Mrs Seller feels as if she is going to not only Run the ship but steer it as well!..." and "...She needs to be removed from the property via the courts..." CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

 

 

ATTENTION AGENTS AND REALTY FRANCHISE OPERATORS: CONSIDERING A BUSINESS ASSOCIATION WITH WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE?

"In Retaliation Windermere Sought to Make the Litigation as Expensive and Time Consuming as Possible to Dissuade Mr. Rodriguez and other Agents from Asserting Claims against Windermere"

"On April 4, 2005, without explanation, Mr. Jacobsen terminated Mr. Rodriguez's agency with Windermere. CP 92. As part of the termination agreement, Mr. Jacobsen reviewed the files for five pending transactions and agreed that Mr. Rodriguez was entitled to one half of the listing commission on those transactions...

In November 2005, however, before the Brady transaction closed, Mr. Jacobsen unilaterally changed the commission disbursement form in a way that eliminated Mr. Rodriguez's share of the listing commission. CP 92; TE 14. Neither Mr. Jacobsen nor Ms. Thompson ever told Mr. Rodriguez of the change or that he would not receive his $16,800 share of the commission from the Brady transaction. CP 94." Windermere Wall Street's Richard "Jake" Jacobsen (shown left).

The peril in being a Windermere agent: Read ex-Windermere agent Roberto Rodriguez's respondent's brief here.

 

WINDERMERE'S PREDATORY and UNETHICAL FRANCHISING PRACTICES:

A REAL ESTATE FRANCHISE OWNER'S ULTRA-NIGHTMARE: "...Jacobi decided to open another Windermere office in the territory in which WPCR was operating..."

john jacobiThird Party Complaint Alleges, "Despite Jacobi's contractual obligation to personally guarantee WPCR obligations to Bank of America and demands by WPCR members to do so, Jacobi failed and refused to sign personal guarantees of these obligations," and "On September 14, 2010, Maxwell heard from a real estate agent working at WPCR that the agent had received an email from WSC [franchiser Windermere Services Co.] notifying him WPCR's franchise had been terminated. This notice was sent to WPCR's real estate agents before Maxwell learned of the termination of WPCR's franchise." (Windermere founder John Jacobi, left.)

PLEADINGS AND THE ENTIRE SAGA OF WINDERMERE PUYALLUP CANYON ROAD

WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY v. MAXWELL (FORMER WINDERMERE PCR OWNER) UPDATE: VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS FILED

WINDERMERE EAST SUES ITS OWN AGENT—DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF $76,535.47

 

WINDERMERE SERVICES LITIGATION with DISGRUNTLED FORMER FRANCHISEES

24 Former Windermere California Offices Drop the Windermere Brand

 

COMPLETE LIST OF PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WINDERMERE CASES

 

 

PAUL STEPHAN DRAYNA, MATTHEW F. DAVIS REVIEWS; DAVISLEARY LAW FIRM REVIEW; DEMCO LAW FIRM REVIEW:

WINDERMERE-DEMCO LYING LAWYERS and LEGAL PROCESS CHEATS, PAUL STEPHEN DRAYNA and MATTHEW F. DAVIS:

DON'T EXPECT HONEST, AVERAGE LEGAL COMPETENCE—OR EVEN COMMON DECENCY: Opposing counsel and legal professionals should take note of Windermere Services Company and Demco Law Firm Lying Lawyers and Legal Process Cheats, Paul Stephen Drayna and Matthew F. Davis (shown left, respectively).

These two princes of process abuse file false, prevaricating lawsuits merely to intimidate Windermere victims, coerce unjust settlements, and bankrupt innocent defendants—then they run away and voluntarily dismiss their own action under CR41 just before trial when they fail at forcing an innocent defendant to sign away their speech rights. For proof, click here to read one of the Drayna/Davis/Windermere proposed "settlement" agreements that terminate speech rights, accompanied by Windermere's specious Trade Libel & Defamation Complaint and its CR41Voluntary Dismissal.

Holding lawyers in low esteem has become a national pastime, and absolutely craven characters like Drayna and Davis are just a couple of the many reasons why: They will lie to courts and opposing parties. They will file fallacious and erroneous documents with the court. They will email an opposing party telling them not to hire a lawyer when they have just served that party a lawsuit. They will call a judge's chambers and request more time without informing an opposing party. They'll even file an order for a bench trial when they know a jury trial has been demanded and paid for. Their poor reputations proceed them at court—and consequently—also reflect on those whom they represent before judges and courtroom personnel.

Windermere-Demco must often be compelled by courts to provide or participate in discovery—as in this example. For greater detail on Drayna-Davis misconduct—click here. information on Windermere Services Company's privity with franchises—click here.

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 08-2-34857-1 SEA

Jury Finds Windermere's "Affiliated Service" Business, Commonwealth Land and Title Company of Puget Sound, Negligent, Awards Third-Party Plaintiffs $1,190,000.00...

...Don't risk a sloppy, incompetent home transaction, or a concealed Windermere agent/broker insider referral scam. Commonwealth Land and Title Company of Puget Sound changed its name to "CW Title" as of September 1, 2011: CW Title is just Commonwealth Land and Title Company of Puget Sound by another name. Don't Trust CW Title with your home!

CW TITLE REVIEWS: "I'm still waiting to close on my property because of her lies."

Windermere's Commonwealth Land Title of Puget Sound—AKA CW Title—Sued for Slander of Title and CPA Violation: Dismissal Update

 

 

WINDERMERE CONVERTING COMMISSIONS DUE AFTER THEIR OWN AGENTS LEAVE: "In Retaliation Windermere Sought to Make the Litigation as Expensive and Time Consuming as Possible to Dissuade Mr. Rodriguez and other Agents from Asserting Claims against Windermere." —WASHINGTON APPEALS COURT, No. 65159-5

 

 

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, a Texas Limited Partnership; NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; COMMONWEALTH LAND AND TITLE OF PUGET SOUND, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a United States Government Sponsored Enterprise, sued for Wrongful Foreclosure, Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and other claims.

Complaint alleges: "This is a violation of the Trustee's duty of good faith as provided by statute and a violation of federal statutes."

 

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR SKAGIT COUNTY—CASE NO. 09-2-00178-5

CO-OWNER OF WINDERMERE MOUNT VERNON/SKAGIT VALLEY AND WINDERMERE ANACORTES PROPERTIES, NATE SCOTT; ALSO SALES MANAGER COLLEEN CRAIG, AND AGENT MEREDITH LAWS OF WINDERMERE ANACORTES PROPERTIES (left, respectively), SUED FOE FRAUD IN MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARING "2ND LISTING" CASE

 

 

DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY CONCEALING TOXIC RAT INFESTATION IN A RUINED HOME DECEPTIVELY PAINTED-UP WITH FRESH "MARTHA STEWART COLORS," AND THEN LYING ABOUT IT, TOO. WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE NORTHEAST KIRKLAND'S INCREDIBLE PREDATORY LIARS, GEORGE RUDIGER AND JOAN WHITTAKER: THE WORST OF THE WINDERMERE WORST. (At left, George Rudiger and some of his concealed rats; lying Realtor Joan Whittaker photo unavailable.)

 

 

Current Windermere Real Estate Chino Hills King Realty Group Owner, Richard Michael King, had real estate license "...revoked; provided, however, a restricted real estate broker license shall be issued..." by Department of Real Estate, State of California, when previously operating as Century 21 King Realtors...

...From "In the Matter of the Accusation..." filed by the Department of Real Estate, State of California, June 11, 1998: "The overall conduct of Respondent KING [left], constitutes a failure on his part, as officer designated by a corporate broker licensee, responsible for the supervision and control over the activities conducted on behalf of MDR by its officers, managers and employees as necessary to secure full compliance with the provisions of the Real Estate Law including the supervision of the salespersons licensed to the corporation in the performance of acts for which a real estate license is required.

This conduct is cause for the suspension or revocation of the real estate license and license rights of KING pursuant to the provisions of Sections 10159.2 and 10177(d) of the Code." Mr. King's license was reinstated on August 13, 2002.

 

 

WINDERMERE AFFILIATED BUSINESS LAWSUITS & LITIGATION

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION, CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-09-1009-UNAS-IPJ

Windermere Affiliated Business OLD REPUBLIC HOME PROTECTION COMPANY SUED IN FEDERAL NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT alleging, "This case pertains to defendant's uniform, nationwide practice of charging home warranty premiums in connection with the settlement or closing of home mortgage loans in a manner that violates RESPA, specifically Section 8(a), which prohibits, among other things, the giving or accepting of fees in exchange for the referral of any "service involving a federally related mortgage loan" to "any person."

THE "AFFILIATED" BUSINESSES THAT PAY PUBLIC PREDATOR WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE, ITS EMPLOYEES AND/OR AGENTS—WHO HAVE A DIRECT OR INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST AND MAY RECEIVE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT—TO STEER HOME BUYERS AND SELLERS TO THEIR SPECIFIC SETTLEMENT SERVICES: Is it unethical?

WINDERMERE AGENTS and BROKERS COMPEL SELLERS and BUYERS TO SIGN A FORM: Windermere SoCal's "Affiliated Business Arrangement" in part states:

"This is to give you notice that Windermere Real Estate SoCal has a business relationship with Old Republic Home Warranty, GeoAssurance, Orange Coast Title Company, The Escrow Source, imortgage.com and Mortgage Capital Partners. Windermere Real Estate SoCal and/or certain owners, employees and/or agents of Windermere Real Estate have a direct or indirect ownership interest in Old Republic Home Warranty, GeoAssurance, Orange Coast Title Company, The Escrow Source, imortgage.com and Mortgage Capital Partners. Because of these relationships, this referral may provide a financial benefit to Windermere Real Estate SoCal, its employees and/or agents. DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE WINDERMERE SOCAL "AFFILIATED BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT" HERE

 

GERACI v. HOMESTREET BANK: Is HomeStreet Bank a socially responsible financial institution?

 

 

UNABASHED PROFIT ON WINDERMERE AGENTS and BROKERS WITH LEGALLY ADJUDICATED HISTORIES OF UNETHICAL MISCONDUCT, and EXPENSIVE, INTIMIDATING, PHONY LAWSUITS FILED TO TERMINATE THE SPEECH RIGHTS OF DAMAGED WINDERMERE FRAUD VICTIMS...

IS WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE ONE OF WASHINGTON'S MOST RESPECTED BRANDS?

john jacobiPUBLIC PREDATORS: Windermere Founder and Chairman, John W. Jacobi (left), and Windermere Services General Counsel, attorney and Jacobi yes-man, Paul Stephen Drayna—a University of Wisconsin Law School alumnus (right)—ruin damaged Windermere customers with marketing lies and the costly, mendacious lawsuits they file against defrauded Windermere victims who speak publicly.

Jacobi and Drayna falsely sue an outspoken party for trade libel and defamation, try to coerce the defendant into a "dark clause" settlement agreement through fear and intimidation, continue to prosecute the bogus action for years at enormous cost to the parties, then run away and voluntarily dismiss their own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41, just prior to trial, when the honest, innocent victim persists in refusing to sign away their speech rights. Is Windermere Real Estate one of Washington's most respected brands?

 

SUPERIOR COURT, WASHINGTON STATE, KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 11-2-35973-5 SEA

WINDERMERE BELLEVUE COMMONS "NOT MY PROBLEM" CASE UPDATE: PLAINTIFF ADDS REGALL CONSTRUCTION IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Windermere Real Estate Bellevue Commons Sued for Unlawful Removal and Exclusion of Plaintiff from the Residence, Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Conversion, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act. Windermere Bellevue Commons Sales Associate Tony Ferrelli's Alleged Response when Informed of Plaintiff's Missing Personal Property was "Not my problem." The Windermere Bellevue Commons Answer here.

(Left to right) Windermere Bellevue Commons associate Tony Ferrelli, associate Marcus Crane, and Windermere Bellevue Commons owners Courtney Adams, and Amy Adams, whose Windermere web page states "I strongly believe that everyone should be treated with kindness, fairness, caring, and honesty." But does Ms. Adams' definition of honesty include informing the Bellevue Commons clients of Dick and Cecilia Pelascini about their violation of the consumer protection act?

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF PIERCE—CASE NO. 09 2 08671 6

 

Maria Kalafatich of WINDERMERE PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, Tacoma, Sued for Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud and Fraudulent Concealment, Rescission, Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Professional Negligence / Violation of RCW 18.86.030.

 

Leslie Walters of WINDERMERE COMMENCEMENT ASSOCIATES, Tacoma, Sued for Professional Negligence /Violation of RCW 18.86.030. Defendants WINDERMERE PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, LLC, and WINDERMERE COMMENCEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., Sued for Vicarious Liability Under RCW 18.85.155 as Liable for the Tortius Conduct of Defendants Kalafatich and Walters.

 

 

(Left to right) : Windermere Professional Partners' Maria Kalafatich, who states on her Windermere web page that "My clients appreciate my integrity..." Windermere Commencement Associates' Leslie Walters, Windermere Commencement Associates owners David Sinding and Dick Beeson. Windermere Professional Partners owner Michael Robinson.

 

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 08-2-42345-0 SEA

john jacobiWINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/WALL STREET—Where Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi is listed as Director—PROFITS ON LOAN-CON SCAMMER CHERYL JONET

Recently deceased Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street agent Cheryl Jonet was a judgment debtor and defendant in many legal actions involving lawsuits for mishandling earnest money, the breach of promissory note agreements, and unlawful detainer. Peter Doorish was selling a home in February of 2005, and Jonet was a buyer’s agent. Jonet represented her buyer as being a lawyer, when in reality, the buyer was in fact a clerical employee and the single mother of four children.

Jonet convinced Doorish to provide the buyer a $50,000 loan, with assurances that Windermere lawyers would generate the proper paperwork. But Jonet actually kept the Doorish loan for herself... (Shown left to right) Rich Gangnes is an owner and also the designated broker of Windermere Real Estate / Wall Street; Jake Jacobsen is the managing broker at Windermere Wall Street where both were on duty for the Doorish and Jonet cases; Windermere chairman and founder, John W. Jacobi. CLICK TO THE FULL REPORT HERE.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA—NO. CV-05401

 

Windermere Real Estate Bainbridge Island and Associate Broker Debbie Nitsche (left) Sued for Copyright Infringement, Violation of the Lanham Act, and Unfair Competition:

 

"Without permission of Plaintiff Lawrence, Defendants selected, modified and placed Plaintiff’s photograph as modified in the “Walkthrough Media” video... As part of their video and/or website services, Defendants Clark, Nohre and/or GraphicalData sold and distributed the video to various real estate agents, including without limitation, Debbie Nitsche..."

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 98-2-17607-5

 

Washington State Representative Marcie Maxwell is a Windermere Associate Broker who never revealed her knowledge of a home’s septic system defects:

 

Once again, Windermere escapes the legal responsibility for damages based not upon the merits of a case, but by exploiting our dysfunctional courts; and also through the disingenuous machinations and legal gymnastics of its ethically-challenged and crafty Demco counsel. (Left) Washington State Representative and Windermere Associate Broker, Marcie Maxwell. CLICK HERE TO THIS REPORT

 

Windermere Agent Recommends Rookie Inspector Who Misses Toxic Mold. (Left) Judy Bigelow, agent for Windermere Real Estate / West Sound, Silverdale. RCW 18.86.030: "Regardless of whether the licensee is an agent, a licensee owes to all parties to whom the licensee renders real estate brokerage services the following duties, which may not be waived: (a) To exercise reasonable skill and care; (b) To deal honestly and in good faith."

 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 07-2-17754-0 SEA

Windermere Real Estate Oak Tree and Broker Steve Laevastu Sued for Negligent Misrepresentation and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act. "Defendants Laevastu, on behalf of himself, Windermere and other defendants, misrepresented the history and quality of the Stationhouse to the current owners of Units A, B, and C prior to their purchase of a unit at Stationhouse. These buyers reasonably relied on the representations of Laevatsu and Windermere when they decided to purchase their units." (Left) Broker Steve Laevatsu of Windermere Real Estate / Oak Tree.

 

UNITED STATES SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL TAKES A WHOPPING $49,200 IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PUBLIC PREDATOR WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE! (Left) Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat from Washington State, whose website says she "...is driven by her duty to serve the people..."

 

 

cate moyegregoirelucegranlyAfter Nearly 7 Years Producing Commissions for Windermere Services and Windermere Spokane Valley Owner Cate Moye, Convicted Robbery Felon and Shotgun-Shootout Windermere Agent, Nicholas Granly, Mysteriously Disappeared from the Windermere Roster—just as Owner Moye is Nominated for Vice Chair of Washington’s Real Estate Commission.

Did Ms. Moye ever advise ANY of her unsuspecting clients that Mr. Granly might be showing their homes—or grant them the opportunity to deny Windermere agent Granly access to their homes? (Shown left to right) Cate Moye, Owner Windermere Real Estate/Valley, Spokane; Washington State Governor Chris Gregoire; Washington State Department Of Licensing's Director Liz Luce; and Windermere Real Estate/Valley, Spokane's Agent Nicholas Granly.

 

 

BUYERS BEWARE: DON'T PURCHASE PROPERTIES BUILT BY BENNETT HOMES OF BELLEVUE

Bennett Homes (examples left) of Bellevue is Generating Commission Revenue for Public Predator Windermere Real Estate: FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION, consumers are urged to refuse seeing—OR BUYING—Bennett Homes represented by Windermere Real Estate and Windermere Bellevue Commons. PROTECT YOUR RIGHT to ETHICAL CONDUCT in REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS.

 

National Real Estate Fraud Center—Windermere Real Estate Case Histories:

SOUND BUILT HOMES V. WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOUTH: "Accordingly, Sound Built is now entitled to a judgment against Windermere..."

 

"DUAL AGENCY IS PERILOUS" says Court. "...Windermere did not advise the Lunsfords that it would present the Thomas offer." LUNSFORD v. FRALEY

 

EARNEST MONEY FORFEITURE: Court rules "...plain language of RCW 64.04.005 does not allow substantial compliance..." CHRISP v. GOLL

 

 

 

Important Washington Real Estate Court Cases:

 

Svendsen v Stock: Washington Consumer Protection Act Applies to Real Estate Brokers

 

SOUND BUILT HOMES V. WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOUTH: "Accordingly, Sound Built is now entitled to a judgment against Windermere..."

 

"DUAL AGENCY IS PERILOUS" says Court. "...Windermere did not advise the Lunsfords that it would present the Thomas offer." LUNSFORD v. FRALEY

 

EARNEST MONEY FORFEITURE: Court rules "...plain language of RCW 64.04.005 does not allow substantial compliance..." CHRISP v. GOLL

 

An important message to University of Washington administrators, staff and regents about The Windermere Cup, social responsibility, and the University's relationship with John Wood Jacobi and Windermere Real Estate

 

Tacoma communications consultancy JAYRAY provides Windermere Services Company a tenuous WindermereWatch damage control formula: In a “Managing the impacts of Windermerewatch.com” recommendations memo, Tacoma communications consultants Debra Carnes and Shari Campbell at JAYRAY—A PLACE TO THINK—tells Windermere’s Geoff Wood and Noelle Bortfeld: “There is no question that Windermere needs to move forward with a plan and strategies to minimize the potential damage...” CLICK TO THE COMPLETE ORIGINAL MEMO HERE.

“...I had two more calls today from clients asking about who is behind these postcards. Why can’t we get these people to stop? They’re going to hurt our business.”—Potential call from Windermere's Phone Script

The WindermereWatch postcard campaign informs unwitting Windermere property listing clients about the hazards of dealing with the nation’s most unethical real estate company. Franchiser Windermere Services Company’s “Phone Script” instructs its area representatives on what to tell exasperated Windermere agents and brokers when upset home sellers call them: "I'm sorry you received that..." CLICK HERE TO WSC's WINDERMEREWATCH DAMAGE CONTROL PHONE SCRiPT

 

 

THE WINDERMERE RELOCATION RAPE CASE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT—D.C. No. CV-98-01184-RSL

 

Court Declares that Windermere "...condoned a rape by a business colleague..."

The incredibly violent and insidious psychological ramifications of rape, connected through an “abusive work environment” serves as an unfortunate—yet credible—subtext for the way in which Windermere Real Estate treats employees and defrauded, damaged customers alike. Windermere’s application of aggressive, wasteful and mendacious litigation to stall and ruin innocent consumers serves as the coercive metaphor of corporate power and arrogance: Windermere has no genuine concern for the damage it has done to families or society, It cares only about how to manipulate the law and the courts to avoid any legal responsibility—and about how to deflect bad PR with disingenuous promotion like "Building Communities" and "The Windermere Foundation."

john jacobi(Left to right) Windermere CEO Geoff Wood (far left) is listed as a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation. Peggy Scott (second from left), also a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation, "... did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint..." Windermere attorney Paul Stephen Drayna (third from left) is listed as the registered agent of RELO LLC, the entity name of Windermere Relocation. Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi (fourth from left) along with Gayle Glew (far right) are listed as Governing Persons of Windermere Relocation during the Little case. Glew told Ms. Little he did not want any "clouds in the office," and after she would not accept a pay cut, that she should "...clean out her desk."

All citizens who abhor such treatment of women in the workplace should recall Maureen Little v. Windermere Relocation when choosing real estate services. WindermereWatch visitors will also want to read the United States District Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit's Order and Amended Opinion from the Little case.

THE COURT STATED: "In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career[ ]."

 

... "When Little told Glew of the rape, which, according to Glew, was the first he had heard of it, Glew's "immediate response was that he did not want to hear anything about it."  He told Little that she would have to respond to his attorneys. Glew then informed her that he was restructuring her salary from $3,000 monthly to $2,000 monthly plus $250 per closed transaction. The pay reduction was effective immediately and non-negotiable. Bellisario, who was present at that portion of the meeting, appeared "surprised and upset" to Little" ... (COURT'S QUOTE HERE)

... Little found the pay cut unacceptable, and Glew told her to go home for two days to think it over "because he did not want any `clouds in the office.' " When Little still found the pay cut unacceptable two days later, Glew told her it would be best if she moved on and that she should clean out her desk.

... In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career[ ]." (COURT'S QUOTE HERE)

 

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COURT'S ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION HERE

 

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAUREEN LITTLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 99-35668

v.

WINDERMERE RELOCATION, INC., a  Washington corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court  for the Western District of Washington  Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted  March 6, 2001--Seattle, Washington

Opinion Filed September 12, 2001
Amended January 23, 2002

Before: Harry Pregerson, Sidney R. Thomas and
Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Thomas

D.C. No. CV-98-01184-RSL
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

COUNSEL

Marilee Erickson and Danielle A. Hess, Reed McClure, Seattle, Washington, for the appellant. Patrick N. Rothwell, Abbott, Davis, Rothwell, Mullin &  Earle, P.C., Seattle Washington, for the appellee.

ORDER

The opinion filed on September 12, 2001, is hereby amended. With the amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for  rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for  rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

OPINION

THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

Maureen Little ("Little") appeals from an order granting summary judgment on her claims of hostile work environment  and retaliation in violation of Title VII, and wrongful dis- charge in violation of Washington state law. Because genuine issues of material fact exist on these claims, we reverse the  judgment of the district court. We affirm the dismissal of her state law claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,  as we must in evaluating the propriety of a grant of summary  judgment, see Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir.  1991), the events leading up to this lawsuit occurred as follows:

Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services, Inc. ("Windermere") as a Corporate Services Manager, a position that required her "to develop an ongoing business relationship and relocation contacts with corporations in order to obtain corporate clients needing relocation services for their employees." Until she was terminated, she received only positive feedback from her supervisors. Windermere's records  confirm that during the relevant period, Little had the best  transaction closure record of all corporate managers by a large  margin.

Unlike the other managers, Little's employment contract provided that Little would receive $2,000 monthly, plus a $1,000 monthly override and $250 per closed sale. The over-ride was based on the assumption that Little would close four  transactions per month, with a provision for rollover when she  did not make target. According to Windermere President Gayle Glew, the other managers had not received the $1,000 override.

One of Windermere's clients was the Starbucks Corporation. Some time in 1997, Little performed some relocation services for Starbucks Human Resources Director, Dan Guerrero, on a contract basis, and she learned from him that Starbucks was dissatisfied with its primary relocation provider. Glew told Little that he would "do whatever it takes to get this account" and that Little should "do the best job she could." Thus, Little believed that, as part of her job, she was to build a business relationship with Guerrero to try to get the Starbucks account, and she had at least two business lunches with Guerrero toward this end.

On October 14, Little accepted Guerrero's invitation to discuss the account at a restaurant. After eating dinner with Guerrero and having a couple of drinks, Little suddenly became ill and passed out. She awoke to find herself being raped by Guerrero in his car. She fought him off and jumped out of the car, but again she became violently ill. Guerrero put her back in the car and took her to his apartment, where he raped her again. Little fell asleep, and when she awoke he was raping her again. Afterward, he showered and drove her to her car.

Little was reluctant to tell anyone at Windermere about the rape because, in her own words, "I knew how important the Starbucks account was to Mr. Glew. Mr. Glew would ask me on a consistent basis the status of the account and I was afraid that if I told him about the rape, he would see me as an impediment to obtaining the Starbucks account." This belief was reinforced when, a few days after the rape, Little reported the rape to Chris Delay, Director of Relocation Services (apparently not one of Little's supervisors), and Delay advised her not to tell anyone in management. Little believed  that Delay feared "what might happen to [Little] if [she] did tell."

On October 23, about nine days after the rape, Little reported it to Peggy Scott, the Vice President of Operations, who was designated in Windermere's Harassment Policy as a complaint-receiving manager. Little described Scott's response:

She came out around the desk and I could tell she was upset and she just gave me a hug and said she wished there was something she could do. She didn't understand what I was going through. She asked me  if I was in therapy. Then she proceeded to tell me she wouldn't say anything to [Glew] unless I proceeded to seek legal action [against Dan Guerrero].

Scott told Little that "[s]he thought it would be best that [Little] try to put it behind [her] and to keep working in therapy," and that she should discontinue working on the Starbucks account. She did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint or any follow-up interview with Little. Scott testified in her deposition that, because the rape occurred outside the "working environment," she believed that it fell outside the scope of Windermere's Harassment Policy.

Despite Little's supposed removal from the Starbucks account, Glew continued to ask her about the status of the Starbucks account during the next six weeks. "[As of December 2,] Gayle was asking me questions about Starbucks . . . a couple of times every month to see what the status was." Concerned by Glew's questions, Little told her immediate supervisor, Linda Bellisario, the Vice President of Sales and Marketing, on December 2, 1997, about the rape. Little had been reluctant to tell Bellisario because she "felt that [Bellisario] would immediately go to Gayle and Gayle would terminate my position. . . . I knew how much this account meant to him. He said he would do whatever it took to get this account." Bellisario told Little to inform Glew of the incident.

When Little told Glew of the rape, which, according to Glew, was the first he had heard of it, Glew's "immediate response was that he did not want to hear anything about it."  He told Little that she would have to respond to his attorneys. Glew then informed her that he was restructuring her salary from $3,000 monthly to $2,000 monthly plus $250 per closed transaction. The pay reduction was effective immediately and non-negotiable. Bellisario, who was present at that portion of the meeting, appeared "surprised and upset" to Little.

She told me [later] that she had no idea Mr. Glew was going to cut my salary. It did not appear he had talked with her about my pay structure prior to his making his decision . . . . [She] was crying and she was upset, she said she had no idea that Gayle was going to talk about this at all. And she had no idea he was going to reduce my pay. And that she didn't want me to leave and she didn't know what to do. And she was pretty upset about the whole thing.

Little found the pay cut unacceptable, and Glew told her to go home for two days to think it over "because he did not want any `clouds in the office.' " When Little still found the pay cut unacceptable two days later, Glew told her it would be best if she moved on and that she should clean out her desk.

Little brought suit against Windermere, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), and the Revised Code of Washington § 49.60; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Windermere on all four claims. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo . Ellison, 924 F.2d at 873.

II

Little alleges that Windermere's response to the rape created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Rev. C. Wash. § 49.60.180(3). Because Washington sex discrimination law parallels that of Title VII, see Payne v. Children's Home Society of Washington, Inc., 892 P.2d 1102, 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995), it is appropriate to consider Little's state and federal discrimination claims together.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, in employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-66 (1986).

When evaluating a claim of sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment, we must determine two things: whether the plaintiff has established that she or he was subjected to a hostile work environment, and whether the  employer is liable for the harassment that caused the environment. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-89 (1998); Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc. , 256 F.3d 864, 871-75 (9th Cir. 2001). Both present mixed questions of law and fact that we review de novo. See Id.  at 871, 875.

A

To establish that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, a plaintiff must prove that "1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, 2) this conduct was unwelcome, and 3) this conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment." Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted). There is no doubt that Little was subjected to unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature; the dispute here centers around the third element: whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive or hostile work environment. The district court did not make any findings on the severity or pervasiveness of the conduct, but rather found that liability could not be imputed to Windermere, and granted summary judgment on that basis. However, Little does not seek relief based on imputed liability for the rape. Rather, her claim is about whether Windermere's reaction to the rape created a hostile work environment.

Under the third element, to determine whether an environment is sufficiently hostile or abusive to violate Title VII,  we look "at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an  employee's work performance." Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, _______ U.S. _______, 121 S. Ct. 1508, 1510 (2001) (internal  quotation marks and citations omitted); see Nichols, 256 F.3d at 872. Moreover, "the work environment must both subjectively and objectively be perceived as abusive," Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527 (citation omitted), and the objective portion of the claim is evaluated from the reasonable woman's perspective. Ellison, 924 F.2d at 879-80.

Little has tendered sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment on her hostile work environment claim. Guerrero's rape of Little was "severe." Under the circumstances, it would have made a reasonable woman feel that her work environment had been altered: The nature of Little's employment extended the work environment beyond the physical confines of the corporate office. Having out-of-office meetings with potential clients was a required part of the job. The rape occurred at a business meeting with a business client.  However, more significantly, Windermere's subsequent actions reinforced rather than remediated the harassment. Although she had no further contact with Guerrero, Little was  not effectively removed from responsibility for the account. She was informed that reporting the rape would probably result in an adverse employment action, even to the point of jeopardizing her career. When she reported the rape to the President, he immediately decreased her compensation and referred her to corporate lawyers. Windermere disputes the significance of many of these events. However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Little, Windermere's failure to take immediate and effective corrective action allowed the effects of the rape to permeate Little's work environment and alter it irrevocably. Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the "conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment" for Little. Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527.

The tendered evidence stands in contrast to the circumstances of Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2000). In Brooks, we held that a"single incident" of harassment that was not "severe" and that was followed by immediate corrective action by the employer was not sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to create a hostile work environment. Id. at 925-26. Here, in contrast to the single instance of fondling in Brooks, Little was victimized by three violent rapes. In Brooks, the harassing employee was fired; here, not only was there no remediation, the harassment was arguably reinforced by Little's employer.

A single "incident" of harassment -- and we assume arguendo that three rapes in the course of one evening constitutes a "single" incident -- can support a claim of hostile  work environment because the "frequency of the discriminatory conduct" is only one factor in the analysis. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (noting that "no single factor is required"). Conduct is actionable if it is either "sufficiently severe or pervasive." Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Supreme Court recently noted that an isolated incident can amount to a "discriminatory change[ ] in the `terms and conditions of employment' " when the incident is "extremely serious." Breeden, _______ U.S. _______, 121 S. Ct. at 1510 (citation omitted). Other circuits have come to a similar conclusion. See, e.g., Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that "even a single incident of sexual assault sufficiently alters the conditions of the victim's employment and clearly creates an abusive work environment for purposes of Title VII liability"); Guess v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 913 F.2d 463, 464 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that a single incident where supervisor picked up plaintiff and forced her face against his crotch impliedly considered to create hostile environment); cf. DiCenso v. Cisneros, 96 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir. 1996) ("[Although this single incident was insufficient, we do not] hold that a single incident of harassment never will support an actionable
claim.").

Rape is unquestionably among the most severe forms of sexual harassment. Being raped by a business associate, while on the job, irrevocably alters the conditions of the victim's work environment. It imports a profoundly serious level of abuse into a situation that, by law, must remain free of discrimination based on sex. Being raped is, at minimum, an act of discrimination based on sex. See Brock v. United States, 64 F.3d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Just as every murder is also a battery, every rape committed in the employment setting is also discrimination based on the employee's sex."). Thus, the employer's reaction to a single serious episode may form the basis for a hostile work environment claim.

In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career[ ]." See Harris, 510 U.S. at 22.


B

Having determined that Little has presented a triable issue of whether she was subjected to a hostile work environment, we must decide whether Windermere can be liable for the harassment. See Nichols, 256 F.3d at 875; see also Meritor, 477 U.S. at 70-72 (noting that a Title VII plaintiff must also provide a basis for holding her employer liable for the harassment). "The relevant standards and burdens pertaining to employer liability vary with the circumstances." Nichols, 256 F.3d at 875.

In this circuit, employers are liable for harassing conduct by non-employees "where the employer either ratifies or acquiesces in the harassment by not taking immediate and/or corrective actions when it knew or should have known of the conduct." Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 107 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062, 1073 (10th Cir. 1998) (adopting Folkerson standard). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines endorse this approach: "An employer may also be responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." 29 C.F.R.§ 1604.11(e) (emphasis added). Thus, if Windermere ratified Guerrero's rape of Little by failing to take immediate and effective corrective action, it is liable for the harassment.

Windermere's precise remedial obligations are defined by Ellison v. Brady:

[T]he reasonableness of an employer's remedy will depend on its ability to stop harassment by the person who engaged in harassment. In evaluating the adequacy of the remedy, the court may also take into account the remedy's ability to persuade potential  harassers to refrain from unlawful conduct.

924 F.2d at 882 (footnote omitted). In addition,"[i]f 1) no remedy is undertaken, or 2) the remedy attempted is ineffectual, liability will attach." Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1528-29.

As discussed above, Windermere's response to the rape was equivocal at best. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Little, she was informed that she should "do anything" to get the account; she was advised by a co-worker not to report the incident to top management because it would damage her career; when she reported the rape to her supervisor, she was not effectively removed from the account; and,  when she finally reported the incident to the President, she was demoted and terminated. There is no evidence that Windermere took steps to prevent contact between Little and Guerrero, such as effectively removing Little from the account or informing Starbucks that it must replace the contact it used with Windermere. Because of Windermere's failure to take appropriate remedial measures, Little has raised sufficient genuine issues of material fact as to whether Windermere ratified or acquiesced in the harassing conduct, and we reverse the district court's contrary conclusion.

C

In sum, Little has raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Windermere's actions (or inactions) subsequent to Guerrero's rape of Little subjected Little to a hostile work environment. Windermere will be liable for the hostile work environment created at Windermere after Guerrero's rape if a jury finds that it ratified or acquiesced in the rape by failing to take immediate corrective action once it knew or should have known of the rape. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this claim.

III

Little also alleges that Glew reduced her pay and terminated her in retaliation for reporting the rape in violation of Title VII and the Revised Code of Washington § 49.60.210. Because Washington courts look to interpretations of federal law when analyzing retaliation claims, we again consider Little's state and federal claims together. See Graves v. Dept. of Game, 887 P.2d 424, 428 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on this claim.

To establish a prima facie retaliation claim under the opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), Title VII, Little must show 1) her involvement in a protected activity, 2) an adverse employment action taken against her, and 3) a causal link between the two. See Brooks, 229 F.3d at 928. Title VII provides, in relevant part, that "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter. " 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). It is unnecessary that the employment practice actually be unlawful; opposition thereto is protected when it is "based on a `reasonable belief ' that the employer has engaged in an unlawful employment practice." Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original, citation omitted).

A prima facie case may be based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. "Once a prima facie case has been made, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who must offer evidence that the adverse action was taken for other than impermissibly discriminatory reasons." Id.  The plaintiff can rebut this by producing "specific, substantial evidence of pretext." Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996). Pretext, too, may be shown by circumstantial evidence, see Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospitals, Inc., 726 F.2d 1346, 1354 (9th Cir. 1984), but it must consist of "more than a mere refutation of the employer's legitimate reason and [a mere assertion] that the discriminatory reason be the cause of the firing," Wallis, 26 F.3d at 890 (citation omitted).

Little established a prima facie case. The district court correctly found that Little could have reasonably believed that, in reporting the rape to Scott, she was opposing an unlawful employment practice. See Moyo, 40 F.3d at 985. Given Lit tle's belief that her relationship with Guerrero was strictly business, and that she met with him because it was part of her job as a Windermere employee, her belief that Windermere was required to take action in response to his assault of her was eminently reasonable. See, e.g., Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1528-29 (holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment).

Second, Glew's reduction of her guaranteed monthly base salary from $3,000 (including the override) to $2,000 constituted an "adverse employment action." An "adverse employment action" is "any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in a protected activity." Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8, "Retaliation, " ¶ 8008 (1998)). This definition includes actions "materially affect[ing] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges" of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000). A cut in base pay is clearly such an adverse action, despite, as the district court  noted, Little's "hopes and expectations [of her sales and bonuses] for coming months or years." See Ray, 217 F.3d at 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that "adverse employment action" is defined broadly); see, e.g., Hashimoto, 118 F.3d at 676 (holding that the dissemination of a negative job reference constitutes an "adverse employment action"). And, of course, termination of employment is an adverse employment action; Little has presented triable issues of fact that she was, indeed, fired.

Third, Little has presented evidence that the adverse employment action occurred within minutes of her reporting the rape to Glew. This close timing provides circumstantial evidence of retaliation that is sufficient to create a prima facie case of retaliation. See Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 507 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that causation can be inferred from timing alone); see, e.g., Miller v. Fairchild Indus., 885 F.2d 498, 505 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that a prima facie case of causation was established when discharges occurred forty-two and fifty-nine days after EEOC hearings); Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that sufficient evidence existed where adverse actions occurred less than three months after complaint filed, two weeks after charge first investigated, and less than two months after investigation ended).

As required in a retaliation case, Windermere has properly rebutted Little's prima facie case with evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory motive for altering Little's pay structure. Glew testified and declared that he had grown increasingly dissatisfied with and concerned by Little's failure to make four closings per month, as contemplated in her employment agreement. Scott and Glew both testified that they met in November to discuss Little's lower-than-expected performance. Glew declared that, after considering the options, he decided to restructure Little's compensation to conform to the base that had been previously given. His decision to terminate her was consistent with his decision to restructure her pay. This evidence establishes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the pay cut.

However, Little has tendered sufficient evidence, in addition to the proximity of events, to rebut this alleged reason. Little testified that, until the pay cut and termination, she had received only positive feedback, and that she never knew of the four-deal-per-month requirement; although her employment contract states so explicitly, she may have received verbal assurances that she believed were superceding. Little averred that it took time to establish business relationships, making it difficult to close four deals per month in her first year as a Corporate Services Manager, and that her supervisors knew that. Further, the data showing Little's superior performance, in addition to Little's belief that her work was more than satisfactory, cast doubt on Glew's decision to cut the pay of the most successful corporate caller Windermere apparently had yet employed, and particularly to make the cut non-negotiable. Little's description of Bellisario's surprise and concern at the pay cut supports this interpretation -- as Little's direct supervisor, Little believed that Bellisario would have been involved in that decision. These facts, together with the proximity in timing, suffice to create a question of fact regarding Windermere's motive in cutting Little's pay and ultimately terminating her employment. "[A] prima facie case is insufficient to preclude summary judgment, a plaintiff need produce `very little evidence of discriminatory motive to raise a genuine issue of fact' as to pretext." Strother v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 79 F.3d 859, 870 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate on this claim.

IV

In addition to her federal discrimination claims, Little has alleged that Windermere wrongfully discharged her in violation of Washington law. Under this Washington tort claim, Little must establish four elements: 1) the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element); 2)"that discouraging the conduct in which [she] engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element)"; 3) that her public-policy-linked conduct was a substantial factor in (i.e. the cause of) Windermere's decision to discharge her (the causation element)"; and 4) that employers generally do not have an "over-riding justification" for wanting to use the activity as a factor affecting the decision to discharge (the absence of justification element). Ellis v. City of Seattle, 13 P.3d 1065, 1070 (Wash. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 913 P.2d 377 ( Wash. 1996) (en banc)); see also Lins v. Children's Discovery Centers of America, Inc., 976 P.2d 168, 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the elements of the claim, as well as whether Little resigned or was discharged.

First, Little has established the clarity element required by Washington Law Against Discrimination, Revised Code of Washington § 49.60. In analyzing this element, "courts should inquire whether the employer's conduct contravenes the letter or purpose of a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision or scheme." Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081, 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

In general, it can be said that public policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively . . . . Although there is no precise line of demarcation dividing matters that are the subject of public policies from matters purely personal, a survey of cases in other States involving retaliatory discharges shows that a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen's social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be allowed.

Dicomes v. State, 782 P.2d 1002, 1006 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 1989) (en banc) (citation omitted). Little argued that Windermere discharged her because she made a complaint about sexual harassment. The Washington Supreme Court held recently that Revised Code of Washington sections 49.12.200 and 49.60.010 embody a clearly articulated public policy condemning sex discrimination in employment. See Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash. 2d 58, 69, 993 P.2d 901, 907 (2000) (en banc) (holding that discharging an employee because she was on maternity leave would violate that policy). Relatedly, discharging an employee because of his opposition to a practice in violation of a public policy forms a cause of action for wrongful discharge. See Ellis, 13 P.3d at 1070. Thus, Little has articulated a clear public policy -- against sex discrimination in employment -- that Windermere's action may have
contravened.

Little tendered sufficient evidence concerning the second element, namely, that she was "engaged in particular conduct" that "directly relate[d] to the public policy, or [that] was necessary for the effective enforcement of the public policy." Gardner, 913 P.2d at 377 (emphasis in original). In Ellis, after noting that a retaliation claim exists under § 49.60.210, the court found that "the jeopardy prong . . may be established if an employee has an objectively reasonable belief the law may be violated in the absence of his or her action. " 13 P.3d at 1071. As discussed previously, Little has established a reasonable belief that Guerrero had sexually harassed her and that her reporting to Windermere could prevent further harassment. She has therefore established the jeopardy prong of Gardner. Accord Ellis, 13 P.3d at 1071 (firing fireman "for raising questions about the legality of what he was told to do jeopardizes the public policy of following the fire code").

Little has raised a genuine issue of fact as to the third element, namely, whether Windermere's termination of her employment was in retaliation for her report of the rape -- that is, whether her report was a "substantial factor" in Windermere's decision to terminate her.

Finally, Windermere has offered -- and cannot offer -- any general overriding justification for using an employee's report of sexual harassment as a reason to discharge that employee. Cf. Lins, 976 P.2d at 173 (stating that employers have no "overriding justification" for wanting to consider employee's refusal to perform an unlawful order). In fact, Windermere's sexual harassment policy encourages employees to report such behavior and provides a mechanism by which Windermere can correct such behavior.

In sum, Little has established the first two elements of her wrongful discharge claim, and she has raised questions of fact regarding the second two elements. Thus, summary judgment was not appropriate on this claim.

V

The district court correctly entered summary judgment against Little on her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in violation of Washington state tort law. To establish this cause of action, Little "must show (1) that her employer's negligent acts injured her, (2) the acts were not a workplace dispute or employee discipline, (3) the injury is not covered by the Industrial Insurance Act, and (4) the dominant feature of the negligence claim was the emotional injury." Snyder v. Med. Srv. Corp. of Eastern Wash., 988 P.2d 1023, 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Like all negligence claims, a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim requires duty, breach, proximate cause, and injury. Hunsley v. Giard, 553 P.2d 1096, 1102 (Wash. 1976). Little also must show objective symptoms of emotional distress. See Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 577 P.2d 580, 582 (Wash. 1978) (citing Hunsley, 553 P.2d at 1103).

However, Washington courts "[do] not recognize a claim against an employer for negligent infliction of emotional distress . . . `when the only factual basis for emotional distress [is] the discrimination claim.' " Robel v. Roundup Corp., 10 P.3d 1104, 1113 (Wash. 2000) (quoting Chea v. Men's Wearhouse, Inc., 932 P.2d 1261 (Wash. 1997)). Here, Little's only factual basis is that "Windermere failed to investigate Ms. Little's complaint, then cut her pay and terminated her employment." This argument formed an integral part of her discrimination claim and the emotional injury she alleges is compensable in her discrimination action. This cause of action is therefore not cognizable under Washington law and the entry of summary judgment was appropriate.

VI

In sum, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for trial Little's claims of hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and Washington's Law Against Discrimination and her claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. We affirm the dismissal of her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in violation of Washington state tort law.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs.

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE OPINION HERE

 

 

National Real Estate Fraud Center Windermere Real Estate Case History: Windermere Freeland Agents Saul and Gabelein’s Abuse of a Vulnerable Adult

john jacobi

(Above L to R) 1: Utterly shameless liar and bully John W. Jacobi, Windermere founder and chairman who promotes "We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," but in reality—despite being presented hard evidence of dishonest, unethical Windermere misconduct—forces damaged and defrauded Windermere victims through years of ruinous, bankrupting litigation. When victims do indeed speak out, Jacobi falsely sues them for trade libel and defamation, tries to coerce the defendant into a "dark clause" settlement agreement through fear and intimidation, continues to prosecute the bogus action for years at enormous cost to the parties, then runs away and voluntarily dismisses his own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41, just prior to trial when the honest, innocent victim persists in refusing to sign away their speech rights. 2: Windermere general counsel, Paul S. Drayna, who spearheads illegal efforts to strip damaged Windermere clients of their speech rights. 3: Attorney John Demco of Windermere's Demco Law Firm, which prosecutes Windermere's anti-speech cases and unabashedly defends the most outrageous Windermere Realtor misconduct—no matter what it is. Demco is also a multi-franchise Windermere owner who defended his one-time mother-and-daughter Windermere Freeland/Whidbey agents, Samantha Saul and Linda Gabelein, about whom the court stated "...the Sauls and Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma."

(Above L to R) 4: Windermere-Demco Law Firm's lying lawyer, Matthew F. Davis—click here for review of Mr. Davis—who lies to courts and legal opponents alike in an all-out effort to win at any cost. In one particular case of note, Davis served a Windermere victim a lawsuit for libel and defamation, then emailed the victim not to hire an attorney! 5: L 'Nayim Shuman Austin, past Demco Law Firm attorney, ENDICOTT v. SAUL. 6&7: Samantha Saul and Linda Gabelein. 8: Barbara Mearing, current Windermere Freeland employee who got a $7500 commission from the sale of Emma's land: "Ms. Mearing testified that she was aware that the $150,000 sale price was low, but ‘not horribly low’. She also testified that the assessor’s values are not “spot on” and that sometime property sells for less or more than the assessed value. She said that it is always hard to estimate value but that she respected the fact that the seller gets to choose the price that he or she wants." The court later stated,"The court gives Ms. Mearing's testimony little weight."

DOWNLOAD THE COURT OF APPEALS PUBLISHED OPINION HERE.

 

ENDICOTT v. SAUL

Ronald ENDICOTT and Donald Endicott, Respondents, v. Robert and Samantha SAUL, husband and wife, and Linda and Vernon Gabelein, husband and wife, Appellants. Emma Endicott, Appellant, v. Ronald Endicott and Donald Endicott, Respondents.

Nos. 58435-9-I, 58531-2-I.

February 04, 2008

John W. Demco,, Demco Law Firm PS, Matthew F. Davis, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, H. Clarke Harvey, Attorney at Law, Clinton, WA, for Appellants. Carolyn Cliff, Attorney at Law, Langley, WA, for Respondents. Michael Mert Waller, Zylstra Beeksma & Waller PLLC, Oak Harbor, WA, for Guardian Ad Item Clarke Harvey, Attorney at Law,Clinton, WA, for Other Parties.

 

¶ 1 Emma Endicott (Emma), Samantha and Robert Saul (the Sauls), and Linda and Vernon Gabelein (the Gabeleins) challenge the trial court's decision to establish a limited guardianship for Emma under the Guardianship Act, chapter 11.88 RCW, and to issue a protective order under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act (AVA), chapter 74.34 RCW. After a ten-day bench trial that took place over the course of three months, the trial court concluded clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that Emma was at significant risk of personal and financial harm and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that Emma is a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exploited and unduly influenced Emma to sell her Whidbey Island view property to them for significantly below fair market value, we affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 Emma Endicott is an 80-year-old woman who has lived almost her entire life on Whidbey Island and was married to Orvel “Shorty” Endicott for 43 years. Emma has two sons from an earlier marriage, John Earl (Earl) Fisher and Robert (Bob) Fisher. Shorty and Emma had twin sons, Ronald (Ron) Endicott and Donald (Don) Endicott. Ron and Don lived with Emma and Shorty for most of their lives. Emma's son Earl lives with his family in Seattle. Bob and his spouse Sandy live nearby in the house built by Emma's father.

¶ 3 Emma and Shorty lived in a small neighborhood on Whidbey Island that has scenic views of Mutiny Bay. In 1947, Shorty inherited 24 acres of view property overlooking Mutiny Bay. In 1976, Emma inherited five acres and a one-third interest in her parents' house that is located in the same general area.

¶ 4 During their 43-year marriage, Shorty managed and controlled all the finances and Emma and Shorty lived an extremely frugal life. Emma has never had a checking account or a credit card. Emma also never obtained a driver's license and, until shortly before the trial in this case, did not have a telephone.

¶ 5 Shorty died in 1998, leaving Emma the family home, the 24 acres of view and waterfront property, $114,000 in savings, and $556 per month from his pension benefits. Emma took over managing the finances and the property. After Shorty died, friends described Emma as devastated, lonely, and lost.

¶ 6 Initially, Emma relied on Ron and Don. But increasingly, Emma came to rely on Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul. Linda is married to Vernon Gabelein. Emma's brother is married to Vernon Gabelein's sister. Linda has two daughters from a previous marriage, Samantha Saul and Dina Thompson. Samantha is married to Robert Saul, who grew up on Whidbey Island with Ron and Don. Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul own homes in the same neighborhood as Emma and are both real estate agents with Windermere Real Estate (Windermere). Emma testified that Linda is like a daughter to her and that she worships Linda. Emma was also very close to Samantha. In June 2003, Emma executed a durable power of attorney, giving Samantha the authority to make all decisions on her behalf.

¶ 7 It is undisputed that Emma wants to live on her own in her house on Whidbey Island for the rest of her life. When Shorty died, Emma's childhood friend, Frank Robinson, offered to purchase a 445-foot beachfront portion of her property for $660,000. A long-time neighbor, Ray Lotto, later offered to buy most of Emma's property for $1.5 million and give Emma a life estate in her residence. Instead, in three separate real estate transactions, Emma sold the majority of her property to Dina Thompson and her spouse, to the Sauls, and to the Gabeleins. After the three real estate transactions with the Gabelein family members, Emma was left with 13.77 acres, but over a third of it was swamp and marshland.

¶ 8 In September 2001, Emma decided to sell the five acres she inherited from her parents after Earl and Bob Fisher were unable to agree on how to pay expenses for the property.1 After unsuccessfully attempting to sell the property by putting up a for sale sign, Emma asked Samantha, who had recently acquired her real estate license, to list the property for sale.

¶ 9 The assessed value for the five-acre parcel was $82,326. Samantha originally listed the property for sale at $69,500. After two months, Samantha lowered the price to $64,500. When Dina Thompson and her spouse offered to buy the property for $52,000, Samantha acted as a dual agent for her sister and her brother-in-law and Emma. Emma relied on Samantha's advice and accepted the offer of $52,000. The court rejected Samantha's testimony that she did not suggest a price to her sister as not credible. Emma received $45,000 from the sale. Bob and Sandy Fisher were extremely upset that Emma sold the five acres and as a result were estranged from Emma for a number of years.

¶ 10 In February 2002, Emma sold another five acres of waterfront view property to Samantha and Robert Saul for $80,000. The 2001 assessed value of the property was $195,524. Samantha initially denied that she suggested the sales price of $80,000. But at trial Samantha admitted that she did. After purchasing the five acres, the Sauls invested $40,000 to $100,000 in improvements. When the Sauls applied for a home construction loan in July 2004, according to a bank appraisal, the five acre view property was valued at $400,000.

¶ 11 After the Sauls bought the property from Emma, Roy Lotto told Samantha he was willing to pay $1.5 million for the rest of Emma's property and would give Emma a life estate in her residence. Lotto said Samantha told him that she would be able to get the property for him. But in June 2004, Emma signed a purchase and sale agreement with Linda and Vernon Gabelein to sell five acres of prime view property next to the five acres Emma sold to the Sauls for $150,000. There is no dispute that the property was worth $324,000. The “Vacant Land Purchase and Sales Agreement” states that a five-acre parcel will “be created by Buyer paid short plat” with “all other expenses paid by Buyer” and a net purchase price of $150,000. The Addendum states that the “Seller may be selling the property substantially below market value as the property has not been exposed on the open market.” The Addendum also states that because the buyer is a Windermere real estate agent, the agreement was “conditioned on review and approval by Sellers [sic] attorney.” Because Emma's attorney was representing the Gabeleins in another real estate matter, Linda Gabelein arranged for Emma to meet with another attorney about the agreement. Emma's meeting with the attorney lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes.

¶ 12 In September 2004, Emma and the Gabeleins signed another addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement that allowed the Gabeleins to assign their interest in the property to the Sauls and obtain a boundary line adjustment. It is undisputed that the purpose of the boundary line adjustment was to avoid the public notice requirement for a short plat and prevent Ron and Don from learning about the sale before it closed. According to an unchallenged finding, the Sauls and the Gabeleins acted with “deliberate secrecy” throughout this real estate transaction. Before signing the Addendum, Emma met with the same attorney again for about 20 to 30 minutes. Following the boundary line adjustment, Emma was left with a parcel of approximately nine acres, more than half of which is swamp and marshland. The sale closed on May 16, 2005. There is no dispute that, at closing, the property was worth $427,000.

¶ 13 During the evening of June 14, 2005, Emma fell down. Ron drove to Bob Fisher's house to call 911. When the paramedics arrived, Emma refused to go to the hospital. On the morning of June 16, Don found Emma on the floor and halfway under her bed. Ron and Don drove Emma to the hospital. Don said his mother's eyes were glazed, she was confused, and she did not know where she was. When they arrived at the hospital, the hospital personnel determined Emma was not competent to refuse hospitalization. The court concluded it was not likely that Ron and Don would have called 911 if Emma had not fallen, as they claimed. The trial court also concluded that Emma's memory was suspect and “she is suggestible to the memories of others, especially as to what happened the night before she went in to the hospital in June 2005.”

¶ 14 At some point, Samantha notified the hospital that she had the power of attorney for Emma. Samantha also told the hospital social worker that Emma said Ron and Don hit her and that was why she was in the hospital. Samantha was present when the social worker interviewed Emma. Emma told the social worker that she did not remember why she was in the hospital, but that Ron and Don yelled at her a lot, that they were controlling, and they would not let her watch television. That same day, Emma filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order against Ron and Don. The court entered a temporary restraining order requiring Ron and Don to move out of the house.2 When Emma was released from the hospital, she went to live with Bob and Sandy Fisher. Emma lived with the Fishers until December.

¶ 15 On July 11, 2005, Ron and Don filed a petition to establish a guardianship for Emma and for her estate, to obtain a protective order for Emma as a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and to rescind the May 2005 real estate transaction with the Sauls and the Gabeleins. Ron and Don alleged that Emma was incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exerted undue influence over Emma, and that the Sauls and Gabeleins financially exploited her.

¶ 16 Prior to trial, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins filed a motion to bifurcate the request to rescind the May 2005 real estate transaction. The Sauls and the Gabeleins also filed a motion to exclude evidence relating to alleged undue influence concerning the 2005 real estate transaction. The court granted the motion to bifurcate the request to rescind the 2005 real estate transaction, but denied the motion to exclude testimony about undue influence related to the transaction.

¶ 17 A ten-day bench trial began in December 2005 and concluded in March 2006. During the course of the trial, the court heard testimony from 36 witnesses and admitted more than 75 exhibits. At the conclusion of the trial, the court issued a 55-page written opinion consisting of 94 separate findings of fact and 26 conclusions of law. The court concluded that Emma was incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that Samantha and Linda had a confidential and fiduciary relationship with Emma, that Emma was a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and that the Sauls and Gabeleins unduly influenced and financially exploited Emma. The court appointed Emma's son Earl as a limited guardian with the “goal of allowing Emma to live in her house for as long as possible” 3 and entered a protective order under the AVA prohibiting the Sauls and the Gabeleins from transferring or encumbering the property Emma sold in May 2005.

ANALYSIS

¶ 18 On appeal, Emma, Samantha and Robert Saul, and Linda and Vernon Gabelein challenge the trial court's determination that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend the trial court erred in shifting the burden to Samantha and Linda to prove lack of undue influence and finding Emma was a vulnerable adult
under the AVA.

Standard of Review

¶ 19 We review the trial court's decision following a bench trial to determine whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether those findings support the conclusions of law. Dorsey v. King County, 51 Wash.App. 664, 668-69, 754 P.2d 1255 (1988). Substantial evidence is the quantum of evidence sufficient to persuade a rational fairminded person the premise is true. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wash.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). In determining the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court need only consider evidence favorable to the prevailing party. Bland v. Mentor, 63 Wash.2d 150, 155, 385 P.2d 727 (1963). In evaluating the persuasiveness of the evidence, and the credibility of witnesses, we must defer to the trier of fact. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wash.2d 93, 108, 864 P.2d 937 (1994). “[C]redibility determinations are solely for the trier of fact [and] cannot be reviewed on appeal.” Morse v. Antonellis, 149 Wash.2d 572, 574, 70 P.3d 125 (2003). Unchallenged findings of fact are also verities on appeal. In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wash.2d 1, 8, 93 P.3d 147 (2004); RAP 10.3(g). We review questions of law de novo. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wash.2d 873, 879-880, 73 P.3d 369 (2003).

¶ 20 The clear, cogent and convincing burden of proof contains two components: (1) the amount of evidence necessary to submit the question to the trier of fact or the burden of production, which is met by substantial evidence; and (2) the burden of persuasion. As to the burden of persuasion, the trier of fact, not the appellate court, must be persuaded that the fact in issue is “highly probable.” Colonial Imports, Inc. v. Carlton Northwest, Inc., 121 Wash.2d 726, 734-735, 853 P.2d 913 (1993).

¶ 21 In determining whether the evidence meets the “clear, cogent and convincing” standard of persuasion, the trial court must make credibility determinations and weigh and evaluate the evidence.

Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727.

What constitutes clear, cogent, and convincing proof necessarily depends upon the character and extent of the evidence considered, viewed in connection with the surrounding facts and circumstances. Whether the evidence in a given case meets the standard of persuasion, designated as clear, cogent, and convincing, necessarily requires a process of weighing, comparing, testing, and evaluating-a function best performed by the trier of the fact, who usually has the advantage of actually hearing and seeing the parties and the witnesses, and whose right and duty it is to observe their attitude and demeanor. Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727.

¶ 22 Thus, the appellate court's role is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact. Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727. It is for the trial court, and not this reviewing court, to determine whether the evidence in a given case meets the standard of persuasion designated as “clear, cogent and convincing.” Id.

Limited Guardianship

¶ 23 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins challenge the trial court's conclusion that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate. The standard of proof in a guardianship proceeding is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. RCW 11.88.045(3). In determining incapacity as to the person, the court must determine whether the individual is at significant risk of personal harm “based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for nutrition, health, housing, or physical safety.” RCW 11.88.010(1)(a). In determining incapacity as to the estate, the court must decide if there is a significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability “to adequately manage property or financial affairs.” RCW 11.88.010(1)(b). The guardianship statute authorizes the superior court to appoint a guardian for an incapacitated person.

¶ 24 RCW 11.88.010 provides in pertinent part:

(1) The superior court of each county shall have power to appoint guardians for the persons and/or estates of incapacitated persons, and guardians for the estates of nonresidents of the state who have property in the county needing care and attention.

(a) For purposes of this chapter, a person may be deemed incapacitated as to person when the superior court determines the individual has a significant risk of personal harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for nutrition, health, housing, or physical safety.

(b) For purposes of this chapter, a person may be deemed incapacitated as to the person's estate when the superior court determines the individual is at significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately manage property or financial affairs.

¶ 25 Under RCW 11.88.010(1)(c), the determination of incapacity “is a legal not a medical decision, based upon a demonstration of management insufficiencies over time in the area of person or estate. Age, eccentricity, poverty, or medical diagnosis alone shall not be sufficient to justify a finding of incapacity.” In making this determination, the trial court considers evidence from all sources, not just experts. In re Guardianship of Stamm v. Crowley, 121 Wash.App. 830, 841, 91 P.3d 126 (2004).

¶ 26 Here, the trial court concluded clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that Emma is at a significant risk of personal harm “based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety.”

The court concludes, based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that Emma is at significant risk of personal harm based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety. In the court's opinion, the professionals who have concluded otherwise have not had all of the information that was provided to this court during the trial, having based their opinions primarily on short interviews done months ago.

¶ 27 Substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma is incapacitated as to her person. The trial court found that the unbiased testimony of Emma's neighbors, Don Gulliford and Janet Lotto, was more credible than the testimony of other witnesses. According to the unchallenged testimony of Don Gulliford, he found Emma wandering along a roadside ditch in the summer of 2003, holding a toothbrush. When he stopped to help her, Emma did not appear to know where she was going and “seemed confused and [in need] of assistance.” When Janet Lotto brought Emma food in November 2004 and in December 2004, Emma appeared confused and told Lotto to whisper “because she did not want Vernon Gabelein to know about the food.” And according to the testimony of other witnesses, there were multiple occasions in 2005 when Emma did not recognize people she had known for decades. In addition, the court relied on Frank Robinson's undisputed testimony about Emma. Robinson was a friend of Emma's since childhood and regularly visited her. According to Robinson, in the summer of 2005 and at trial, Emma did not recognize him and acted agitated and confused when he spoke to her.

¶ 28 It is also undisputed that when Emma was hospitalized in June 2005, the hospital personnel determined she was not competent to refuse medical care because she “was disoriented” and confused. Before Emma was admitted to the hospital in 2005, Emma had not been to a doctor or had any medical care for over thirty years.

¶ 29 There is also no dispute that “Emma does not cook, and relies on others for her meals.” And on the occasions when Emma cooked, she burned or undercooked the food or cooked spoiled meat. Emma would also turn the stove on and sometimes forget to turn it off and often dropped her lit cigarettes on the floor without noticing. In addition, the trial court's finding that Emma continued to go through “the garbage at the county boat ramp, even after being advised that it was dangerous because needles from illegal drug use had been discarded there” is unchallenged.

¶ 30 The court considered but expressly rejected the opinion of the psychologist, Dr. Janice Edwards, that Emma did not need a guardian, because the opinion was based on a “short interview[ ] done months ago.”

The court has struggled with these opinions because the court has respect for these professionals. But Dr. Edwards' impressions reflect a two-hour visit at the end of September of 2005.[Her] impressions are widely divergent from what the court observed of Emma over a period from December of 2005 through March 2, [2006], through ten days of trial. Even the guardian ad litem, who testified after Emma, acknowledged that if she were looking at Emma solely based on Emma's testimony in court, that she too might have doubts as to whether Emma needed a guardian.

The court is also mindful that the professionals based their opinions on information gathered when Emma was staying with Bob and Sandy Fisher. But the court concludes that things have changed since Emma moved back into her home alone on December 1, 2005... The court concludes that Emma appears to have gone downhill since she started living alone on December 1, 2005.

In evaluating Dr. Edwards' opinion, the trial court expressly “credit[ed] the information elicited on cross-examination.”

Dr. Edwards is a forensic psychologist who has done over 100 guardianship evaluations. However, the court credits the information elicited during her cross-examination: that she was not aware of much of the evidence provided to the court in this trial. For example, Dr. Edwards was not aware ? that Emma had not been to a doctor in over 30 years until she was hospitalized in June of 2005, that Emma had no preventative checkups or any well health care until the guardianship petition was filed, that Emma had refused emergency medical care, or that Emma was considered not competent to refuse hospitalization when she was admitted to the hospital in June of 2005.

¶ 31 During cross examination, the GAL also admitted that before her investigation was complete and before talking to “Earl Fisher, Emma's oldest son and the proposed guardian; Janet Lotto[; or] Emma's [siblings],” she had already decided that she would not recommend a guardianship.

¶ 32 Emma's trial testimony also supports the trial court's conclusion of incapacity. For instance, Emma's description about what she said when Janet Lotto brought food to her was incoherent:

Q. And you were in court when Janet Lotto described bringing food to you after Thanksgiving and Christmas?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told her to whisper and not to tell Vernon about it. Do you remember Janet saying that?

A. What? No. I know what that was all about. I don't know if I should tell it or not. But she got scared one night and she come up and I should have went with her. I told her afterwards, too, I said, Janet, I should have went with you. Because it was not at night, it was in sort of the afternoon.

And Emma often had difficulty answering simple questions during the trial. For example, when asked “[h]ow long have you had that microwave?” she replied “[s]ince I've been-and you should see the house. They're painting the house inside. Inside. Linda and Sandy, my daughter-in-law, well, Linda, there's-and we were talking about it the other day, we're going to finish painting the inside.” When asked “[w]hat did you believe that the property was worth when you agreed to sell it?” Emma replied “No, I sold it because there was so much junk up there.” Asked about the property that she sold for $150,000 that was worth $427,000, “Emma scoffed and said, ‘It's just sand’.”

¶ 33 The court found Emma was “frail, confused, unsteady, disoriented, childlike, and oftentimes belligerent.” According to the court, while it is not unusual for a person of Emma's age to be forgetful, “Emma's forgetfulness had another element to it. It is not that Emma could not remember something; it is that Emma refused to believe certain things had happened at all. On other occasions, Emma asserted certain information as if it was the truth when she clearly had no memory of the event.” The trial court also clearly rejected the argument that an infection in February caused Emma's sometimes incoherent testimony.4

¶ 34 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins rely on Elston v. McGlauflin, 79 Wash. 355, 140 P. 396 (1914), to argue the trial court impermissibly relied on its own observations of Emma's behavior at trial as evidence of incapacity in violation of ER 605. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins specifically challenge findings of fact 76, 92, and 93, claiming they were unable to challenge the court's observations that were not made part of the record.

¶ 35 Finding of fact 76 states:

If Emma did not agree with the testimony from other witnesses, she would make faces of astonishment or bafflement, indicating clearly her disagreement with the testimony. She continued to talk in court, at times so loudly that she would have to be reminded by the court to be quiet. In December of 2005, during the testimony of her sister-in-law, Ruth Gabelein Ohm, Emma laughed, smiled, talked, and looked around as if she was at a social gathering. Emma's attorney frequently had to tell her to be quiet. The court understands that a guardianship proceeding is a difficult time for anyone. But Emma's behavior in court was dramatically different from anyone else that the court has observed in ten years on the bench.

¶ 36 Finding of fact 92 states:

As Ron was testifying, Emma was saying to her attorney, loudly enough for anyone in the courtroom to hear, “That's not true! That's not true!”

¶ 37 Finding of fact 93 states:

In reaching its decision in this case, the court has carefully considered the opinions of the professionals described above: i.e., that Emma is fine. But it is the court's strong impression, and the court finds, that Emma is not, in fact, fine but rather that she is incapacitated. Emma has not appeared to be fine to this court, or to many people who are part of her family or otherwise knowledgeable about her and who have nothing to gain from their testimony about their concerns.

¶ 38 Under ER 605 “[t]he judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness.” In Elston, during the trial in an action to recover damages allegedly caused by negligent construction of an apartment building on a steep slope, the judge visited the site without the knowledge of the parties or counsel. Elston, 79 Wash. at 357, 140 P. 396. On appeal, the court held that the trial court's independent investigation impermissibly denied the parties a fair trial. Elston, 79 Wash. at 359, 140 P. 396. “The court unwittingly became a witness in the case and in some degree, at least, based his judgment upon his own independent experience and preconceived opinion.” Id. Here, unlike in Elston, the trial judge did not conduct an independent investigation or make a decision based upon independent experience and preconceived opinions. And in deciding the incapacity and competency of a witness, the trial court is entitled to draw on its observations of the witness. See Day v. Santorsola, 118 Wash.App. 746, 765, 76 P.3d 1190 (2003); State v. Avila, 78 Wash.App. 731, 735, 899 P.2d11 (1995).

¶ 39 The record also shows that on numerous occasions, the judge noted Emma's inappropriate courtroom behavior. For example, the court admonished Emma “to not make comments out loud during” the testimony of other witnesses. And as finding of fact 93 makes clear, the trial court considered but expressly rejected the expert opinions offered and primarily relied on the trial testimony of disinterested witnesses such as Don Gulliford, Janet Lotto, and Frank Robinson in reaching the conclusion that Emma is at significant risk of personal harm “based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety.” 5

¶ 40 Substantial evidence also supports the trial court's conclusion that “Emma is at significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately manage property or financial affairs.” There is no dispute that Emma wishes to remain in her home as long as possible, but that “Emma is not able to protect her resources to meet her future needs” and her “uni[n]formed decisions will have an enormous impact on her” ability to do so. The parties also do not challenge the finding that Emma “has absolutely no idea of property values or financial planning” or that after months of litigation about the value of the properties she sold “Emma is unaware of the market value of the property that she sold and does not even care.” Although Emma insisted “I know what I sold,” when she finally understood that she was being asked how much the property was worth, she admitted “I don't know. I don't know all that. Jeepers.” Emma also testified that “I forget how many acres I've got left. I had 24 but I don't have that much now. I don't know what all I have.”

¶ 41 In addition, the evidence establishes Emma has difficulty paying bills and is unaware of her finances.6 Emma relies on the bank tellers to make entries in her check register and could not account for the withdrawal of money. Emma did not recognize entries in her checkbook and could not explain the withdrawals from her account in 2004. And according to one of the court's unchallenged findings, “[i]n addition to having unaccounted withdrawals from her savings, Emma has little understanding of ‘investments,’ which also leaves her vulnerable to others.”

¶ 42 Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings, we conclude the court did not err in appointing a limited guardianship for Emma to allow her to meet her medical and day-to-day needs and assist her in managing her finances and property.

Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act Protection Order

¶ 43 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend that the trial court erred in concluding Emma was a vulnerable adult and entering a protective order under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act (AVA), chapter 74.34 RCW. Relying on former RCW 74.34.110(2),7 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert that the court had to find by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that Emma was a vulnerable adult when she signed the purchase and sale agreement with the Gabeleins in 2004 and the evidence does not support finding Emma was a vulnerable adult in 2004.8

¶ 44 Statutory interpretation is a question of law we review de novo. Western Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 140 Wash.2d 599, 607, 998 P.2d 884 (2000). The court's primary goal is “to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent.” State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 135 Wash.App. 149, 158-59, 143 P.3d 618 (2006). Legislative intent is determined primarily from the statutory language, viewed “in the context of the overall legislative scheme.” Collection Servs. v. McConnachie, 106 Wash.App. 738, 741, 24 P.3d 1112 (2001). If the statute's meaning is plain on its face, we give effect to that plain meaning. Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002).

¶ 45 The stated purpose of the AVA is to protect vulnerable adults from abuse, financial exploitation, and neglect. RCW 74.34.110. Under the AVA, the court shall conduct a hearing on a petition for an order of protection and can enter an order to protect the vulnerable adult from exploitation, “not to exceed one year.” Former RCW 74.34.130.

¶ 46 Former RCW 74.34.110(2) provides that: A petition shall allege that the petitioner is a vulnerable adult and that the petitioner has been abandoned, abused, financially exploited, or neglected, or is threatened with abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect by respondent.

¶ 47 A “vulnerable adult” is defined as a person “[s]ixty years of age or older who has the functional, mental, or physical inability to care for himself or herself” or is “[f]ound incapacitated under chapter 11.88 RCW” Former RCW 74.34.020(13). The AVA establishes an action for the protection of vulnerable adults in cases of “abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect.” The AVA definition of “abuse includes exploitation of a vulnerable adult.” Former RCW 74.34.020(2). “[E]xploitation” is defined as “an act of forcing, compelling, or exerting undue influence over a vulnerable adult causing the vulnerable adult to act in a way that is inconsistent with relevant past behavior.” Former RCW 74.34.020(2)(d). According to the statutory definition of “exploitation,” exploitation can only occur when the adult is vulnerable. Under the plain language of the AVA, we conclude the court must find an individual is a vulnerable adult at the time of the alleged exploitation.

¶ 48 Relying on the opinion of Dr. Edwards and the fact that the GAL did not recommend a guardianship, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins contend the evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult under the AVA in 2004 when she signed the purchase and sale agreement. Since her husband died in 1998, Emma has been vulnerable to others, who have taken advantage of her desire to please those persons she perceives as being her friends or looking out for her best interests, such as Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul. Emma has sold property to members of the Gabelein family for a fraction of its value jeopardizing her ability to remain in her home for the remainder of her life.

¶ 49 The testimony of Dr. Edwards and the GAL about Emma's mental capacity “presents one source of information among many, credibility is the province of the judge, and the judge can cast a skeptical eye when called for.” Stamm, 121 Wash.App. at 841, 91 P.3d 126. And the court rejected the opinion of Dr. Edwards as based on spending very limited time with Emma while she was being taken care of by and living with Bob and Sandy Fisher.

¶ 50 In addition, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that Emma was not a vulnerable adult under the AVA because the GAL “concluded Emma was not an exploited vulnerable adult.” They mischaracterize the GAL's testimony. While the GAL testified that she did not believe the Gabeleins had “purposely done something to hurt” Emma, the GAL's report states that “[n]one of this means that Emma has not been unduly influenced.”

¶ 51 Evidence concerning Emma's incapacity under chapter 11.88 RCW also supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult when she entered into the purchase and sale agreement with the Gabeleins in 2004.9 For instance, in 2003, the same year that Don Gulliford found Emma wandering along a ditch, disoriented and confused, Emma gave Samantha Saul a durable power attorney apparently without realizing it was effective immediately. Emma told Dr. Edwards that “she had made a power of attorney over to Samantha Saul [that] is not in effect, but will become active if she is unable to handle her own affairs.” 10 And as previously described, it is undisputed that by 2004 Emma could not independently manage her finances or take care of herself. And Ron testified that he stopped accepting out-of-town jobs in 2004 because his brother could no longer care for Emma by himself.

¶ 52 On this record, substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult in 2004 under the AVA when she sold the property to the Gabeleins.

¶ 53 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also challenge the trial court's conclusion that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exploited Emma by exerting undue influence over her by inducing her to sell her property to them in 2004 at a price far below the market value. They argue that Emma was not exploited because she met with an attorney about the 2004 purchase and sale agreement. But the trial court's unchallenged finding that Emma had “absolutely no idea of property values” supports the court's conclusion that Emma was exploited despite meeting with an attorney. And the unchallenged finding that Emma did not understand the effect of selling her property on her ability to live independently in her home for the rest of her life also supports the conclusion that Emma was exploited, despite meeting with an attorney.

¶ 54 Next, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins contend the property sale was not a gift and the trial court erred in relying on White v. White, 33 Wash.App. 364, 655 P.2d 1173 (1982), to shift the burden to the Sauls and Gabeleins to prove lack of undue influence. The trial court ruled that Emma made a gift to the Sauls and the Gabeleins. “By selling her property as far below its market value as she has, Emma has, in essence, made gifts to the Sauls and the Gabeleins of substantial value, based on the difference between the sales price and the fair market value of each property.”

¶ 55 As a general rule, the party seeking to set aside an inter vivos gift has the burden of showing the gift is invalid. Lewis v. Estate of Lewis, 45 Wash.App. 387, 388, 725 P.2d 644 (1986). But if the recipient has a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the donor, the burden shifts to the donee to prove “a gift was intended and not the product of undue influence.” Lewis, 45 Wash.App. at 389, 725 P.2d 644; White, 33 Wash.App. at 368, 655 P.2d 1173.11 “[E]vidence to sustain the gift between such persons must show that the gift was made freely, voluntarily, and with a full understanding of the facts. If the judicial mind is left in doubt or uncertainty as to exactly what the status of the transaction was, the donee must be deemed to have failed in the discharge of his burden and the claim of gift must be rejected.” McCutcheon v. Brownfield, 2 Wash.App. 348, 356, 467 P.2d 868 (1970). The donee's burden of proof is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Pedersen v. Bibioff, 64 Wash.App. 710, 720, 828 P.2d 1113 (1992). Whether a legal fiduciary relationship exists is a question of law, which we review de novo. S.H.C. v. Lu, 113 Wash.App. 511, 524, 54 P.3d 174 (2002). Whether a confidential relationship exists is a question of fact. McCutcheon v. Brownfield, 2 Wash.App. 348, 356-57, 467 P.2d 868 (1970).

¶ 56 The Sauls and the Gabeleins dispute the trial court's conclusion that Samantha and Linda had a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Emma. “A confidential or fiduciary relationship between two persons may exist either [in law] because of the nature of the relationship between the parties or the confidential relationship between persons involved may exist in fact.” McCutcheon, 2 Wash.App. at 356-57, 467 P.2d 868. A confidential relationship exists when one person has gained the confidence of the other and “purports to act or advise with the other's interest in mind.” McCutcheon, 2 Wash.App. at 357, 467 P.2d 868.

¶ 57 The power of attorney Emma executed in June 2003 that gives Samantha “all of the powers of an absolute owner over [Emma's] assets and liabilities,” including the authority to “[l]ease, sell, release, convey, exchange, mortgage, and release any mortgage on land, and any interest therein,” establishes Samantha had a legal fiduciary relationship with Emma. While Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that Samantha's fiduciary role is irrelevant because she did not purchase the property in 2004, the trial court's finding that her role was critical to the sale is unchallenged-“[t]he Gabelein transaction would not have occurred without the Sauls' participation in a boundary line adjustment.”

¶ 58 Substantial evidence also supports the court's findings that both Samantha and Linda had a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Emma and exerted undue influence over her. It is undisputed that Samantha was involved in all three real estate transactions and, for each transaction, “Emma thought the property was worth a substantial amount less than it was.” Samantha gained Emma's confidence and purported to act in Emma's best interest as her friend, giving advice based on her superior knowledge. For example, Samantha testified that in the 2002 sale, she rejected Emma's proposed price of $52,000 as “too low,” then showed Emma “comparable” property sales records demonstrating that $80,000 was a fair market value.12 But the trial court found $80,000 was a “bargain” price and below fair market value.13

¶ 59 Linda also gained Emma's confidence and purported to advise Emma as her friend and act with Emma's best interests in mind, using her superior knowledge. In the 2004 property transaction, Linda rejected Emma's price as “too low” but told Emma that comparable sales data showed $150,000 was “in the ballpark” of a reasonable price. Yet on appeal, there is no dispute that the property is “some of the best view property on Whidbey Island” and was worth $324,000 in June 2004 and $427,000 when the sale closed in May 2005.14 It is also undisputed that Linda was the listing agent for a house on a small lot in the same neighborhood that sold for only $150,000 around the same time. The trial court noted that this sale also showed that Linda's claim that $150,000 was “in the ballpark” was not credible.

¶ 60 Citing conclusions of law 10 and 17, the Sauls and the Gabeleins also claim the court erred by imposing a fiduciary duty on Samantha and Linda contrary to the laws governing real estate agents.15 Conclusion of law 10 states: Given Emma's age, her lack of sophistication in financial matters, and her almost childlike trust in Samantha and Linda, each of them should have insisted upon getting appraisals and paying fair market value in purchasing property from Emma.

¶ 61 Conclusion of law 17 states:

Samantha had an obligation to advise Emma about the fair market value of the property that Samantha purchased from her before the purchase. Linda had an obligation to advise Emma about the fair market value of the property that Linda purchased from her before the purchase.

¶ 62 It is undisputed that neither Linda nor Samantha acted as Emma's real estate agent for the 2004 real estate transaction. In context, it is clear that the crux of conclusions of law 10 and 17 is not the role Samantha and Linda played as real estate agents but rather their responsibility, because of their close relationship with Emma and Emma's unequivocal trust in and reliance on them, to use their superior knowledge in Emma's best interest.

¶ 63 Because the trial court correctly concluded that Samantha and Linda had a confidential relationship with Emma, as a matter of law they have the burden to prove a gift was not a result of undue influence. In a number of cases, Washington courts have held that below-market sales are gifts. In the Matter of the Estate of McLeod, 105 Wash.2d 809, 814, 719 P.2d 88 (1986) (in the context of the inheritance tax, “the excess of the fair market value above the [amount paid] was a gift”); Glorfield v. Glorfield, 27 Wash.App. 358, 359, 617 P.2d 1051 (1980) (for community property purposes in a dissolution, “sales which were substantially below fair market value” were characterized as gifts). Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins cite no case to the contrary.

¶ 64 The only authority Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins cite to support their argument that the 2004 transaction was not a gift is the introduction to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provision regulating taxation of real property transfers. WAC 458-61A-201(1)
provides:

Generally, a gift of real property is not a sale, and is not subject to the real estate excise tax. A gift of real property is a transfer for which there is no consideration given in return for granting an interest in the property. If consideration is given in return for the interest granted, then the transfer is not a gift, but a sale, and it is subject to the real estate excise tax to the extent of the consideration received.

But a later example in WAC 458-61A-201(6)(b) explains that the value transferred in excess of the consideration received is a gift:

(ii) Keith and Jean, as joint owners, convey their residence valued at $200,000 to Jean as her sole property. There is no underlying debt on the property. In exchange for Keith's one-half interest in the property, Jean gives Keith $10,000. Keith has made a gift of $90,000 in equity, and received consideration of $10,000. Real estate excise tax is due on the $10,000.

¶ 65 We conclude the trial court did not err in concluding that Emma's sale for well below market value was a gift and in shifting the burden to the Sauls and the Gabeleins to prove undue influence.16

¶ 66 According to one of the court's unchallenged findings of fact, “Emma did not have any idea of the value of the property that she sold to the Gabeleins and still does not.” Emma's lack of expertise in real estate and financial matters is also undisputed. Because Emma never had a full understanding of the facts, the claim of gift must be rejected.

¶ 67 Even if the Sauls and Gabeleins did not have the burden to prove undue influence, substantial evidence supports the court's conclusion that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence establishes “Emma has been exploited by the Sauls and the Gabeleins.” Undue influence can exist “when highly unreasonable consideration is coupled with other inequitable incidents.” Lewis v. Estate of Lewis, 45 Wash.App. 387, 391, 725 P.2d 644 (1986). “Even though no directly false statements are made, if there appears to be a studied effort to produce a false impression upon the mind of the party from whom land is being purchased, this, together with inadequacy of price, will be sufficient to authorize relief.” Downing v. State, 9 Wash.2d 685, 689-90, 115 P.2d 972 (1941).

¶ 68 Here, Samantha and Linda convinced Emma that they were looking out for her best interests by telling Emma her price was “too low,” then suggesting prices that were still egregiously low. Emma was also given misleading “comparable” property sales to lead her to believe that the bargain sale prices were reasonably close to market value.

¶ 69 After the first sale to the Thompsons, the Sauls asked Emma to sell them property.17 While Emma offered to sell the property to the Sauls for $52,000, they agreed to buy it for $80,000. Before trial, Samantha took the position that Don or Emma suggested $80,000 as the purchase price. But at trial, Samantha admitted that she proposed $80,000. However, she claimed that $80,000 was “in the range of what was reasonable” for five acres with a marine mountain view, despite the undisputed evidence that the property was assessed at $195,524 the previous year. And when the Sauls applied for a loan two years later, the bank appraisal valued the property at $400,000.

¶ 70 A few months after the sale to the Sauls, Linda Gabelein testified that she approached Emma about buying another five-acre parcel. During the transaction, Linda also purported to act in Emma's best interest by insisting on paying more than Emma initially offered but then agreeing to a price that was still far below market value. Sometime after the 2004 purchase and sale agreement, an addendum was executed. Linda brought the boundary line adjustment paperwork to Emma to sign. Emma signed at least two versions, including one that lacked a legal description or a map. In the boundary line adjustment that was finally approved, all of the less-desirable marsh and swampland was excluded from the five acres the Gabeleins purchased. The Sauls and the Gabeleins also took steps to ensure Ron and Don did not learn about the 2004 real estate transaction until after closing. Linda Gabelein told a fellow real estate agent that the sale was “hush-hush” and “a really good deal.”

¶ 71 There was also testimony that both the Sauls and the Gabeleins told others they were able to influence Emma. According to one unchallenged finding, Samantha told Ray Lotto that “she was working on Emma, by being nice to her and taking her on trips to Costco, so that she could get a listing on Emma's property that Lotto wanted to buy.” Ray Lotto testified that Samantha thought “given enough time [she would] be able to get this property for” him. Emma's daughter-in-law Sandy Fisher testified that Vernon Gabelein told her that he “could talk Emma into giving Bob Fisher and Earl Fisher her remaining five-acre parcel of property?” 18 And according to the GAL, Linda and Samantha could “get Ms. Endicott to change her mind.” The unchallenged findings also show that Samantha's influence over Emma extended beyond real estate. For instance, when Ron and Don questioned “the prudence of Emma's purchase of a 30-year annuity in 2002, she would not believe that their questions were valid until she had Samantha Saul check out the situation.” And it is undisputed that during Emma's testimony, she “volunteered, ‘[i]f Sam told you that, that's the truth.’ ? As Emma said, if Samantha Saul says it, that's the truth for Emma.”

¶ 72 Substantial evidence also supports the trial court's finding that the undue influence of the Sauls and the Gabeleins over Emma caused her “to act in a way that is inconsistent with relevant past behavior.” 19 Many witnesses testified that Emma was extremely frugal. Emma used to dig through trash to find can labels she could turn in for fifty cents or a dollar. Emma has always worn secondhand clothes she got for free. She did not replace her 50-year-old broken dentures because she did not want to spend the money. Before Shorty's death, the couple had never conveyed any property except when Emma gave her favorite sister Annie the one-third interest she inherited in their parent's home.20

¶ 73 On this record, we conclude the trial court did not err in ruling Emma is a vulnerable adult under the AVA and issuing a protective order preventing the Sauls and the Gabeleins from transferring or encumbering the property she sold to them in 2004.

CONCLUSION

¶ 74 We affirm the trial court's decision establishing a limited guardianship for Emma and issuing an order of protection for her as a vulnerable adult under the AVA. Substantial evidence supports finding that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma. As the prevailing parties on appeal, upon compliance with RAP 18.1, Ron and Don are entitled to attorney fees on appeal under RCW 11.96A.150 and RCW 74.34.130.21

FOOTNOTES

1. There was an understanding in the family that Earl and Bob would inherit Emma's five acres.

2. The court later entered an order of protection against Don because of an unrelated incident a year earlier.

3. The court selected Earl Fisher because he would act in his mother's best interest, he was impartial, and he was not interested in obtaining Emma's money or property.

4. “The court does not attribute Emma's behavior during trial solely to the urinary tract infection. The court observed Emma's behavior for three full days in December of 2005 and two full days in January of 2006, and her behavior was as described above. There is no suggestion that Emma was suffering from a urinary tract infection then. Even if she was suffering from a urinary tract infection, the antibiotics prescribed for her on February 8, 2006, would have been completed on February 13 or 14. Emma's disorientation cleared up with 24 hours when she was at the hospital in June of 2005 for the same condition. The difference between June of 2005 and February of 2006 is that Emma was no longer living with anyone who monitors whether she was taking her medication. Samantha, who took her to the hospital on February 8, testified that she did not know if Emma had finished her medication. Because Emma was diagnosed with two urinary tract infections in such a short period of time, the court questions whether she took all of her antibiotics as prescribed.”

5. And because substantial evidence supports finding Emma incapacitated, any error is harmless.

6. At some point Emma inadvertently let her homeowners' insurance lapse and apparently she often paid bills even when the statements showed a credit balance.

7. In this opinion, the statutory citations to the AVA refer to the version in effect in 2004 and 2005. Effective July 22, 2007, some sections of the AVA were amended in ways that do not affect this appeal.

8. Ron and Don contend the Sauls and the Gabeleins argue for the first time on appeal that the court erred in not addressing whether Emma was a vulnerable adult at the time of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in 2004. But below the Sauls and the Gabeleins took the position that the AVA required proof that Emma was vulnerable when she was allegedly
exploited in 2004.

9. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert the relevant time period was when the purchase agreement for the third sale was signed on June 15, 2004. Ron and Don assert the last exploitation occurred at the closing on May 16, 2005. Because substantial evidence supports finding Emma incapacitated before June 2004, we need not resolve the parties' disagreement about the relevant time period.

10. The court expressly found the psychologist's report of Emma's statement credible.

11. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend that only the donor may challenge the transaction and that White only applies to a rescission action. But the holding in White is not limited to actions by donors to rescind. See Matter of Estate of Eubank, 50 Wash.App. 611, 619-20, 749 P.2d 691 (1988); Lewis, 45 Wash.App. at 388-89, 725 P.2d 644.

12. Samantha's testimony also supports the challenged finding that Samantha knew Emma did not know the value of the property.

13. This challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence. The property was assessed at $195,524 in 2001, and an appraisal showed the land alone was worth at least $300,000 two years after the Sauls bought it.

14. The court's finding that the appraisal Ron and Don submitted was more credible is unchallenged. According to that appraisal, the five acres was worth $324,000 in June 2004.

15. Because the findings, conclusions, and protective order only relate to the 2004 real estate transaction, we need not address challenges to the findings and conclusions related to the first sale to Dina Thompson and her spouse, who are not parties to this action nor subject to the protective order.

16. The White court also distinguished inter vivos gifts from will contests. In will contests, the initial burden is on the party challenging the testamentary gift. By contrast, with an inter vivos gift the donor “strips himself of that which he can still enjoy and of which he may have need during his life.” White, 33 Wash.App. at 371, 655 P.2d 1173 (quoting Whalen v. Lanier, 29 Wash.2d 299, 312, 186 P.2d 919 (1947)).

17. The court rejected the testimony that Emma approached the Sauls. The trial court relied on Emma's statement to the psychologist that the Sauls asked her to sell them property and “she agreed?” And in the protection order hearing, Emma again stated that the Sauls “c[a]me and asked” about buying the property.

18. Because the trial court found Sandy Fisher's testimony about the sale in 2004 noncredible, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the conversation occurred. But while the court rejected Sandy Fisher's testimony that Emma was not exploited in the 2004 sale as not credible, the court expressly found her testimony about the conversation with Vernon was credible.

19. Former RCW 74.34.020(2)(d).

20. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that because Shorty always controlled the finances, Emma never had a chance to sell anything or give expensive gifts before he died. But for at least the first three years after Shorty died, Emma continued to live very frugally and did not sell any property. The largest gift Ron remembered Emma ever giving was $75 to her sister Annie on her 75th birthday in 2000.

21. Because we affirm, we also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Ron and Don attorney fees under RCW 11.96A.150 and RCW 74.34.130.

SCHINDLER, A.C.J.

WE CONCUR: APPELWICK, C.J., and BECKER, J. 

Windermere Bellevue Commons Associate Brokers Dick and Cecilia Pelascini’s Foreclosure Rescue Ripoff Scam

(L to R) Windermere Bellevue Commons Associate Broker Dick Pelascini and wife Cecilia Pelascini: Still generating commissions for Windermere.

 

Vila Pace-Knapp owned a home where she resided for many years, but eventually became delinquent on her payments, and started getting written notices of default and pending foreclosure that her home would be sold at an upcoming trustee’s sale. She sought to stave off the trustee’s sale through bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy court dismissed all of her petitions. The attempts at bankruptcy, however, did manage to postpone the scheduled trustee’s sale for many months, but the bankruptcy court’s final order of dismissal prevented her  from filing additional petitions.


At about the period of Pace-Knapp’s initial notices of foreclosure, Windermere Associate Broker Dick Pelascini, and Thomas Boboth of Pacific Shoreline Mortgage, individually approached her at her home. She knew neither of the men, but they were clearly aware of her pending foreclosure. They offered to collaborate with Pace-Knapp in an effort to save her home. Pelascini and Boboth each proffered business cards, identifying each respectively as a broker at a real estate company, and the president of a mortgage company. The pair visited many times over the ensuing weeks, continually offering to help her. Neither man ever stated they wanted to buy her house, or offer her a loan. Pace-Knapp declined their offers of help.


On an evening before the actual trustee’s sale, Pace-Knapp met Pelascini at his real estate office and signed a purchase and sale agreement for her home, a residential lease agreement, and an option to purchase the property from the Pelascinis, two years down the road. The documents were clearly labeled, but Pace-Kanpp did not read them, including the titles. She didn’t realize she’d sold her house to the Pelescinis until signing documents at the closing agent’s office, but still went ahead, and the trustee’s sale did not occur.


Pace-Knapp commenced living in the house under the new lease agreement with the Pelescinis for two and a half years, during which she paid the new owners rent. Then the Pelascinis declined to renew her lease a third time, and subsequently evicted her. She sued Dick and Cecilia Pelascini, Windermere Real Estate Bellevue Commons and Thomas Boboth and Pacific Shoreline Mortgage, for unconscionability, fraud, CPA violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also sought relief from the sale and attorney fees. The trial court found that Pelescinis were liable for fraud and CPA violations. It ordered rescission of the contract and attorney fees and costs under the Consumer Protection Act. In typical “stalling-the-damage-award-style,” Windermere and the Pelescinis moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied, so they appealed.

The appeals court said, “The Pelascinis’ argument rests on the false premise that they ' …did help plaintiff save her house,' Simply stated, the point is that they saved her home for themselves so that they would not have to bid at the rescheduled trustee’s sale. The Pelascinis’ practice of preying on this and other vulnerable home owners on the eve of foreclosure is the type of practice likely to deceive future distressed owners in the same manner…. The trial court found that Pelascini and Boboth habitually work together to buy houses on the eve of foreclosure and that they did so in this case… essentially harassing her until she relented and accepted their offer to ‘help.’ …Pelascini and Boboth are likely to repeat this approach and have done so in the past.”

Both Cecilia and Dick Pelascini still work for Windermere. Here is the Court's opinion:

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

No. 59321-8-I

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED

FILED: March 17, 2008

VILA PACE-KNAPP,

Respondent,

v.

DICK PELASCINI and CECILIA PELASCINI, husband and wife and their martial community; WINDERMERE
REAL ESTATE/BELLEVUE COMMONS, INC.; THOMAS BOBOTH; and PACIFIC SHORELINE MORTGAGE, INC.,

Appellants.

Cox, J. — A plaintiff claiming a violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) must establish (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) public interest impact, (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) causation.1 Here, the trial judge’s unchallenged findings of fact support its conclusion that Dick and Cecilia Pelascini, Thomas Boboth, and Pacific Shoreline Mortgage, Inc. (collectively, “the Pelascinis”) violated the act. However, the trial court’s determination that Vila Pace-Knapp was entitled to rescission for fraud in the inducement of a sale of her property cannot be sustained. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a determination of damages and attorney fees under the CPA.

1 Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105
Wn.2d 778, 780, 719 P.2d 531 (1986).

Pace-Knapp owned and resided in her home in Bellevue for many years. In early 2001, she became delinquent in making payments on the loan that was secured by her property. In June 2001, she received written notices of default and foreclosure indicating that her home would be sold at a trustee’s sale in the near future. She attempted to avoid foreclosure by filing for bankruptcy three times, but the bankruptcy court dismissed all of her petitions. The bankruptcy filings delayed the scheduled trustee’s sale from June to October 2001. In the final order of dismissal, the bankruptcy court prohibited her from filing additional petitions.

Around the time of the initial foreclosure notices, Pelascini and Boboth individually approached Pace-Knapp at her home. She did not know either of them, but they were aware of the pending foreclosure proceedings. They offered to work together to help her “save her home.” Each gave her a business card showing that they were, respectively, a broker at a real estate company and the president of a mortgage company. They visited her many times over the next few weeks and continually offered to help her. They never stated they wanted either to buy her house or to help her by offering her a loan. Throughout this period, she declined their offers of help.

The evening before the final rescheduled trustee’s sale, Pace-Knapp went to Pelascini’s real estate office and signed several documents: a purchase and sale agreement for her home, a residential lease agreement, and an option to purchase the property from the Pelascinis in two years. Although they were plainly labeled as such, she did not read any portion of the documents, including the titles. When Pace-Knapp signed further documents at the closing agent’s office, she first realized she had sold her house to the Pelascinis. Nevertheless, she proceeded with the sale. As a result of this transaction, the trustee’s sale did not proceed.

She lived in the house under lease agreements with the Pelascinis for two and a half years, during which time she paid rent to the new owners. She was evicted when the Pelascinis declined to renew her lease a third time.

Shortly thereafter, she commenced this action, alleging unconscionablility, fraud, CPA violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She sought relief from the sale and/or damages as well as attorney fees.

At a bench trial, the trial court found that defendants’ representations led Pace-Knapp to reasonably believe they were planning a refinance of her home loan. The trial court also found her competent to enter into the contracts that she signed. Nevertheless, the trial court decided that the Pelascinis were liable for fraud in the inducement and CPA violations. It ordered rescission of the contract and attorney fees and costs under the CPA. It appears that the Pelascinis moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.

The Pelascinis appeal.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

The Pelascinis argue that the trial court erred in concluding that they violated the Consumer Protection Act. Based on the unchallenged findings of fact and the relevant law, we disagree.

The elements of a private CPA claim are:

(1) unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; [and] (5) causation.[2]

We liberally construe the CPA to serve its beneficial purposes of protecting the public and fostering fair and honest competition.3

The Pelascinis do not challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact. Therefore, they are verities on appeal.4 We review issues of law de novo.5 We draw reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the trial court’s determination.6

Unfair or Deceptive Practice

Citing no case law, the Pelascinis argue that they did not engage in an unfair or deceptive practice. We disagree.

An act is unfair or deceptive if it had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public.7 Proof of intent to deceive is not required.8 For example, a defendant engages in an unfair or deceptive practice if he or she sells a house

2 Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 780.
3 RCW 19.86.920.
4 Perry v. Costco Wholesale, Inc., 123 Wn. App. 783, 792, 98 P.3d 1264
(2004).
5 Id.
6 Henry v. Bitar, 102 Wn. App. 137, 142, 5 P.3d 1277 (2000).
7 Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785.
8 Id.

with prior knowledge of a defect and fails to disclose that defect to the buyer.9 When the facts are not in dispute, we determine whether a practice was unfair or deceptive under the CPA as an issue of law.10

The Pelascinis’ argument rests on the false premise that they “did help plaintiff save her house.” The trial court found that Pace-Knapp reasonably interpreted the Pelascinis’ promises to mean that they would refinance her home, which means she would continue to own it. Taking the unchallenged findings as true, we conclude that the Pelascinis deceived Pace-Knapp when they promised her that they would help her “save” her home and implied that they would refinance her loan. Simply stated, the point is that they saved her home for themselves so that they would not have to bid at the rescheduled trustee’s sale. They did not help her save her home for her, as suggested. The Pelascinis’ practice of preying on this and other vulnerable home owners on the eve of foreclosure is the type of practice likely to deceive future distressed owners in the same manner.

In the Course of Trade or Commerce

The Pelascinis do not dispute that they were acting in the course of trade or commerce. Yet they argue that such a finding is incompatible with the trial court’s finding that Pace-Knapp thought they were acting as altruists — not in the course of their trade. In fact, the CPA applies to “every person who conducts

9 Burbo v. Harley C. Douglass, Inc., 125 Wn. App. 684, 700, 106 P.3d
258, review denied, 155 Wn.2d 1026 (2005).
10 Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington,
Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 84, 170 P.3d 10, 22 (2007).

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in any trade or commerce.”11 And “[r]eal estate sales clearly constitute ‘trade’ or ‘commerce’ for purposes of [the CPA].”12 Thus, it is clear from the facts of this case that the Pelascinis were acting in the course of trade or commerce by purchasing real estate. The fact that they hid their commercial intent from Pace-Knapp does not contradict this finding.

Impact on the Public Interest

The Pelascinis also argue that their actions did not have an impact on the public interest. We again disagree. Plaintiffs must show an impact on the public interest from a private transaction based on an analysis of the following non-exclusive factors:

(1) Were the alleged acts committed in the course of defendant’s
business? (2) Did defendant advertise to the public in general?
(3) Did defendant actively solicit this particular plaintiff, indicating
potential solicitation of others? [and] (4) Did plaintiff and defendant
occupy unequal bargaining positions?[13]

For example, in Sign-O-Lite Signs, Inc. v. DeLaurenti Florists, Inc., this court determined that a public interest impact existed when a sign company solicited a store owner and deceptively convinced the owner to sign an agreement that required the owner to pay substantially more for a sign than she had orally agreed.14 This court held that there was a public interest impact because the company acted within the course of its business, actively solicited

11 Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 (quoting Short v. Demopolis, 103
Wn.2d 52, 61, 691 P.2d 163 (1984)).
12 Edmonds v. John L. Scott Real Estate, Inc., 87 Wn. App. 834, 846, 942
P.2d 1072 (1997).
13 Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 790-91.
14 64 Wn. App. 553, 825 P.2d 714 (1992).

the store owner, and routinely solicits other business.15

Similarly here, the trial court found that Pelascini and Boboth habitually work together to buy houses on the eve of foreclosure and that they did so in this case. They actively solicited Pace-Knapp by approaching her at home a number of times, offering to help her, and essentially harassing her until she relented and accepted their offer to “help.” The court found that although Pace-Knapp was able to contract, they are real estate professionals, while she “is an unsophisticated homeowner whose ability to reason clearly during this period was obviously impaired.”16 Finally, although the trial court did not make a finding that Pelascini and Boboth advertise to the public, the court concluded that this type of transaction has an adverse effect on the public interest because it has the potential for repetition and evidence in this case showed that Pelascini and Boboth have “engaged in this approach before.”17

Given these unchallenged factual findings, we conclude that Pace-Knapp satisfied the public interest element. Pelascini and Boboth are likely to repeat this approach and have done so in the past. Such a business practice impacts the public interest by targeting and harming vulnerable individuals.

Injury / Damages / Attorney Fees Below

The Pelascinis argue that Pace-Knapp was not injured by the transaction

15 Id. at 562-63.
16 Clerk’s Papers at 247 (Finding of Fact 14).
17 Clerk’s Papers at 250-51 (Conclusion of Law 5). Although this
statement was contained in a conclusion of law, the portion regarding
Appellants’ past practice is a finding of fact.

and that she has the burden to prove “actual damages.” They also argue that attorney fees were inappropriate because the court did not award damages under the act. Identical arguments were rejected by the supreme court in Mason v. Mortgage America, Inc.,18 and we reject them here.

In Mason, as in this case, the trial court had ordered rescission of the contract in question and also found a violation of the CPA. The supreme court reiterated that injury and damages under the CPA are distinct. The loss of title to real property is “obviously” an injury under the CPA because it is a diminution of money or property.19 Because each element of a CPA claim, including injury, was met in that case, the supreme court held that attorney fees and costs were appropriate, even though there were no money damages in light of the rescission.20

Here, Pace-Knapp was injured because she lost the equity in her home. There are, potentially, other damages to which she is entitled as well. Accordingly, attorney fees were proper because each element of the CPA was met.

Causation

Again citing no case law, the Pelascinis argue that Pace-Knapp did not prove causation because her own acts caused her alleged injury. We disagree. The issue of causation under the CPA is an issue of fact for the trial

18 114 Wn.2d 842, 792 P.2d 142 (1990).
19 Id. at 854-55.
20 Id. at 855.
21 Indoor Billboard, 162 Wn.2d at 84.

court.21 But the Pelascinis do not challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact on appeal. The trial court found that Pace-Knapp was induced through fraud into selling her home and concluded that their actions were the cause of her injury.

The Pelascinis’ only possible challenge with regard to this element, then, is whether the trial court applied the proper law. Nothing in the record suggests that it did not.22 We will not presume otherwise.

CONTRACT RESCISSION

The Pelascinis raise several arguments regarding Pace-Knapp’s claim of fraud in the inducement and the trial court’s chosen remedy of rescission. We conclude that the remedy of rescission was not appropriate under the facts and law that control this case.

Fraud: Misrepresentation of Fact

The Pelascinis argue that the trial court erred in concluding that they made a misrepresentation of existing fact. We agree and hold that the trial court’s findings of fact do not support its conclusion of fraud.

To prevail on a claim of fraud, the plaintiff must prove with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the defendant made a material misrepresentation of existing fact.23 Fraud in the inducement is fraud that induces the transaction

21 Indoor Billboard, 162 Wn.2d at 84.
22 Neither the trial court briefs nor the prior dispositive motions were made part of the record on appeal.
23 The nine elements of fraud are: (1) a representation of existing fact, (2)that is material, (3) and false, (4) the speaker knows of its falsity, (5) intent to induce another to act, (6) ignorance of its falsity by the listener, (7) the latter’s

by misrepresentation of “motivating factors such as value, usefulness, age, or other characteristic of the property.”24 Misrepresentations include “half-truths calculated to deceive,” 25 and inferences from the words used.26 A promise of future performance is not a representation of existing fact.27

Here, the trial court specifically found that the Pelascinis had not made a
misrepresentation of existing fact, but rather that the misrepresentations “were in the nature of intentions.”28 Yet the court concluded that all elements of fraud in the inducement were met in part because Pace-Knapp relied on them to “do as they promised.”29 This was an error of law because promises of future performance are not representations of existing fact. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that fraud in the inducement exists here. Absent fraud, there is no basis for the remedy of rescission.

Waiver

Even if Pace-Knapp had proven the elements of fraud in the inducement, case law is clear that she waived her right to the remedy of rescission by her delay in bringing this action.

reliance on the truth of the representation, (8) her right to rely on it, and (9) consequent damage. Pedersen v. Bibioff, 64 Wn. App. 710, 723 n.10, 828 P.2d 1113 (1992).
24 Id. at 722.
25 Ikeda v. Curtis, 43 Wn.2d 449, 460, 261 P.2d 684 (1953); see also id.
(“A representation literally true is actionable if used to create an impression substantially false.”).
26 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 159 (1981).
27 West Coast, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 112 Wn. App. 200, 206, 48
P.3d 997 (2002).
28 Clerk’s Papers at 249 (Conclusion of Law 3).
29 Clerk’s Papers at 250 (Conclusion of Law 4).

Even where a person has been defrauded, he or she may waive the right to seek rescission, or in certain circumstances, damages.30

Generally, a person wishing to avoid a contract has the choice either to continue performing under the contract and sue for damages or to promptly seek to rescind the contract.31 One who opts to rescind a contract for fraud “must act promptly after its discovery” in order to preserve the right to sue for rescission.32 If a party claiming to have been defrauded affirms the contract by entering into new “arrangements or engagements concerning the subject matter of the contract” after discovering the fraud, he has waived his right to sue for rescission.33 Waiving the right to sue for rescission merely by affirming the contract or delaying to seek rescission, however, does not necessarily bar the right to sue for damages.34

For example, in Johnson v. Brado, the purchasers of a home discovered after the sale that the house was not connected to the sewer, contrary to the seller’s previous promises.35 The buyers moved into the home and rejected the seller’s offer to pay for septic repair. The purchasers sued the seller approximately one year later. The court held that the buyers had waived their right to rescind the contract by moving into the house and affirming the

30 Owen v. Matz, 68 Wn.2d 374, 376-77, 413 P.2d 368 (1966).Salter v. Heiser, 39 Wn.2d 826, 831, 239 P.2d 327 (1951); Johnson v.
Brado, 56 Wn. App. 163, 165-66, 783 P.2d 92 (1989) (citing Weinstein v.
Sprecher, 2 Wn. App. 325, 330, 467 P.2d 890 (1970)).
32 Weitzman v. Bergstrom, 75 Wn.2d 693, 697, 453 P.2d 860 (1969).
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 56 Wn. App. 163, 783 P.2d 92 (1989).

contract.36 But they had not waived their right to sue for damages because no unequivocal act evinced their intention to do so.37

Here, Pace-Knapp waived the right to rescission by remaining in her house for more than two years and signing two lease agreements after she discovered that the Pelascinis purchased her property. Rescission was not an appropriate remedy after Pace-Knapp affirmed the agreement and allowed sufficient time to pass before attempting to repudiate it. Because we hold that Pace-Knapp did not prove the elements of fraud and that the remedy of rescission was not available to her, we need not address the Pelascinis’ additional arguments related to fraud.

ATTORNEY FEES

Citing to Sign-O-Lite Signs, Pace-Knapp seeks attorney fees as the substantially prevailing party on appeal under the CPA.38 She is entitled to such an award, both at trial and on appeal. We remand to the trial court to determine the amount of the fee award.39

We affirm the judgment to the extent of the CPA award and remand for the determination of damages and the amount of attorney fees on appeal. We reverse the fraud in the inducement determination.

36 Id. at 167.
37 Id.
38 64 Wn. App. at 568.
39 See RAP 18.1(i).

Cox, J.

WE CONCURR

Applewick, C.J.

Grosse, J.

 

More Innocent and Unsuspecting Lives Ruined by the Cost of Chasing Windermere Through the Courts...

 

Windermere Allen & Associates (LC Realty) Longview, and Agent Lance Miller's Deliberate Non-Disclosure of Home's Prior Use as Pot Farm and Methamphetamine Laboratory

(Left) Lance Miller from Windermere Real Estate/Allen & Associates also operated LAM Management which handled the subject home a rental prior to its sale to Eva and Eddie Bloor.

 

Eva and Eddie Bloor relocated to Longview, in Washington State, and purchased a home from Charmaine and Robert Fritz through Lance Miller at Windermere Real Estate/Allen & Associates, who served as dual agent for both for both parties. The Fritzes and Miller both opted to withhold their knowledge that the onetime rental property had been a site for marijuana farming and methamphetamine production. Windermere and Miller were cognizant of the property’s prior use because Windermere staff managed the rental home months earlier when a drug raid occurred, and they subsequently issued a notice of eviction on the tenants after learning of their illicit operation. Locals all heard the news, including the Fritzes, who conversed about it with others.

RCW 64.06.020, with its very pertinent and mandatory Seller Disclosure Statement question, “Has the property been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site?” had been checked “No” by Fritz in the presence of Miller, and the form was later conveyed to the Bloors, who occupied the residence and only later learned of their new home’s toxic past from neighbors and news stories.

Mrs. Bloor queried the health department as to decontamination, officials concluded the home to be unfit for human habitation, and compelled the Bloors to abandon the place with nothing but what they were wearing at the moment. Mr. Bloor was not even granted brief consideration to retrieve the tools by which made a living. The Bloors filed a complaint against the Fritzes, agent Miller, Windermere and franchiser Windermere Services Company, plus Cowlitz County. With Bloors eventually prevailing, the trial court granted recision—an unwinding of their real estate transaction—and also their damages both jointly and severally on loss of wages and personal property, lost use of the home itself, emotional distress, and ruin of the Bloor’s credit.

In typical stall mode, Windermere-Miller parties appealed, but lost again. For the particulars on this incredible, predatory saga, read the following Washington State Appeals Court Opinion:

DOWNLOAD THE APPEALS COURT OPINION HERE.

 

PUBLISHED OPINION


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

No. 35740-2-II


EDDIE BLOOR and EVA BLOOR, husband
and wife,

Respondents,

v.

ROBERT A FRITZ and CHARMAINE A. FRITZ, and the marital community comprised thereof; LANCE MILLER, a single person; ALLEN & ASSOCIATES; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICE CO., a Washington corporation,

Appellants.

And COWLITZ COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Cowlitz County does not appeal.

Defendant.

Armstrong, J.—Eddie and Eva Bloor purchased a home from Robert and Charmaine Fritz through Lance Miller, an agent at LC Realty, Inc. After learning that the home was contaminated by a methamphetamine lab, the Bloors sued the Fritzes, Miller, LAM Management, LC Realty, and Cowlitz County. The trial court found that the Fritzes negligently misrepresented the condition of the property and that Miller failed to disclose a known material fact about the property and negligently misrepresented its condition, thereby violating the Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Miller and LC Realty argue that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s findings that Miller knew of the illegal drug manufacturing on the property and failed to disclose it; they also argue that the Bloors failed to prove an Act violation. The Fritzes argue that the trial court erred in (1) failing to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim and (2) rescinding the real estate purchase and sale agreement. The Fritzes and Miller both challenge the trial court’s damage and attorney fee awards. We hold that the trial court erred in calculating damages in conjunction with rescinding the contract, specifically by granting the Bloors more damages than necessary to restore them to their pre-contract position. Otherwise, we find no error and, thus, affirm.

FACTS

Robert Fritz owned a home and approximately five acres of land on Spirit Lake Highway in Cowlitz County. He and his wife, Charmaine, moved from the home in 2001 and hired LAM Management, Inc. (LAM) to manage the property as a rental. Lance Miller and Jayson Brudvik are co-owners and operators of LAM. Miller and Brudvik are also licensed real estate agents for LC Realty, Inc.

In January 2004, Jason and Charles Waddington, Pam Jackson, and Sarah Holton occupied the Spirit Lake property under a rental agreement through LAM. On January 30, the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Joint Narcotics Task Force executed a search warrant at the property. Task force members discovered a marijuana growing operation in the house’s basement and implements of methamphetamine manufacturing on and under the house’s rear deck and in a hot tub on the deck. Although the task force processed the site as a methamphetamine lab, no one from the task force or any other law enforcement agency notified the Cowlitz County Health Department, the Washington State Department of Health, or any other state agency of the methamphetamine lab. The State charged Jason Waddington with manufacturing marijuana and Charles Waddington with manufacturing methamphetamine.

On January 31, the task force issued a press release that identified the Spirit Lake property as the site of the drug search, identified the people involved, and stated that the task force had removed a marijuana growing operation and implements of a small methamphetamine lab from the property. On February 1, the Longview Daily News published an article that reported the information in the press release.

Charmaine learned of the police activity at the property and contacted numerous law enforcement agencies to find out what had occurred at the property. On February 2, she contacted the task force and spoke with Judy Conner, the support staff specialist. Connor told Charmaine that the police had arrested people on the property and that the task force had confiscated a marijuana grow operation and implements of a methamphetamine lab.

The following day, Charmaine spoke with Detective Darren Ullmann, a member of the task force who had been present at the search. Ullmann told Charmaine that the task force had removed implements of a methamphetamine lab from the property. Charmaine shared this information with Robert. Miller also contacted law enforcement to learn the status of the property and the arrests in the first few days of February.

LAM initiated eviction proceedings against the Waddington tenants, and they left the property in February or March 2004. LAM subsequently re rented the property for a short period of time but evicted those tenants in May 2004. The Fritzes then decided to sell the property.

In preparation for the sale, the Fritzes cleaned the house, painted it, and changed the floor coverings. During this time, Charmaine spoke with John and Jenae Cyr, who lived across the street from the property. Charmaine told the Cyrs that she and her husband felt they were lucky that the Waddington tenants had not cooked methamphetamine inside the house but had cooked it only on the back porch.

Eddie and Eva Bloor moved to Cowlitz County from Missouri in 2004, and began looking for a home to purchase. Brudvik showed them the Spirit Lake property. The Bloors decided to make an offer to buy the property. Miller represented both the Fritzes and the Bloors in the transaction.

Robert completed a seller’s disclosure statement in which he represented that the property had never been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site. Miller reviewed the disclosure statement with the Bloors, but he did not disclose that the drug task force had discovered a marijuana grow operation or methamphetamine lab on the property. The Fritzes accepted the Bloors’ offer and the transaction closed in August 2004. The Bloors moved into the home shortly thereafter.

In September, the Bloors’ son heard from a member of the community that the property was known as a “drug house.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 20. The Bloors began investigating and found an on-line version of the February 1 Daily News article. Eva contacted the task force, where Sergeant Kevin Tate confirmed that the task force had confiscated a methamphetamine lab at the property. She then contacted the Cowlitz County Health Department, where Audrey Shaver confirmed that nobody had reported the lab to the health department and that it would investigate the matter to determine what action it would take.

On October 22, Shaver told the Bloors that the health department had determined that the property was contaminated by the methamphetamine manufacturing and was not fit for occupancy. She told the Bloors that they could not remove their personal property from the house because of the risk of crosscontamination. The Bloors left the residence as instructed, leaving nearly all their personal belongings in the house and garage.

The health department posted an order prohibiting use of the property. The order stated that the Bloors were financially responsible for the cost of remediation, that a certified decontamination contractor would have to perform the remediation, and that use of the property was subject to criminal charges. Occupancy of buildings contaminated by methamphetamine manufacturing is dangerous to the health and safety of occupants.

The Bloors stayed with relatives until they could secure a place to live, eventually moving to Spokane. They had to repurchase clothing, bedding, furniture, and other necessities. They were unable to both support themselves and make their monthly mortgage payments. The Bloors experienced emotional distress and anxiety due to the loss of their home, personal effects, and keepsakes.

The Bloors sued the Fritzes, Miller, LAM Management, LC Realty, and Cowlitz County. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled for the Bloors, awarding them damages jointly and severally against all the defendants for emotional distress, loss of personal property, loss of income, loss of use of the property, and damage to the Bloors’ credit. It also awarded the Bloors $10,000 as punitive damages and $13,907.30 for attorney fees against Miller and LC Realty under the Act. It ordered the contract between the Bloors and the Fritzes rescinded, requiring the Fritzes to pay the Bloors’ lender the purchase price, accrued interest, late charges, and foreclosure fees, and the Bloors to return the property to the Fritzes. Finally, the trial court awarded the Bloors $18,975.55 in expenses against the Fritzes and, applying a 1.2 multiplier, $125,335.25 in attorney fees against the Fritzes, Miller, and LC Realty; it awarded the Bloors their statutory costs against all defendants.

The trial court dismissed LAM with prejudice.

Miller and LC Realty (collectively Miller) principally argue that (1) insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s findings that Miller knew about the meth lab, (2) the trial court erred in finding that he violated the Act, and (3) the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees with a multiplier and all the Bloors’ litigation expenses. In addition to joining Miller in several claimed errors, the Fritzes principally argue that (1) the economic loss rule precludes the Bloors from seeking damages for the tort of negligent misrepresentation, (2) the trial court erred in rescinding the contract rather than awarding damages, and (3) the trial court erred in awarding damages for emotional distress, income loss, and injury to the Bloors’ credit ratings. We hold that the trial court erred only in awarding the Bloors damages beyond those necessary to restore them to their pre-contract position.

ANALYSIS

Miller and LC Realty ’s Appeal

I. Knowledge Of Methamphetamine Manufacturing


Miller argues that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s findings regarding his knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing at the Spirit Lake property.

He assigns error to the following findings of fact:

X.

Jayson Brudvick saw the article published in the Longview Daily News on Sunday, February 1, 2004, and contacted the Fritzes by telephone to notify them and to get instructions on how to proceed with respect to evicting the tenants.


XVI.

During the first few days of February 2004, Lance Miller contacted law enforcement regarding the status of the Property and the arrests that were made at the Property. During his contact, Lance Miller was informed of the marijuana grow operation and the discovery of the meth lab. The denial by Lance Miller that he was informed of the discovery of the implements used in meth manufacturing on the Property is not credible.

LIX.

Lance Miller listed the Property and entered it on the multiple listing service. He also showed the Property to another prospective buyer, all without revealing the history of illegal drug manufacturing at the Property. Miller knew of the history of illegal drug manufacturing at the Property from one or all three of his contacts with Jayson Brudvik from his report of the article in the newspaper, from Charmaine Fritz relative to her contacts with the Task Force, and from his personal contact with law enforcement. Miller also knew from his prior involvement with property that had been contaminated by meth manufacture of the danger of contamination with toxic chemicals from such operations. The denial by Miller of his knowledge of the history of illegal drug manufacturing at the Property is not credible.

LXI.

Miller concealed his knowledge that the Property had been used for illegal drug manufacturing when he announced his listing of the Property, and during his marketing of the Property for the Fritzes. Miller knew of the history of illegal drug manufacturing and of the potential contamination, knew that the Fritzes had not disclosed it on their Disclosure Statement, and failed to disclose his personal knowledge of the history of use of the Property for illegal drug manufacturing, or of the potential contamination of the Property to the public, to a prospective buyer of the Property that was interested in the Property at the same time as the Bloors, or to the Bloors.

LXII.

The Bloors were damaged by Miller’s failure to disclose the history of drug manufacturing at the Property. As shown by the investigation made by Eva Bloor upon receiving information that drug activity had occurred at the Property, Miller’s failure to disclose his knowledge of the drug activity on the Property to the Bloors misled the Bloors and deprived them of essential information needed by them to learn of the true condition of the Property. Had Miller revealed his knowledge of the drug activity on the Property, the Bloors would have probably made inquiry to law enforcement and the health department, which they did upon receiving information of the history of such activity at the Property.

CP at 15, 17, 29-31.

Where the trial court has weighed the evidence, our review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and, if so, whether the findings in turn support the conclusions of law and the judgment. City of Tacoma v. State, 117 Wn.2d 348, 361, 816 P.2d 7 (1991). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the finding. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Ctr. v. Holman, 107 Wn.2d 693, 712, 732 P.2d 974 (1987). If the evidence satisfies this standard, we will not substitute our judgment for the trial court’s, even though we may have resolved disputed facts differently. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873, 879-80, 73 P.3d 369 (2003).

Miller argues that no evidence supports finding of fact X, that Brudvik read the February 1, Longview Daily News article about the search at the Spirit Lake property. He points out that Brudvik did not testify about the date of the article he read or identify the February 1 article as the article he read. Brudvik testified that he read in the Longview Daily News that there was a “marijuana bust” at the property. 3 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 714. Although he did not recall all the details from the article, he testified that he read the entire article, that he read it over a weekend, and that he recognized the names reported in the article. He testified that he contacted the Fritzes within a couple of days to discuss evicting the tenants. The February 1 article was published on a Sunday and it named the three residents who had been arrested, Jason and Charles Waddington and Sarah Holton. Robert testified that Brudvik called him on Monday, February 2, to discuss the newspaper article. This is substantial evidence to support a finding that Brudvik read the February 1, Longview Daily News article.

As with much of their evidence, the Bloors presented Brudvik’s deposition testimony at trial, but they did not call Brudvik to testify.

Miller next contends that no evidence supports finding of fact XVI, that law enforcement told Miller about discovering the methamphetamine lab and that Miller’s denial that he received this information was not credible. He argues that law enforcement’s failure to report the lab to the health department lends credibility to his assertion that no law enforcement officer told him of the lab. He notes that no law enforcement officer testified about informing Miller, Brudvik, or LC Realty about discovering the lab; nor was there evidence that he received a copy of a police report describing the search and arrests.

Miller testified that he asked a law enforcement officer whether methamphetamine manufacturing had occurred on the property and the officer said it had not. But officers involved in the search testified that they would not have told someone there was no methamphetamine manufacturing on the property when they did in fact find implements of a methamphetamine lab. The trial court, as the finder of fact, determines disputed facts by weighing the credibility of witnesses’ testimony. Bartel v. Zucktriegel, 112 Wn. App. 55, 62, 47 P.3d 581 (2002). We will not disturb a trial court’s credibility determinations on appeal. Bartel, 112 Wn. App. at 62. The trial court did not believe that a law enforcement officer would deny the existence of a known methamphetamine lab when asked about it directly. The officers’ testimony provides substantial support for this finding.

Miller next argues that no evidence supports finding of fact LIX, that Miller knew of the history of illegal drug manufacturing on the property from his contacts with Brudvik, Charmaine, and law enforcement and that his testimony to the contrary was not credible. He again asserts that he did not learn of the methamphetamine manufacturing from law enforcement and that Brudvik did not learn of it from the news article. Miller also argues that there is no evidence Charmaine told him about illegal drug manufacturing, pointing to her testimony that she did not tell either Miller or Brudvik about methamphetamine lab activity on the property.

We have, however, already rejected Miller’s challenges to the trial court’s findings that Miller and Brudvik learned of the methamphetamine lab in the days following its discovery. And the trial court did not believe Charmaine’s testimony that she did not know about the methamphetamine lab. Miller testified that he discussed what Charmaine had learned from the task force with Brudvik. Substantial evidence also supports this finding.

Miller next argues that no evidence supports finding of fact LXI, that he knew the Fritzes did not disclose that the property had been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site in their seller’s disclosure statement and did not disclose his personal knowledge to the contrary.

But Miller testified that he saw that Robert had marked “no” in response to the question asking if the property had been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site. RP at 765-66. And he does not challenge the trial court’s finding that, when he reviewed the seller’s disclosure statement with the Bloors, he did not disclose the history of the task force search or the discovery of the marijuana grow operation and methamphetamine lab implements. Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 42, 59 P.3d 611 (2002). Given the finding that Miller knew of the methamphetamine manufacturing on the property, substantial evidence supports a finding that he failed to disclose this knowledge to the Bloors.

Finally, Miller contends that no evidence supports finding of fact LXII, that his failure to disclose his knowledge of the history of illegal drug manufacturing at the property damaged the Bloors because it misled them and deprived them of information they needed to learn of the property’s true condition. He points out that the purchase and sale agreement included a provision for a neighborhood inspection and that information about the task force search and drug arrests was readily available in the public record.

Eva Bloor testified that, if the Fritzes had disclosed the illegal drug manufacturing at the home, she might have changed her mind about buying the property. She would have asked questions about the drug manufacturing, including what the drug was. She also would have inquired with the health department. That the Bloors began investigating the property’s history as soon as they learned of the illegal drugs supports a finding that if they had known earlier, they would have investigated before closing the purchase. Again, substantial evidence supports this finding of fact.

II. Failure To Disclose a Material Fact

Miller next argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to disclose his knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing as RCW 18.86.030 requires.

Under RCW 18.86.030(1)(d), a real estate agent has a duty to disclose “all existing material facts known by the [agent] and not apparent or readily ascertainable to a party; provided that this subsection shall not be construed to imply any duty to investigate matters that the [agent] has not agreed to investigate.” A material fact is “information that substantially adversely affects the value of the property or a party’s ability to perform its obligations in a real estate transaction, or operates to materially impair or defeat the purpose of the transaction.” RCW 18.86.010(9). But that a property is or was the site of “illegal drug activity . . . not adversely affecting the physical condition of or title to the property is not a material fact.” RCW 18.86.010(9).

Miller bases his argument solely on his contention that he did not know of the methamphetamine manufacturing on the property. He does not assign error to the trial court’s conclusion that methamphetamine manufacturing is a material fact that a real estate agent has a duty to disclose. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Miller knew of the methamphetamine manufacturing on the property, and that finding supports a conclusion that Miller violated his duty to disclose known material facts about the property, Miller’s argument fails. The trial court did not err in concluding that Miller violated RCW 18.86.030. 4

III. Negligent Misrepresentation

Miller contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his failure to disclose the history of illegal drug manufacturing on the property was a negligent misrepresentation.

A plaintiff claiming negligent misrepresentation must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that (1) the defendant supplied information for the guidance of others in their business transactions that was false, (2) the defendant knew or should have known that the information was supplied to guide the plaintiff in his business transactions, (3) the defendant was negligent in obtaining or communicating the false information, (4) the plaintiff relied on the false information, (5) the plaintiff’s reliance was reasonable, and (6) the false information proximately caused the plaintiff damages. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Baik, 147 Wn.2d 536, 545, 55 P.3d 619 (2002).

Miller again relies on his assertion that he did not know of the illegal drug manufacturing on the property to argue that he was not negligent in communicating the false information to the Bloors. Again, as with his argument under RCW 18.86.030, because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Miller knew of the illegal drug manufacturing on the property, and Miller does not claim that he disclosed the drug problem to the Bloors, Miller’s argument fails.

Miller also argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to disclose a material fact without making a finding that the manufacture of marijuana is a material fact under RCW 18.86.010(9). Because the court found, however, that the manufacture of methamphetamine is a material fact that Miller failed to disclose, such a finding was not necessary.


Miller points out that, under RCW 18.86.030(2), a real estate agent owes no duty to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of a party’s statement unless otherwise agreed. But because Miller actually knew of the illegal drug manufacturing, this standard does not apply. The trial court did not err in concluding that Miller negligently misrepresented a material fact in failing to disclose the illegal drug manufacturing on the property.

IV. Consumer Protection Act

Miller next argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he violated the Consumer Protection Act.

Under the Act, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. RCW 19.86.020. To prevail in a private claim under the Act, a plaintiff must establish five elements: (1) unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) public interest impact, (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) causation. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 780, 719 P.2d 531 (1986). Whether particular actions give rise to a violation of the Act is a question of law that we review de novo. Svendsen v. Stock, 143 Wn.2d 546, 553, 23 P.3d 455 (2001). Miller contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his conduct was unfair or deceptive and that it impacted a public interest. He argues that the Fritzes’ home sale was an isolated incident and that his conduct during the sale did not affect anyone other than the parties to the contract.

To show that a party has engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice, a plaintiff “need not show that the act in question was intended to deceive, but that the alleged act had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public.” Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 (citing State v. Ralph Williams’ N.W. Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 553 P.2d 423 (1976)). Miller does not dispute that he advertised the property for sale to the public by listing it in the multiple listing service directory and placing a for sale sign on the property. He also showed the property to another prospective buyer before the Fritzes accepted the Bloors’ offer. Miller did not disclose the history of illegal drug manufacturing on the property to the Bloors or the other prospective purchaser, or on the multiple listing service directory. Listing and showing the property without disclosing its history of illegal drug manufacturing had the capacity to deceive any member of the public who used the directory or expressed interest in the property.

Miller also argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his conduct impacted the public interest because this is a private dispute with no likelihood that additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in the same way. But, while it may be more difficult for a plaintiff to show a public impact from a private dispute, a dispute between a real estate agent and a property purchaser may have a public impact.

In Svendsen, the court considered the effect of the seller disclosure statute on a real estate agent’s liability under the Act. In that case, the seller’s agent knew of flooding problems on the property. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 551-52. Yet she instructed the seller to conceal the problem in the seller disclosure form, and she also fraudulently concealed her own knowledge. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 550-52. The court first noted that several cases decided before adoption of the seller disclosure statute had held that “an agent’s failure to disclose a known material defect in the sale of real property is a violation of the [Act].” Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 556 (citing McRae v. Bolstad, 101 Wn.2d 161, 676 P.2d 496 (1984); Robinson v. McReynolds, 52 Wn. App. 635, 762 P.2d 1166 (1988); Luxon v. Caviezel, 42 Wn. App. 261, 710 P.2d 809 (1985)). The court concluded that the seller disclosure statute did not change this rule but, instead, preserved a cause of action under the Act where it exists independent of the seller disclosure statement. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 558.

The court then considered whether the buyer had established the public interest element.It addressed the following factors: (1) whether the acts were committed in the course of defendant’s business, (2) whether the defendants advertised to the public, (3) whether the defendant actively solicited the plaintiff, and (4) whether the parties occupied unequal bargaining positions. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 559 (citing Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 790-91). If present, these factors show a likelihood that additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in the same manner. Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 790-91. No single factor is dispositive, nor is it necessary that a buyer prove all factors. Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 791. The Svendsen court concluded that the buyer had established a public interest impact. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 559.

Here, Miller, acting as a real estate agent, failed to disclose a known material fact, a history of illegal drug manufacturing, in the sale of the property to the Bloors. His conduct occurred in the course of his business of offering residential property for sale to the public. He advertised the property for sale to the public by listing it on the multiple listing service directory and placing a for sale sign on the property. And, although he did not actively solicit the Bloors, the record shows that the parties did not occupy equal bargaining positions.

The trial court did not err in finding that Miller’s conduct impacted a public interest.

These findings support the trial court’s conclusion that Miller violated the Act.

For example, the Bloors’ initial offer was below the Fritzes’ asking price, but when Miller told them that another party was interested in the property, they agreed to make a full price offer. These findings support the trial court’s conclusion that Miller violated the Act.

The Fritzes’ Appeal

I. Negligent Misrepresentation

The Fritzes argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the Bloors’ negligent misrepresentation claim, asserting that no claim exists for economic loss resulting from the sale of a residence. They assert that the Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 153 P.3d 864 (2007), reversed the Court of Appeals decision that the Bloors relied on below to argue to the contrary and decided this “precise issue.” Br. of App. at 15.

The Bloors maintain, however, that the Fritzes did not raise the economic loss rule before the trial court and that, under RAP 2.5(a), we should not consider the issue. They assert that they relied on the Court of Appeals decision in Alejandre only for the proposition that a common law cause of action exists for failure to disclose information in a seller’s disclosure statement. The Fritzes respond that they implicitly raised the economic loss rule by arguing in their motion to dismiss that the Bloors had not proved a special relationship between the parties, an element of a negligent misrepresentation claim.

The economic loss rule bars recovery for an alleged breach of tort duties where a contractual relationship exists and the losses are economic. Alejandre, 159 Wn.2d at 683. Economic losses are those losses arising directly from the defect, such as repair costs for defective construction. See Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass’n Bd. of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 526, 799 P.2d 250 (1990). But the economic loss rule does not bar recovery for personal injury or damage to property other than the defective property. Alejandre, 159 Wn.2d at 684.

Miller also faults the trial court for concluding that marijuana production is also illegal drug manufacturing and that Miller’s denial that it is a material fact he was required to disclose was a threat to the public’s health and safety. But because Miller’s failure to disclose the methamphetamine manufacturing at the property was an independent basis for finding a consumer protection violation, we do not reach this issue.

Although the Fritzes argued lack of a “special relationship” in their motion to dismiss, nothing in that argument alerted the trial court that Fritzes were also arguing the economic loss rule as a bar to the tort claim. The Fritzes were essentially arguing that the Bloors had failed to prove one element of their negligent misrepresentation claim. That argument did not include the entirely different notion that the Bloors’ tort claim might be barred by the economic loss rule. We conclude that the Fritzes waived their economic loss argument by not raising it before the trial court. RAP 2.5(a); Better Fin. Solutions Inc. v. Caicos Corp., 117 Wn. App. 899, 912-13, 73 P.3d 424 (2003).

II. Rescission

The Fritzes next argue that the trial court erred in rescinding the real estate purchase and sale agreement. They maintain that rescission was inappropriate because there was not a complete failure of consideration and the cost to cure the defect was slight compared to the purchase price of the property.

Contract rescission is an equitable remedy in which the court attempts to restore the parties to the positions they would have occupied had they not entered into the contract. Hornback v. Wentworth, 132 Wn. App. 504, 513, 132 P.3d 778 (2006), review granted, 158 Wn.2d 1025 (2007). We review a trial court’s decision to rescind a contract for an abuse of discretion. Hornback, 132 Wn. App. at 513. A court sitting in equity has broad discretion to shape relief. Hough v. Stockbridge, 150 Wn.2d 234, 236, 76 P.3d 216 (2003).

In their closing argument, the Bloors stated that they preferred rescission of the contract over contractual damages, and the trial court ordered rescission in its oral decision. When the parties expressed confusion as to how rescission would work, the court directed the parties to work out the details and to advise the court if they could not. The Bloors later told the trial court that the parties had concluded that rescission was not feasible because the Fritzes would be unable to return the purchase price to the Bloors. Accordingly, the Bloors requested damages for the cost of decontamination and restoration of the property instead. The Fritzes agreed with the change. Yet at the next hearing, the Fritzes told the court that they preferred rescission over contractual damages and that they were “willing and able” to go forward with rescission. RP at 1462, 1469-70. The trial court continued the hearing to allow the Bloors to consider whether they were willing to accept rescission as their remedy. The Bloors elected to return to the rescission remedy.

Given the trial court’s broad discretion in shaping an equitable remedy, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering rescission. The Fritzes requested rescission after the Bloors had agreed to accept contractual damages, also at the Fritzes’ request. Although the Bloors’ attorney expressed frustration with the Fritzes’ shifting position, the Bloors agreed to return to the rescission remedy. A party cannot set up an error below and then complain of it on appeal. Casper v. Esteb Enters., Inc., 119 Wn. App. 759, 771, 82 P.3d 1223 (2004). Moreover,the Fritzes did not argue before the trial court that there was not a complete failure of consideration or that the cost to remediate the property was not high enough to justify rescission. Rescinding the contract put the Bloors as close as possible to the position they would have been in had they never purchased the property. The trial court did not err in rescinding the real estate purchase and sale agreement.

The Fritzes argue in the alternative that the trial court erred in awarding the Bloors interest on the total purchase price of $149,000 and lender fees as part of the rescission remedy because to do so goes beyond restoring the parties to their original positions. They focus on the fact that the Bloors financed the entire purchase price of the property and made only one mortgage payment before they left the house due to the contamination. The trial court ordered the Fritzes to pay the $149,000 purchase price; $38,555.13 of interest on the purchase price, accrued at the statutory rate of 12 percent per annum from the date the health department posted the property as unfit for habitation; and late charges and foreclosure costs of $9,231.89—a total of $196,787.02—into the court’s registry. When payment to the court was complete, the court would order the funds disbursed to the Bloors’ lender to satisfy the debt secured by the property with any excess funds going to the Bloors. The court would then enter a decree quieting title to the property in the Fritzes.

Upon completing the contract, the Fritzes received the full purchase price from the Bloors’ lender and the Bloors became indebted to the lender for that amount. But the Bloors did not lose the use of $149,000 by financing the purchase. Rather, the Bloors incurred $149,000 of debt to purchase the property. Thus, the Bloors were not entitled to interest on the $149,000 because they would not have had the funds to invest if the purchase had not gone through. See Jones v. Best, 134 Wn.2d 232, 242, 950 P.2d 1 (1998) (purpose of prejudgment interest is to compensate a party for the loss of use of money to which he was entitled). To restore the Bloors to their pre-contract position, the Fritzes must pay the $149,000 debt together with the unpaid interest that has actually accrued, penalties, and foreclosure costs the lender assessed against the Bloors. The Bloors are not entitled to any excess funds. After the Fritzes demonstrate that they have paid all these obligations, they are entitled to an order quieting title to the property.

III. Damages

A. Loss Of Income and Damage To Credit Rating

The Fritzes next argue that insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s award of damages for loss of income and damage to the Bloors’ credit rating.

They assign error to the following findings of fact:

XLVIII.

Due to the financial burden of setting up a new household and reestablishing their lives, the Bloors were unable to make payments on the underlying indebtedness secured by the Property. As a result of the Bloors’ inability to pay their loan obligations, the beneficiaries under the Deed of Trust that secured the purchase money loan to the Bloors initiated foreclosure proceedings, which proceedings were suspended on several occasions while this litigation was pending. Additional penalties and interest have accumulated on the debts owed by the Bloors.

LIII.

When they purchased the Property in July 2004, the median credit score for Ed Bloor was 666 and the median credit score for Eva Bloor was 647. Due to the loss by the Bloors of their home and belongings, and their resulting inability to make the required monthly payments on their loans, as of April, 2006, Ed Bloor’s credit score had fallen to 569 and Eva Bloor’s credit score had fallen to 552. The cause of the difference between the credit scores in July, 2004 and the credit scores in April, 2006 was the reporting of the Property foreclosure proceedings and other associated debts that were proximately caused by the Bloors’ loss of their home and belongings due to the discovery of the meth contamination.

LIV.

Due to the reduction of the Bloors’ credit scores it is reasonably certain that for at least the next ten (10) years the Bloors will suffer economic loss when they apply for credit. A reasonable estimate of the loss they will suffer from the damage to their credit scores can be made based on the increased cost they will likely than not [sic] incur to acquire and pay a home purchase loan. The reduced credit scores the Bloors now have will result in them having to pay approximately one percentage point more in interest on a home loan, which translates to a current loss of $10,000.00, when the added cost of the loan over the normal amortization period of the loan is reduced to present cash value. This loss is reasonably certain and based on reliable statistical data provided by Robert Moss, the Bloor’s [sic] economic expert witness.

LV.

Ed Bloor was unable to work for at least three months due to the contamination of the Property and the loss of his tools and equipment. His average [monthly] income prior to the discovery of the contamination was $2,500.00. He lost approximately three months income and thus, his income loss due to his inability to work was $7,500.00.

CP at 26-28.

The Fritzes argue that the evidence shows that the Bloors did not have sufficient savings or income to pay their mortgage payments when the health department posted the property as unfit for habitation. They maintain that Ed Bloor’s loss of income was due to the fact that he had not yet started working after moving from Missouri. And they assert that the damage to the Bloors’ credit ratings was due to their poor financial condition and history of poor financial responsibility.

Ed Bloor testified that in the weeks after he moved into the house, he obtained a business license in order to start a siding business and was in the process of obtaining a bond for it. He owned all the tools necessary for siding and stored them in the garage at the Spirit Lake property. While he prepared to start his business, he performed remodeling work, earning a couple thousand dollars. But because the garage where he stored his tools was contaminated, he had to abandon his tools when he left the house and was unable to start a siding business or continue the remodeling work. Ed Bloor obtained employment in April 2005, after moving to Spokane, in a position where he did not need his siding tools. His average monthly income in Spokane was $2,500. Robert Moss, the Bloors’ financial expert, testified that the average length of unemployment in Washington is three months. This evidence supports the finding that Ed Bloor lost $7,500 in income due to the contamination of the property.

In addition to leaving behind Ed Bloor’s siding tools, the Bloors were unable to remove their clothing, bedding, furniture, cooking utensils, or personal items from the home. They had to replace all these items. Ed Bloor testified that they used the funds they had at the time to “try to get [their] life back to where [they] could live.” RP at 370. This evidence, along with the evidence about Ed Bloor’s loss of income, supports the finding that the Bloors were unable to make the mortgage payments because of the property contamination.

The Fritzes do not dispute that the Bloors’ credit ratings dropped by about 100 points each from the time they bought the house to the time of trial, but the Fritzes attribute that drop to the Bloors’ history of poor financial management rather than the loss of the house. Yet the Fritzes do not explain how the Bloors’ past financial mismanagement would cause a current drop in their credit ratings. The Bloors’ expert testified that a 100-point drop in credit rating would cause a buyer to incur about $10,000 more in interest costs over the first 7 years of a loan. The Fritzes offered nothing to rebut this testimony, which supports the finding that the drop in the Bloors’ credit ratings caused the Bloors damages.

B. Emotional Distress

The Fritzes contend that the trial court erred in awarding the Bloors damages for emotional distress, arguing that emotional distress damages are not available for rescission of a contract or breach of a contract and repeating their argument that the economic loss rule bars damages for negligent misrepresentation.

But the trial court specified that it awarded emotional distress damages as a consequence of the negligent misrepresentation, not under a contract theory. And we have already declined to consider the Fritzes’ argument that the economic loss rule bars the Bloors’ recovery for negligent misrepresentation.

The Fritzes do not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact in support of emotional distress damages. These include that the Bloors suffered from anxiety and discomfort as a result of the loss of their home, personal effects, and keepsakes. Ed Bloor experienced symptoms of depression, his sister noticed changes in his personality, and he blamed himself for what had happened and felt like he had let his family down. Eva Bloor also experienced anxiety, resulting in a trip to the emergency room because she thought she was having a heart attack. A doctor diagnosed her with anxiety and panic attacks and prescribed medication to reduce her anxiety. The trial court did not err in awarding emotional distress damages.

C. Litigation Expenses

The Fritzes argue that the trial court erred in awarding the Bloors their litigation expenses beyond the statutory costs allowed in RCW 4.84.010. We review a trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs for abuse of discretion. Schmidt v. Cornerstone Invs., Inc., 115 Wn.2d 148, 169, 795 P.2d 1143 (1990).

Under RCW 4.84.010, “there shall be allowed to the prevailing party upon the judgment certain sums by way of indemnity for the prevailing party’s expenses in the action, which allowances are termed costs, including, in addition to costs otherwise authorized by law, the following expenses . . . .” And in an action on a contract that specifically provides for the award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party, the prevailing party is “entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to costs and necessary disbursements.” RCW 4.84.330.

Here, the real estate purchase and sale agreement provided, “If Buyer or Seller institutes suit against the other concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.” Ex. at 41. The trial court found that the term “expenses” was broader than the term “costs” and that it expressed the parties’ intent to allow the prevailing party to recover all of the expenses arising from the breach of the contract or attempts to enforce the contract. The trial court ordered the Fritzes to pay the Bloors $18,975.55 in expenses. This amount included the Bloors’ expert witness fees, court reporter fees, travel expenses, mediation expenses, and other expenses.

The Fritzes rely on our recent opinion in Paradiso v. Drake, 135 Wn. App. 329, 143 P.3d 859 (2006), review denied, 160 Wn.2d 1024 (2007), to argue that the language in the real estate purchase and sale agreement entitles the Bloors only to statutory costs as defined in RCW 4.84.010. But we addressed attorney fees only in the unpublished portion of that opinion. Citation to this part of the opinion was improper. GR 14.1. Moreover, the attorney fee section of that opinion does not address any distinction between statutory costs and other expenses.

Our primary goal in interpreting a contract is to ascertain the parties’ intent. Paradise Orchards Gen. P’ship v. Fearing, 122 Wn. App. 507, 516, 94 P.3d 372 (2004). The Fritzes do not assign error to the trial court’s finding that the parties intended the term “expenses” to include costs other than those that RCW 4.84.010 defines. This finding supports the trial court’s award of additional expenses under the contract.

The Fritzes also fault the trial court for failing to apportion the cost of transcribing deposition transcripts based on the portions used at trial. The Bloors’ attorney stated, however, that he calculated the percentage of each deposition transcript read into the record at trial and apportioned the costs accordingly. The Fritzes did not object to the Bloors’ calculation. The Fritzes cannot now complain that the trial court used the Bloors’ calculation.

Attorney Fees

I. Segregation Of Claims

The Fritzes contend that the trial court erred in awarding the Bloors their attorney fees against the Fritzes and Miller jointly and severally, arguing that the trial court should have segregated the fees it awarded for each claim, excluded fees for claims that did not give rise to an award of attorney fees, and excluded duplicative and unnecessary work.

In Washington, a party may recover attorney fees only when a statute, contract, or recognized ground of equity permits recovery. Panorama Vill. Condo. Owners Ass’n Bd. of Dirs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 144 Wn.2d 130, 143, 26 P.3d 910 (2001). Whether a party is entitled to an award of attorney fees is a question of law that we review de novo. Tradewell Group, Inc. v. Mavis, 71 Wn. App. 120, 126, 857 P.2d 1053 (1993). Whether the fee award is reasonable is a matter of discretion for the trial court, which we will alter only if we find an abuse of discretion. Scott Fetzer Co. v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141, 147, 859 P.2d 1210 (1993).

The trial court found that there was no basis to award attorney fees against Cowlitz County. But contrary to the Fritzes’ assertions, the trial court excluded the time the Bloors’ attorneys spent exclusively on claims against Cowlitz County from the attorney fee calculation.

A trial court may require a plaintiff to segregate its attorney fees between successful and unsuccessful claims. Kastanis v. Educ. Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 501-02, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993). If the claims are unrelated, the court should award only the fees attributable to the recovery. Blair v. Wash. State Univ., 108 Wn.2d 558, 572, 740 P.2d 1379 (1987). But where the attorney fees for successful and unsuccessful claims are inseparable, the trial court may award the plaintiff all its fees. Blair, 108 Wn.2d at 572.

Although there is no finding of fact that the Bloors’ claims were inseparable, the trial court stated, in considering whether to apply a lodestar enhancement, “The unsuccessful claim against LAM Management, I don’t think that can really be segregated too much from what was claimed here. It would be virtually impossible to segregate that out in my view. . . .” RP at 1440. The Bloors’ attorney also stated to the court that it would be “almost impossible” to segregate the time spent on the various claims. RP at 1447-48. The claims arose out of the same set of facts and involved interactions between the defendants. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not segregating the Bloors’ attorney fees.

Also contrary to the Fritzes’ assertions, the trial court excluded hours that it found to be duplicative or unnecessary, including 13 hours of the time it took to draft the complaint and the hours that a second attorney spent attending depositions.

II. Lodestar Multiplier

Finally, Miller contends that the trial court erred in applying a 1.2 multiplier to its award of attorney fees against Miller and the Fritzes, arguing that the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings in support of enhancing the attorney fee award.

Miller assigns error to the following findings of fact relevant to this issue:

LXV.

The declarations submitted by the Bloors’ attorneys show that they expended over 800 hours in the prosecution of the Bloor’s [sic] claims. The Bloors did not have the money to hire their attorneys and pay for their representation. The Bloors’ attorneys, expecting the defendants to capitulate, accepted the representation on a contingent fee basis and, when the defendants failed to accept responsibility, the attorneys assumed significant business risk that they would not be paid. Although the Bloors paid the filing fee and some of the service fees, they were unable to pay any of the remaining expenses, and had they not prevailed at trial, the Bloors’ attorneys faced substantial risk that they would not be paid their fees or the significant expenses and costs they advanced.

LXXIII.

The claim of damage to the Bloors’ credit was a novel issue presented by the Bloors’ attorneys and the claim against Cowlitz County based on its failure to comply with the requirements of reporting under RCW 64.44 et seq., the contaminated properties statute, was unusual and was apparently the first such claim against a governmental entity made under that statute.

LXXIV.

Plaintiffs’ case was legally complex with multiple legal theories presented against multiple Defendants. Plaintiffs’ case was complicated by having to prove that the Fritzes and Miller had knowledge of the use of the Property for illegal drug manufacturing using circumstantial evidence.

LXXVI.

The many hours expended on the prosecution of the Bloors’ claims necessarily precluded the Bloors’ attorneys from other employment opportunities that would have otherwise been available.

LXXXII.

Some of the issues involved in the Bloors [sic] claims were novel. Cowlitz County is a member of the task force that conducted the search and arrests leading to the discovery of the meth lab, and task force members failed to report the discovery to the Cowlitz County Health Department, as required by law. Determining that Cowlitz County was the liable entity for such failure required careful investigation and development of the Bloors [sic] claims, and overcoming the defenses claimed by Cowlitz County, including the claim of public duty doctrine. The case was complex in that the Bloors had to prove multiple acts and omissions of the four defendants, and the Fritzes and Miller steadfastly denied their commission of such omissions and acts. The persistent resistance of the Fritzes and Miller to acknowledge liability, the time and labor required to prosecute the claims, the necessity of an expeditious resolution and time sensitivity of the claims required diligent and determined prosecution of the Bloors [sic] claims. The Bloors [sic] claims were also undesirable because of their inability to pay their attorneys, their residence in Spokane, the relative difficulty of communication with them, and the resources the defendants were willing to expend to defend against the claims. These factors, the uncertainty of recovery and the contingent nature of the representation all support an enhancement of the attorney fees to be awarded. An enhancement based on a multiplier of 1.2 should be made to the hourly rates applied to the allowed hours expended by the Bloors’ attorneys prior to the date the Court announced its oral ruling.

CP at 32, 35, 37.

Under the lodestar method of calculating an award of attorney fees, the court must first determine that counsel expended a reasonable number of hours in securing a successful recovery for the client and that the hourly rate counsel billed the client was reasonable. Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 434, 957 P.2d 632, 966 P.2d 305 (1998). The court must exclude any wasteful or duplicative hours. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 434. The lodestar fee is the reasonable number of hours incurred in obtaining the successful result multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 434.

The court presumes that the lodestar amount is a reasonable fee. Henningsen v. Worldcom, Inc., 102 Wn. App. 828, 847, 9 P.3d 948 (2000). But in rare instances, the court may, in its discretion, adjust the lodestar amount up or down to adjust for factors that the lodestar calculation has not already taken into account. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 434; Henningsen, 102 Wn. App. at 847. These factors include the contingent nature of success in the case and the quality of the legal representation. Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581, 593-94, 675 P.2d 193 (1983).

Here, the Bloors requested a 1.5 multiplier on the attorney fee award. The trial court found that the complexity of the case, the fact that it presented novel issues, the contingent nature of success, the high quality of representation, and the loss of other work made an enhancement appropriate. But because several of these factors were not relevant to the claims on which it awarded fees, it concluded that a 1.2 multiplier was appropriate.

Miller argues that there is no evidence, other than a single attorney’s declaration, to support the finding that the Bloors presented novel claims and that the declaration is insufficient to support the finding.

The Bloors asked a local attorney with at least 15 years’ experience in real estate matters to provide an opinion on the reasonableness of their attorney fee request. He opined that one reason to apply a lodestar multiplier was the novelty of two of the Bloors’ claims, the liability of the County for failure to report the methamphetamine lab and the damage to the Bloors’ credit rating. The attorney explained that he had no prior experience with either claim. Miller points out that there is no evidence in the record that no other county has been sued for failing to report a methamphetamine lab. But the local attorney’s testimony that he had no experience with such claims supports the trial court’s finding that the issues were novel. In addition, Miller and the Fritzes admitted to some novelty in the Bloors’ credit rating damage claim by challenging its admissibility on the basis that no court had previously allowed such testimony. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding.

Miller also challenges the trial court’s finding that the case was complex, arguing that multiple defendants and multiple claims do not alone make a case complex. Again, the Bloors’ expert opined that the case was complex. And the trial court stated,

This was a complicated case, at least from my perspective. I find it a little unusual that the defense would say this isn’t complex now when it was pretty complicated at the time. There were numerous issues here and a liability and damages portion between several parties. I viewed it as a complex case, presenting a number of issues versus different parties.

RP at 1438. The Bloors’ attorneys spent more than 800 hours over 24 months to prepare the case; the parties took 6 days to try it. Three hearings were required to complete the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Together, these factors support the trial court’s conclusion that the case was complex.

Miller argues that the evidence does not support a finding that recovery was uncertain, asserting that recovery against Cowlitz County was almost certain. But the trial court found that the other defendants were “steadfast in their denial of responsibility,” and the lack of direct evidence against Miller and the Fritzes created “significant difficulty” in the case. CP at 32. The trial court also found that the quality of all parties’ representation, including Miller’s and the Fritzes’, was high. Even if recovery against the County was almost certain, substantial evidence supports a finding that recovery against Miller and the Fritzes was uncertain.

Miller also challenges the trial court’s finding that the many hours the Bloors’ attorneys worked on the case precluded them from other employment opportunities. As noted above, the trial court found that the Bloors’ attorneys spent over 800 hours working on the case over 24 months. The trial court noted that this factor takes into account whether an attorney turns down “more sure things or sure-fire payment to accept this case which is not, was not from the beginning a sure thing.” RP at 1439-40. The trial court also found that the Bloors’ attorneys expected the defendants to concede liability and when they did not, the attorneys had to continue with the case. Miller does not explain how the Bloors’ attorneys could have worked on other cases with more certain recovery at the same time they spent over 800 hours on this case. Substantial evidence supports this finding of fact.

The trial court considered appropriate factors in considering whether to adjust the lodestar amount, and it did not abuse its discretion in deciding to apply a 1.2 multiplier.

III. Attorney Fees on Appeal


The Bloors request their attorney fees on appeal under RAP 18.1. Where a statute or contract allows an award of attorney fees at trial, an appellate court has authority to award fees on appeal. Standing Rock Homeowners Ass’n v. Misich, 106 Wn. App. 231, 247, 23 P.3d 520 (2001); Reeves v. McClain, 56 Wn. App. 301, 311, 783 P.2d 606 (1989) (citing W. Coast Stationary Eng’rs Welfare Fund v. City of Kennewick, 39 Wn. App. 466, 694 P.2d 1101 (1985)). The trial court awarded the Bloors their attorney fees under the real estate purchase and sale agreement and the Act. Because they have prevailed on appeal, we award the Bloors their attorney fees under RAP 18.1 in an amount to be set by a commissioner of this court.

We affirm but vacate the damage award and remand for the trial court to enter new judgment for the Bloors consistent with this opinion.

Armstrong, J.

We concur:

Houghton, C.J.

Quinn-Brintnall, J.

COULD IT HAPPEN TO YOU? —THE GRUELING HUMAN TOLL OF CHASING WINDERMERE CROOKS THROUGH THE COURTS: $311,304.67 IN LEGAL FEES, 5 YEARS DISTRESSING LITIGATION, and DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE TO BUILD A NEW ONE...

COURT SAYS WINIDERMERE CAMANO ISLAND'S SONYA EPPIG "...DID NOT SO UNEQUIVOCALLY SET FORTH THE PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROBLEMS...

...And when Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for approximately two years, Camano [Windermere Realty] learned about the permitting and inspection problems but did not inform the Ruebels."

Left, Sonya Eppig and current Windermere Real Estate/CIR owner, Marla Heagle, who did not own Windermere CIR during the Eppig case, but nonetheless continues to expose the public to Eppig's ethics and collect commission from Eppig transactions: "...Eppig did not tell the Ruebels about the addendum Nelson prepared disclosing that the engineering work was not complete and that the building plans did not meet the UBC requirements. Instead, Eppig helped draft a revised addendum that did not so unequivocally set forth the permitting and inspection problems. And when Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for approximately two years, Camano learned about the permitting and inspection problems but did not inform the Ruebels."

DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE APPEALS COURT OPINION HERE.

Thomas and Diane E. Ruebel became interested in a Camano Island home being sold by Mike Hovis. The Ruebels had representation by Sonya Eppig of Windermere / Camano Island Realty. Mr Hovis had been remodeling the property since 1995 and the interior was yet to be completed. Unbeknownst to the Ruebels, Hovis had been cited by the Camano Island County Building Department for not having officially approved framing specifications and engineering drawings. An expert testified that the building’s structural integrity had been compromised. Hovis had installed wall treatments that hid the problems. Prior to the Ruebels, another buyer determined the home’s impediments, at which time Windermere entered in dialog with the County.

During the Ruebels’ initial purchase of the property, Eppig was involved in the permit and inspection concerns. Hovis and Eppig  both proffered clear misrepresentations to the Ruebels about the status of the property. Through vaguely wording an addendum put into the closing papers, Hovis and Eppig sought to “disclose” the home’s impediments without actually revealing them. After closing, the Ruebels found the extent of the property’s damage was so severe, the most economical course of action would be to raze it to the foundation and build all over.

 

DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h).

 

Court of Appeals Division I

State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

 

Docket Number: 58533-9-I

Title of Case: Camano Island Realty, Et Al., App./cross-resp. V. G. Thomas & Diane E. Ruebel, Resp./cross-app.

File Date: 10/01/2007

SOURCE OF APPEAL

_______________

 

Appeal from Island Superior Court

Docket No: 03-2-00516-3

Judgment or order under review

Date filed: 06/08/2006

Judge signing: Honorable Vickie I Churchill

 

JUDGES

_______________

Authored by Ann Schindler

Concurring: Ronald Cox

William Baker

 

COUNSEL OF RECORD

_______________

 

Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Respondent

Jeffrey Paul Downer

Lee Smart Cook Martin & Patterson PS

701 Pike St Ste 1800

Seattle, WA, 98101-3929

 

Matthew F. Davis

Attorney at Law

5224 Wilson Ave S Ste 200

Seattle, WA, 98118-2587

 

Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Appellant

John Wentworth Phillips

Phillips Law Group PLLC

315 5th Ave S Ste 1000

Seattle, WA, 98104-2682

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

 

G. THOMAS RUEBEL AND DIANE E. RUEBEL, 

Respondents,

v.

[Windermere] CAMANO ISLAND REALTY, INC., a  CORPORATION, AND SONYA EPPIG,

Appellants.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

No. 58533-9-I

FILED: October 1, 2007

SCHINDLER, A.C.J. Based on the failure to disclose inspection and permitting problems with the house they purchased, Thomas and Diane E. Ruebel (the Ruebels) sued Windermere/Camano Island Realty, Inc. (Camano Realty) and its real estate agent, Sonya Eppig, for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW (CPA). At the conclusion of a two-week trial, the jury rejected the Ruebel’s claim for fraudulent concealment, but found in their favor on negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the CPA. The jury awarded the Ruebels approximately $126,300 for the CPA claim and approximately $34,000 for the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims, attributing 30 percent of the fault to Camano Realty. Camano Realty and Eppig appeal the trial court’s decision denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the CPA claim and the court’s entry of judgment on the verdict against them. Camano Realty and Eppig also challenge the trial court’s award of approximately $311,000 in attorney fees on the CPA claim. In their cross appeal, the Ruebels challenge the court’s decision to not include the amount the jury awarded for the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that Camano Realty and Eppig violated the CPA and the jury’s decision to attribute fault to Camano Realty and Eppig, we affirm the court’s denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law and entry of the judgment on the verdict. We also affirm the trial court’s decision to not include the amount awarded on the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. But because the trial court did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the award of attorney fees, we reverse the attorney fee award and remand.

FACTS

Mike and Marilyn Hovis (Hovis) owned a Victorian-style waterfront house on Camano Island with a detached three car garage and loft apartment on a four acre parcel of property. In 1995, Hovis obtained a permit from the Camano Island County Building Department (Building Department) to remodel the main house. Mike Hovis acted as the general contractor for the remodel. In January 1996, the Building Department told Hovis that he needed to address several framing issues and the structural engineering requirements for the two-story house. The Building Department told Hovis he needed to submit approved engineering plans and framing specifications. Without submitting the requested information, Hovis proceeded with the installation of the interior wallboard and exterior siding. In 1997, the building permit expired.

From 2000 to 2001, Hovis listed the property for sale with Windermere/Camano Island Realty (Camano Realty). Camano Realty advertised the property as a Victorian waterfront estate with an unfinished interior. During the two years that Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for sale, two offers were made and then rescinded. In the spring 2001, Hovis, one of the potential buyers, and a Camano Realty agent met with the Building Department about the status of the expired building permit. The Building Department examiner, Ben VanDuine, described the outstanding inspections that still needed to be done, including the framing, plumbing, and electrical inspections. In addition, VanDuine told Hovis, the prospective buyer, and the Camano Realty agent that the work had to comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and approved plans and updated engineering calculations had to be submitted to the Building Department.

In late 2001, Hovis hired a contractor, Stephen Redmond, to finish the remodel. Redmond applied for a new building permit for the remodel. Although Hovis had not obtained the necessary inspections or submitted engineering plans and calculations, in December 2001, the Building Department issued a new building permit to Redmond.

In 2002, Hovis listed the property for sale with Preview Realty and real estate agent Roger Nelson. In early spring, the Ruebels contacted their Seattle neighbor, Rene Stern, a Windermere real estate agent, about their interest in purchasing the Hovis property. Stern agreed to act as the Ruebels? agent for the Seattle house but referred them to Sonja Eppig, a Windermere real estate agent with Camano Realty, for the Hovis property. In April 2002, Eppig met with the Ruebels. At the meeting she gave them a copy of the Real Property Transfer Disclosure Statement for the Hovis Property, Puget Sound Multiple Listing Form 17 (Form 17). In Form 17, Hovis states that they had been remodeling the house since 1996 and all the building permits are current. Hovis also states that they did not know if there were any restrictions on the property that would affect future construction or remodeling or any other material defects affecting the property that a prospective buyer should know about. On April 16, the Ruebels made an offer to purchase the Hovis property contingent on an inspection and study to determine the feasibility of the floor plan and the cost of finishing the remodel.

In the April 27 addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Hovis represented that: [t]o the best of seller’s knowledge, seller states that all work performed to date has passed all inspections. Any work that has not passed inspection will be corrected, reinspected and approved prior to closing at sellers [sic] expense. Purchaser to verify to own satisfaction within feasibility time.

The inspection report raised a number of concerns, including questions about the status of the building permit and inspections for the remodeling work. The report specifically notes that there was no framing inspection certificate and recommended checking with the Building Department.

On April 29, the Ruebels met with Eppig to go over the inspection report. According to Tom Ruebel, Eppig agreed to check with the Building Department on the status of the permit and the inspections. Eppig denied agreeing to check on the status of the permit and the inspections, but admitted that she met with VanDuine and learned that the Building Department needed building and engineering plans.

Hovis’ contractor, Redmond, testified that at approximately 11:15 a.m. on May 6, Eppig called to tell him that the Building Department was going to send him a letter suspending the building permit because updated building and engineering plans were never submitted.1 Tom Ruebel testified that Eppig unexpectedly called him on May 6 to recommend extending the deadline for the feasibility study because the Building Department needed some engineering plans, which she agreed to obtain.

On May 6, the Building Department suspended the permit. In the May 6 letter to Redmond, the Building Department states that the permit was erroneously issued. The letter also states that the permit will not be reinstated unless Hovis addressed the issues identified during the framing consultation in 1996 and provided updated engineering plans that complied with the 1997 UBC. Eppig did not tell the Ruebels that the Building Department had suspended the building permit. Sometime after May 6, Eppig obtained some engineering information from Preview Realty and requested building plans from Hovis’ architect.

On May 7 or 8, Eppig sent the Ruebels an extension until May 15 for the feasibility study and assured them that there was no problem with complying with the Building Department's request for the engineering information.

Enclosed are copies of the engineers [sic] report. I talked with Ben at County. They are okay. He does want the engineer's stamp and license number, so I will get that. Also included are the signatures from the seller re: the extension of the feasibility study. Sincerely, Sonya.

1 Redmond’s phone log was introduced as an exhibit and the log showed an incoming call from Eppig on May 6, 2002, at 11:16 a.m.

Contrary to Eppig’s assurances, VanDuine testified that he told Eppig the engineering data she provided was inadequate and that before reinstating the permit, the Building Department needed additional data, including lateral engineering calculations.

Tom Ruebel testified that Eppig called him before May 14 to tell him that the issues with the Building Department were resolved and they could release the feasibility contingency. On May 15, the Ruebels waived the feasibility contingency.

Nelson testified that sometime after May 15, Eppig told him the Building Department had identified problems with the building permit and the required inspections on the house. She asked Nelson to meet with the Building Department because the Ruebels were concerned about the status of the building permit and they were going to refuse to close on June 17 unless the problem was solved.

On June 7, Nelson faxed a proposed addendum to Eppig. According to Nelson, the purpose of the addendum was to notify the Ruebels that the construction was not approved by the Building Department. The addendum states that the engineering work is not complete, the building plans may not meet the 1997 UBC requirements, and the seller is not responsible for meeting the UBC requirements.2 Eppig told Nelson the addendum was unacceptable and helped draft a revised addendum. The revised addendum states that the framing inspection consultation

2 The addendum states:

Seller and Purchaser acknowledge that plan engineering work for Island County Building Dept. is not complete regarding wall sheer and lateral calculations, and the plans may not meet all of 1997 Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.) requirements. Purchaser intends to complete further remodeling before completion, which will require additional/new calculations. Purchaser is responsible to complete such work as part of home completion process. Seller is not required to bring existing improvements on premises to meet 1997 U.B.C.

are not complete according to Island County, and that engineering calculations of structure were still needed, but that Hovis agreed to pay the Ruebels $1,000 for costs related to additional lateral engineering calculations. The revised addendum also notes that intended changes by purchaser . . . may require additional work to comply with current UBC requirements.3

Tom Ruebel testified that Eppig called about the addendum and told him that it would benefit them because Hovis agreed to set aside $1000 at closing for any future engineering necessary in finishing the remodel. But the Ruebels did not see the written addendum until closing on June 17. Tom Ruebel testified that from May 15 until closing on June 17, he was not aware of any permitting or inspection concerns. The Ruebels purchased the property on June 17. The Ruebels signed the revised addendum as part of the paperwork at the closing, but did not carefully read it.

After purchasing the property, the Ruebels’ contractor, Richard King, identified a number of problems, including the framing work, which undermined the structural integrity of the house. The Ruebels also learned for the first time that on May 6 the Building Department had suspended the building permit for failure to submit the necessary engineering plans, obtain necessary inspections or comply with the UBC. Rather than proceed with remodeling, the Ruebels decided it was less costly to

3 The revised addendum states:

Seller and Purchaser acknowledge that the framing inspection/consultations are not complete according to Island County. Engineered lateral calculations of structure are needed. Seller and Purchaser agree that closing agent shall hold back $1,000 from seller?s proceeds of closing. This money shall pay for costs related to additional lateral engineering calculations of existing structure and will be returned to seller if not spent within six months from date of closing. Seller and Purchaser acknowledge that the structure, along with intended changes by purchaser as part of the completion process, may require additional work to comply with current UBC requirements. Any future work and engineering costs (excepting the $1,000 described above) to complete the structure, is the responsibility of the purchaser.

demolish the house and build a new house.

In July 2003, the Ruebels sued Hovis alleging negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and constructive fraud. In April 2004, the Ruebels sued Washington Builders and its owner, Terry Moran for negligent and defective construction. In addition, the Ruebels sued Preview Realty, Nelson, Camano Realty, and Eppig alleging negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud. The Ruebels also alleged Camano Realty and Eppig breached their fiduciary duty and Preview Realty and Nelson breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing. In an amended complaint, the Ruebels alleged breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation of material facts, and violation of the Consumer Protection Liability Act, chapter 19.86 RCW (CPA), as against Camano Realty and Eppig. Camano Realty denied the existence of an agency relationship with Eppig and denied liability.

Shortly before trial, the Ruebels settled with all the defendants except Camano Realty and Eppig. During the 9-day trial, a number of witnesses testified, including the Ruebels, Eppig, Nelson, Redmond and VanDuine. Contrary to the testimony of Nelson, Redmond, VanDuine, and Tom Ruebel, Eppig unequivocally denied that she knew the building permit was suspended or that she agreed to check on the status of the permits.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that the Ruebels proved an agency relationship between Camano Realty and Eppig. While the jury concluded the Ruebels did not prove fraudulent concealment, the jury found the Ruebels proved a violation of the CPA, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. As to negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, the jury attributed 10 percent of the fault to Eppig and 30 percent to Camano Realty. Camano Realty and Eppig filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law to set aside the jury verdict on the CPA violation. The trial court denied the motion and the court entered a final judgment on the jury verdict of approximately $145,000. The trial court also awarded the Ruebels $311,304.67 in attorney fees, $3,561.49 in costs, and $10,000 in exemplary damages under the CPA.

ANALYSIS

Camano Realty and Eppig contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that substantial evidence does not support the jury verdict that Camano Realty and Eppig violated the CPA.

Standard of Review

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party, a trial court should grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law when the court concludes there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to sustain a verdict for the nonmoving party. Sing v. John L. Scott, 134 Wn.2d 24, 948 P.2d 816 (1997). Substantial evidence exists if the evidence is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the declared premise. Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 Wn.2d 907, 915, 32 P.3d 250 (2001) (quoting Brown v. Superior Underwriters, 30 Wn. App. 303, 306, 632 P.2d 887 (1980)). We apply the same standard as the trial court when reviewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Guijosa, 144 Wn.2d at 915.

CPA

Under the CPA, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. RCW 19.86.020. To prove a CPA violation, a plaintiff must establish five elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) that occurs in trade or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; and (5) causation. Guijosa, 144 Wn.2d at 917; Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 784, 719 P.2d 531 (1986).

The CPA does not define the term “deceptive,” but implicit in that term is the understanding that the actor misrepresented something of material importance. Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 91 Wn. App. 722, 730, 959 P.2d 1158 (1998), rev’d on other grounds, 138 Wn.2d 248, 978 P.2d 505 (1999). For an unfair or deceptive act, plaintiff need not show that the act in question was intended to deceive, but that the alleged act had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public. Hangman, 105 Wn.2d at 785. Whether a party committed an unfair or deceptive act is reviewed for substantial evidence. Whether an act violates the CPA is a question of law. Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 93 Wn. App. 202, 214, 969 P.2d 486 (1998) (citing Leingang v. Pierce County Med. Bureau, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133, 150, 930 P.2d 288 (1997)). It is well established that a real estate agent who knowingly fails to disclose known material defects in the sale of real property violates the CPA. Svendsen v. Stock, 143 Wn.2d 546, 23 P.3d 455 (2001).

 Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice

Relying on Guijosa, Camano Realty and Eppig argue that the jury’s rejection of the Ruebels fraudulent concealment claim requires setting aside the jury’s CPA verdict because the Ruebels did not allege or prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice other than fraudulent concealment.

In Guijosa, the plaintiffs did not allege or prove any act or practice that violated the CPA other than discrimination. While the jury rejected the plaintiffs' claims for false imprisonment, battery, malicious prosecution, and discrimination, the jury found Wal-Mart violated the CPA. Guijosa, 144 Wn.2d at 912-913. The trial court granted Wal-Mart’s motion for judgment as a matter of law to set aside the jury’s verdict on the CPA claim because the record presented no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to support the jury’s verdict that Wal-Mart violated the CPA.? Id. at 913. On appeal, the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s decision to set aside the jury verdict on the CPA claim. While the court concluded the jury instructions did not prevent the jury from finding a CPA violation separate and apart from discrimination, because the plaintiffs only presented evidence of discrimination practice, there was insufficient evidence to support a violation of the CPA.

Here, as in Guijosa, the jury instructions allowed the jury to find that Camano Realty and Eppig violated the CPA by failing to disclose known material problems with the Hovis house separate and apart from fraudulent concealment.4 But unlike in

4 Jury Instruction No. 16 provides:

The Ruebels claim that Ms. Eppig and Camano Island Realty violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. To prove this claim, the Ruebels must prove by preponderance of the evidence each of the following propositions:

(1) That Ms. Eppig engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice;

(2) That the act or practice occurred in the conduct of Ms. Eppig’s trade or commerce.

(3) That her act or practice affected the public interest;

(4) That the Ruebels were injured with respect to their property, and

(5) That Ms. Eppig’s acts or practices were a proximate cause of the Ruebels’ injury.

If you find from your consideration of all of the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the Ruebels on this claim. On the other hand, if any of these propositions has not been proved, your verdict should be for defendants on this claim.

Guijosa, the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Camano Realty and Eppig engaged in unfair and deceptive acts that violated the CPA. Both Eppig and Camano Realty knew the necessary inspections and permits were not obtained and failed to disclose that information to the Ruebels. And even though Eppig denied seeing the May 6 letter or knowing that the permit was suspended, her testimony was contradicted by Redmond and Nelson. Redmond testified that Eppig contacted him on May 6 and told him that ?Ben? at the Building Department was going to send a letter suspending the building permit. Nelson testified that Eppig referred to the May 6 letter during conversations with him. Eppig also admitted obtaining and submitting the engineering reports and assuring the Ruebels that the Building Department was “okay.” In addition, Eppig did not tell the Ruebels about the addendum Nelson prepared disclosing that the engineering work was not complete and that the building plans did not meet the UBC requirements. Instead, Eppig helped draft a revised addendum that did not so unequivocally set forth the permitting and inspection problems. And when Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for approximately two years, Camano learned about the permitting and inspection problems but did not inform the Ruebels.

Camano Realty and Eppig also argue that, as a matter of law, only the listing agent for the seller has a duty to disclose material facts related to the purchase and sale of property under the CPA. We disagree. The duty also applies to a buyer’s agent who knows and fails to disclose material adverse facts.5 Edmonds v. Scott Real

 5 Camano Realty’s and Eppig’s attempt to distinguish Robinson v. McReynolds, 52 Wn. App. 635, 762 P.2d 1166 (1988), is unpersuasive. Here, the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Camano Realty and Eppig knew about the problems with the Hovis house.

Estate, 87 Wn. App. 834, 848, 942 P.2d 1072 (1997). In Edmonds, this court held that where the buyer’s agent knew the seller’s assertions in the property information form were false but failed to disclose that information, as a matter of law, the buyer’s agent violated the CPA. Edmonds, 87 Wn. App. at 848-49.

Public Interest Impact

In the alternative, Camano Realty and Eppig contend that the evidence fails to support the jury’s finding that the Ruebels proved an act or practice that impacted the public interest. Specifically, Camano Realty and Eppig assert the Ruebels did not prove that there is a likelihood other buyers would be harmed in exactly the same fashion.

A private dispute has an impact on the public interest where there is a likelihood that additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in exactly the same fashion. Hangman, 105 Wn.2d at 790. Whether the act complained of has an impact on the public interest is determined based on several nonexclusive factors that are considered in the context in which the alleged acts were committed. Id. at 789-90.

(1) Were the alleged acts committed in the course of defendant’s business? (2) Did defendant advertise to the public in general? (3) Did defendant actively solicit this particular plaintiff, indicating potential solicitation of others? (4) Did plaintiff and defendant occupy unequal bargaining positions?

Hangman, 105 Wn.2d at 790-791. None of the factors is dispositive and not all of the factors need be present. The factors represent indicia of an effect on public interest from which a trier of fact could reasonably find public interest impact. Hangman at 791. Consistent with Hangman, the court instructed the jury that:

An act or practice affects the public interest if it is likely that additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in exactly the same fashion. In deciding whether Ms. Eppig’s actions affected the public interest in this case, you may consider, among other things:

(1) whether her acts or practices were done in the course of her business;

(2) whether Ms. Eppig advertises to the public in general;

(3) whether Ms. Eppig actively solicited the Ruebels, indicating potential solicitation of others.

(4) Whether Ms. Eppig and the Ruebels had unequal bargaining positions, which can be shown by inequality of knowledge about the property. In reaching your decision no one factor is decisive; you do not need to find that all factors are present, and you are not limited to considering only these factors.

Camano Realty and Eppig do not challenge the jury instruction. Rather, they assert that the Ruebels did not prove Eppig’s acts have an impact on the public interest because the Ruebels did not prove that Eppig did or will commit any similar act. But the instructions do not require the jury to find plaintiffs have been or will be injured in exactly the same fashion before considering the four nonexclusive factors. Here, substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that Eppig’s acts impacted the public interest.6 There is no dispute that Eppig’s failure to disclose that the building permit was suspended, that inspections were not done, and the information provided to the Building Department was incomplete and inadequate, occurred in the course of business. There is also no dispute that Camano Realty and

6 Camano Realty and Eppig rely on several cases holding the plaintiff failed to establish the public interest element. But because the determination of whether there is a public interest impact turns on the circumstances and facts specific to each case, Camano Realty’s and Eppig’s reliance on these cases is not persuasive. Sloan v. Thompson, 128 Wn. App. 776, 115 P.3d 1009 (2005), rev. denied, 157 Wn.2d 1003 (2006) (sale of home did not occur within course of seller’s business); Cashmere Valley Bank v. Brender, 128 Wn. App. 497, 116 P.3d 421 (2005), aff’d, 158 Wn.2d 655 (2006) (no evidence that bank advertised loans to the public); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Whiteman Tire, 86 Wn. App. 732, 935 P.2d 628 (1997) (tire dealer, a franchisee, did not have unequal bargaining power); Pac. Northwest Life Ins. Co. v. Turnbull, 51 Wn. App. 692, 754 P.2d 1262 (1988) (sophisticated land investor did not have unequal bargaining power with real estate agent); and Broten v. May, 49 Wn. App. 564, 744 P.2d 1085 (1987) (no evidence that defendant solicited plaintiff’s business and the two parties occupied equal bargaining positions). Eppig advertised to the general public and solicited and obtained referrals through membership in the Windermere referral network.7 And while Eppig knew about the permitting, inspection and engineering problems with the Hovis house, Eppig did not disclose these problems to the Ruebels.8

Apportionment of Fault

Camano Realty and Eppig also claim the jury instructions did not permit the jury to attribute 30 percent fault to Camano Realty and the trial court erred in entering judgment on the jury verdict. Relying on the jury instruction defining vicarious liability, Camano Realty and Eppig argue that was the only basis that allowed the jury to find Camano Realty liable. But Camano Realty’s and Eppig’s argument ignores the jury instruction on apportionment of fault, the Special Jury Verdict form, and the evidence that supported the jury’s attributing 30 percent fault to Camano Realty.

A party has a duty to propose an appropriate verdict form and failure to object precludes consideration of issues concerning the verdict form on appeal. Lahmann v. Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, 55 Wn. App. 716, 723, 780 P.2d 868 (1989); Wickswat v. Safeco Ins. Co., 78 Wn. App. 958, 966-67, 904 P.2d 767 (1995).

 Jury Instruction 23 tells the jury that it must apportion fault for the Ruebels negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claim:

7 Citing Jackson v. Harkey, 41 Wn. App. 472, 704 P.2d 687 (1985), Camano Realty and Eppig also argue that this factor requires proof of false advertisement. Because Jackson was decided before Hangman, the court did not expressly consider whether the construction company advertised to the general public. In addition, the act complained of in Jackson was misleading advertisement whereas, here, the act complained of is failure to disclose material facts in a real estate transaction.

8 In supplemental briefing, Camano Realty and Eppig contend that under Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 153 P.3d 864 (2007), the Ruebels CPA claim fails as a matter of law because as a tortbased claim, the economic loss rule bars the Ruebels from recovering economic damages. But here, the CPA is a statutory based remedy that allows a plaintiff to recover damages. See e.g. Griffith, 93 Wn. App. 202; Sign-O-Lite v. DeLaurenti Florists, Inc., 64 Wn. App. 553, 825 P.2d 714 (1992).

If you find for plaintiffs for their claims for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty (other than fraudulent concealment or violation of the Consumer Protection Act), you must apportion fault to other persons who you find are at fault.

First, you must determine the dollar amount of damages caused by Ms. Eppig’s negligence or breach of fiduciary duty. The court will provide you with a special verdict form for this purpose.

Before you determine that another person is at fault for such damages, defendants must prove each of the following propositions by a preponderance of the evidence:

First, that the person is at fault; and

Second, that the person’s fault was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs? damages.

Third, that those damages are in addition to damages caused by Ms. Eppig’s fraudulent concealment or violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

The court will provide you with a special verdict form for this purpose. Your answers to the questions in the special verdict form will furnish the basis by which the court will apportion liability, if any.

Consistent with Instruction 23, the Special Jury Verdict form also tells the jury to determine whether anyone else is at fault for the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty damages and if so, to attribute a percentage of fault. The Special Jury Verdict form states:

QUESTION 5: Did the Ruebels prove their claim for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty?

ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)             Yes

(INSTRUCTION: If you answered “No” to Question No. 5, then sign this verdict and notify the bailiff. If you answered “Yes” to Question 5, proceed to Question No. 6.[)]

QUESTION 6: What is the total amount of damages proximately caused to the Ruebels by Ms. Eppig’s negligence or breach of fiduciar