"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:

 

 

 

A & L Partners, Andrea Marquez, Joseph R. Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Bob Bennion, *KRG Realty Group, *Richard Michael King, Sued for Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, False Advertising, Common Law Trademark Infringement; A & L Partners/Marquez Sued for Breach of Contract; Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bob Bennion, *KGR and King, Sued Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations.

Left: Bob Deville, Principal, Broker, Owner, and President of Windermere Services Southern California; Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Coachella Valley, California. Right: Bob Bennion, Principal and Owner of Windermere Services Southern California; Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Coachella Valley, California.

 

 

CASE UPDATE 01/09/2012: "The parties having agreed to the terms set forth in the Stipulation for Dismissal..."

*Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice as to Defendants KRG Realty and Richard Michael King, filed 02/01/11.

Defendants Joseph R. Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. and Bob Bennion's First Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, Counterclaims & Jury Demand

DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

F.M. TARBELL CO. DBA TARBELL, REALTORS, a California corporation,

 

Plaintiff,

 

v.

 

A & L PARTNERS, INC. a California corporation; ANDREA MARQUEZ, an individual, JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, an individual; BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., a California corporation, BOB BENNION, an individual; KRG REALTY GROUP, INC., a California corporation, RICHARD MICHAEL KING, an individual,

 

Defendants.

 

Case No.  SACV10-01589   JVS (Ex)

 

COMPLAINT FOR:

 

1. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(A);

2. UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500, ET SEQ.;

3. FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §  17500, ET SEQ.;

4. COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT;

5. BREACH OF CONTRACT

6. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

COMPLAINT

 

Plaintiff F.M. Tarbell Co. dba Tarbell, Realtors ("Tarbell"), by its attorneys, for its Complaint against Defendants A & L PARTNERS, INC. a California corporation; ANDREA MARQUEZ, an individual, JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, an individual, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., a California corporation, BOB BENNION, an individual, KRG REALTY GROUP, INC., a California corporation, RICHARD MICHAEL KING, an individual (collectively "Defendants"), alleges as follows:

 

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

 

1. This is an action for trademark infringement and unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (the "Lanham Act"), California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. & 17500, et seq., and common law, and breach of contract (settlement agreement) and intentional interference with contractual relations for conduct occurring after the resolution of USDC Case No. 2:1 0-cv-04048-PSG-E, Plaintiff Tarbell is the largest family-owned real estate agency in Southern California, a community that it has proudly served for the last eighty years. Founded in 1926 by Frank Tarbell, Tarbell, Realtors has dedicated more than 80 years of service to America's dream of home ownership. Through years of tremendous growth and expansion, Tarbell, Realtors has positioned itself as a leader in real estate today.

 

2. For more than a decade, Tarbell has devoted special resources and attention to buyers and sellers of upper scale homes in the Southern California area through its Preferred PropertiesSM division. Tarbell's Preferred PropertiesSM services focus upon assisting members of the Southern California community locate or sell some of the most elite housing available in the area. Moreover, during this period, Tarbell has expended significant resources to establish and promote the Preferred PropertiesSM services. Through extensive marketing and sales, Tarbell has developed substantial goodwill in and consumer recognition of the Preferred Properties mark such that residents of the Southern California community readily recognize and identify Tarbell as the source of Preferred PropertiesSM services.

 

3. When Tarbell first discovered the Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful use of Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark in connection with Defendants' recruiting of real estate agents and marketing of residential real estate for sales and purchases by members of the Southern California community through the incorporation of Tarbell's mark into the trade name "Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties and using "Windermerepreferred.com" in web addresses and email addresses for the new Brea office, Tarbell immediately commenced legal action against the parties it could identify as associated with that conduct (Marquez, King and later adding A & L Partners, Inc.). That action was filed on May 28, 2010 and was assigned Case No. CV 10-4048 PSG (Ex) (the "First Action"). Immediately upon filing of the lawsuit, Tarbell was contacted by counsel for Marquez, former Sales Manager Jim Crotwell, and A & L Partners, Inc. dba Windermere Preferred Properties,

 

4. Despite certain defendants appearing to resolve that dispute, including the signing of a settlement agreement covenanting not to use Tarbell's service mark, Defendants have continued to engage in blatant misappropriation of Tarbell's valuable intellectual property rights in Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark. Defendants' use of a confusingly similar mark is likely to deceive the purchasing public into believing that Defendants' services are affiliated with, related to, sponsored by or connected with Tarbell and/or Tarbell's Preferred PropertiesSM services. Defendants' conduct has caused, and its intended conduct will cause, substantial damage to Tarbell's goodwill and reputation in the marketplace. Accordingly, Tarbell seeks corrective advertising and/or marketing, compensatory damages, statutory damages, treble damages for willful infringement, and attorneys' fees and costs.

 

THE PARTIES

 

5. Plaintiff F.M. Tarbell Co, dba Tarbell, Realtors is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Ana, California.

 

6. A & L Partners, Inc. is a California corporation that operates an entity referred to as Windermere Preferred Properties and Windermere Preferred Living on realtor listings and advertisements relating to the Windermere franchise located at 135 S. State College Blvd. #110, Brea CA 92821 ("Windermere Brea").

 

7. At the time of the First Action, Defendant Andrea Marquez ("Marquez") previously held herself out as the Chief Financial Officer and Managing Partner of Defendant Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties' location at 135 S. State College Blvd, Suite 110, Brea CA. Marquez has since revealed herself to be the Owner of Windermere Brea. Based upon Defendant Marquez's identification of herself as working at the Windermere Brea address, Tarbell is informed and believes that Marquez is a resident of the District.

 

8. Joseph R. Deville ("Deville") is the licensed broker of record for Windermere Brea. Mr. Deville became the licensed broker of record after the filing of the First Action, at which time Richard Michael King was the licensed broker of record. Mr. Deville is also the licensed broker of record and co-owner of codefendant Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., which does business as Windermere Real Estate of Coachella Valley ("Windermere Coachella Valley"). Based upon Deville's identification of his mailing and work addresses with the California Department of Real Estate ("DRE") as being in Rancho Mirage, California Tarbell is informed and believes that Deville is a resident of this District.

 

9. Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. is a California corporation that operates an entity referred to as Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley relating to the Windermere franchise located at 71-691 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA ("Windermere Coachella Valley").

 

10. Bob Bennion ("Bennion") is also a co-owner of co-defendant Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., which does business as Windermere Real Estate of Coachella Valley ("Windermere Coachella Valley"). Tarbell is informed and believes that Mr. Bennion is not a DRE licensee. Based upon Bennion's co-ownership of Windermere Coachella Valley in Rancho Mirage, California Tarbell is informed and believes that Deville is a resident of this District.

 

11. KRG Realty Group, Inc. ("KRG) is a California corporation that operates an entity referred to as Windermere Real Estate King Realty Group relating to the Windermere franchise located at 2130 Grand Avenue, #A, Chino Hills, CA 91709 ("Windermere Chino Hills").

 

12. Defendant Richard Michael King ("King") is a licensed real estate broker with the DRE. At the time of the filing of the First Action, King's DRE-assigned Broker Number of 00815016 is listed as the Broker Number in documentation relating Defendant Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties' location at 135 S. State College Blvd, Suite 110, Brea CA. However, Defendant King's current status with the DRE is that he is operating under the fictitious name of "Windermere Real Estate King Realty Group. Based on King's contact information listed with the DRE, Tarbell is informed and believes that King is a resident of the County of San Bernardino, State of California,

 

13. Tarbell is informed and believes that each of the defendants is the agent, employee, successor or assign of each other defendant and each of them, as well as the agents of all Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, were acting within the course and scope of said agency, employment, succession of interest or assignment.

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

14. This action arises under the Trademark Act of July 5, 1946, as amended, commonly known as the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. & 17500, et seq.; and common law.

 

15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this Complaint pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

 

16. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1391(b). In addition, the acts constituting the state law violations alleged herein occurred within this judicial district.

 

17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, on information and belief, (a) each of the corporate defendants has established its sale business address in this district and is actively recruiting agents in order to offer services in this judicial district; and (b) each of the individual defendants reside in this district and their conduct as outlined in this complaint occurred in this judicial district.

 

TARBELL AND ITS PREFERRED PROPERTIESSM SERVICES

 

18. For over eighty years, Tarbell has been engaged in the business of assisting existing and prospective homeowners in the Southern California communities in the Counties of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and San Diego. For at least the last five years, Tarbell's specialized Preferred PropertiesSM division has been widely recognized as the premiere resource for sellers of upscale residences in the counties served by Tarbell. Only the higher echelon agents are permitted to be associated with Tarbell's Preferred PropeitiesSM division. Clients serviced by the Preferred PropertiesSM division are ensured that their properties are appropriately marketed because "Special Homes Deserve Special Attention."

 

19. Tarbell has devoted substantial resources to the development and maintenance of its Preferred Propertiessm division and high quality services. Clients of this division are expecting the following service amenities from Tarbell:

 

Preferred Properties offers the special attention that a distinctive home requires. That attention includes the following:

 

Individual Pictorial Brochures, complete with color photo to present your home at its best.

 

Property News Releases placed in major and local newspapers.

 

Professional Photography that insures consistent quality.

 

Full Page Color Advertising that reaches a large number of prospective buyers.

 

World Wide Exposure - All Preferred Properties' listings can be seen on the internet, exposing them to buyers from all over the world.

 

Distinctive Personalized Signs, with your agents name and direct voice mail phone numbers.

 

A Network of Skilled Professionals - When a home is entered into the Preferred Properties Division, full color brochures are distributed to Tarbell's network of offices, putting your home at the fingertips of hundreds of real estate professionals with prospective buyers

20. In order to provide these specialized services, Tarbell has engaged specialized support services to develop and cultivate the smaller market of upscale homes in the Southern California area. Tarbell also set aside specific web-based resources, including the maintenance of http://tarbell.com/preferred.html and associated links to market the Preferred PropertiesSM services to prospective consumers.

 

21. At least as early as the beginning of 2005, Tarbell began using the Preferred Properties mark in connection with its marketing to potential sellers and purchasers of upscale residences in Southern California.

 

22. Tarbell is the exclusive user of the Preferred Properties mark in connection with real estate services in the Southern California communities Tarbell services. Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark is an extremely valuable asset to Tarbell.

 

 

WINDERMERE AND ITS WRONGFUL ACTS

 

23. On or around April 2010, Tarbell became aware that defendants A & L Partners, Marquez and King were planning to open an office in Brea, California and had applied for a city business license with the City of Brea using the name "Windermere Preferred Properties" and/or "Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties" in connection with real estate services in the County of Orange, City of Brea and surrounding communities. These are same communities served by Tarbell and its Preferred PropertiesSM division, operating through offices located throughout Orange County and the Inland Empire, including those offices closest to Brea in Anaheim, East Anaheim, Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda. Defendants A & L Partners, Marquez and Deville opened the Windermere Brea office on May 3, 2010 and was operating as "Windermere Preferred Properties" and "Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties".

 

24. Additionally, as of May 3, 2010, Defendants A & L Partners, Marquez and Deville started using the Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark in listing its businesses with the Brea Chamber of Commerce and real estate-related websites.

 

25. After securing Tarbell's agreement to dismiss the First Action by, among other things, covenanting to no longer use the Preferred Properties mark, Defendants, and each of them, caused advertising to appear in the October 16, 2010 edition of the Desert Sun that continued to refer to the Windermere Brea office as "Windermere Preferred Properties" even though each of the defendants were fully aware of the settlement with Tarbell, and knew that the Windermere Brea defendants (A & L Partners and Marquez) had covenanted to not use that name in the future and that the proper name of the Windermere Brea office under the DRE approval process was now "Windermere Preferred Living."

 

26. Additionally, Defendants A & L Partners and Marquez, who were signatories to the agreement with Tarbell that also covenanted that they would ensure that their agents did not use "Windermere Preferred Properties" in their marketing or advertising, failed to do so. Defendant Deville, who is the broker of record and thus the person charged with ensuring that real estates salespersons working for Windermere Preferred Living accurately identify the brokerage with whom they are associated, knows or should know that "Windermere Preferred Properties" is being used by its agents for active listings.

 

27. It is in the Defendants' collective interest for the public to continue to associate the name "Preferred Properties" with the Defendants, despite the settlement agreement and covenant with A & L Partners/Marquez because of the cache and client recognition of that term, synonymous with luxury homes and exceptional client service.

 

28. Tarbell is informed and believes that Defendants devised a plan whereby Deville, as the broker of record for Windermere Brea and the owner/broker of Windermere Coachella Valley, would continue to propagate the Windermere Preferred Properties name in conjunction with all of the Defendants by engaging in advertising that continued to identified Windermere Brea as "Windermere Preferred Properties" in advertising paid for by Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley that included references to all three of the defendant Windermere franchises for their mutual benefit and enjoyment, and to the detriment of Tarbell and interfering with Tarbell's contract with A & L Partners/Marquez. Tarbell is further informed and believes that such advertising was executed with the express approval, ratification and authorization of A & L Partners/Marquez.

 

29. Defendants' continued prominent use of Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark in its name, and in combination with the services in residential real estate, is likely to mislead or deceive real estate professionals and the consuming public into believing that Defendants or their services are sponsored by or associated with Tarbell. Defendants' use of Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark is without authorization from Tarbell. In addition, Defendants' use of Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark will result in lost sales opportunities for Tarbell.

 

30. Defendants' conduct is continuing and will continue unless restrained by the Court. Defendants' conduct Defendants use of Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark in the marketing of their job opportunities and services to the same communities served by Tarbell actively promotes confusion among real estate professionals and consumers such that Tarbell had no choice but to file the instant complaint to stop the continuing irreparable injury to Tarbell and the Tarbell's Preferred PropertiesSM division. Unless Defendants are enjoined from engaging in the wrongful conduct described above, Tarbell will suffer irreparable injury and further harm.

 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

and False Designation of Origin 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

Against All Defendants

 

31. Tarbell repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 30 above, as though fully set forth herein,

 

32. Tarbell has built up valuable goodwill in its Preferred Properties mark within Southern California. Defendants' wrongful acts have permitted or will permit Defendants to make substantial sales and profits on the strength of Tarbell's substantial advertising, sales, consumer recognition, and goodwill.

 

33. With knowledge of the value of breadth and depth of recognition of Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark within the Southern California real estate industry and local communities, and without Tarbell's authorization and consent, Defendants have traded and continue to trade on the goodwill associated with Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark and mislead the public into assuming a connection between Defendants' services and those of Tarbell.

 

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Tarbell has been and will be deprived of the value of the Preferred Properties mark as a commercial asset. Defendants' prominent use of Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark in connection with recruiting real estate sales persons and the offering of services in relation to the purchase and sale of upscale homes, and advertising of its related services without consent of Tarbell, is likely to cause and is causing confusion and deception among real estate professionals and the general consuming public as to the origin of Defendants' services. Defendants' actions are likely to deceive the public into believing that the employment opportunities and services being offered by Defendants originated from, are sponsored by, or are associated with, or otherwise authorized by Tarbell.

 

35. Defendants' activities have caused, and will continue to cause Tarbell to suffer substantial injury. Tarbell has no adequate remedy at law and, if Defendants' activities in the use of "Preferred Properties" are not enjoined, Tarbell will continue to suffer irreparable harm and injury to its goodwill and reputation.

 

 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.

Against All Defendants

 

36. Tarbell repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 35, as if fully set forth herein.

 

37. The above-described acts and practices by Defendants are likely to mislead the general public and therefore constitute unfair and fraudulent business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

 

38. Tarbell has built valuable goodwill in its Preferred Properties mark. Defendants' use of Tarbell's Preferred Properties mark in advertising and marketing is likely to confuse and deceive real estate professionals and the public such that they will believe there is a connection or affiliation between Tarbell and Defendants, This conduct results in damage to Tarbell's goodwill and reputation and unjust enrichment of Defendants.

 

39. Defendants have also unfairly competed with Tarbell by violating California Code of Regulations regarding the identification of the provider of services, opening for business while failing to register this operation with the Department of Real Estate, and failing to identify new real estate affiliations with the DRE and thus shielding itself from accountability with the Department of Real Estate.

 

40. The unfair and fraudulent business practices and deceptive and untrue advertising of Defendants described above presents a continuing threat to members of the public in that Defendants intend to promote and advertise their services by wrongfully trading on the name and goodwill of Tarbell and the Tarbell Preferred Properties mark.

 

41. Defendants' conduct has injured Tarbell and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause great, immediate, and irreparable injury to Tarbell. Tarbell is entitled to injunctive relief and an order for restitutionary disgorgement of all of Defendants' ill-gotten gains.

 

 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Deceptive, False and Misleading Advertising

under Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.

Against All Defendants

 

42. Tarbell repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 above, as though fully set forth herein.

 

43. The above-described acts of Defendants constitute untrue and misleading advertising as defined by California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.

 

44. The acts of untrue and misleading advertising by Defendants described above present a continuing threat to members of the public in that Defendants' will misrepresent the source of their services.

 

45. Defendants' false and misleading advertising will permit them to make substantial sales and profits on the strength of Tarbell's success, goodwill, and consumer recognition.

 

46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Tarbell will be injured by Defendants' wrongful acts, and such harm will continue unless the Court enjoins Defendants' acts. Tarbell has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants' continuing violations of Tarbell's rights.

           

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Trademark Infringement under Common Law

Against All Defendants

 

47. Tarbell repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 46 above, as though fully set forth herein.

 

48. Tarbell has valid and existing common law rights with respect to the Preferred Properties mark.

 

49. The above acts by Defendants constitute trademark infringement of the Preferred Properties mark, in violation of Tarbell's common law rights.

 

50. Defendants' wrongful acts will permit them to make substantial sales and profits on the strength of Tarbell's success, goodwill, and consumer recognition.

 

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Tarbell, among other things, will be deprived of the value of its Preferred Properties mark as a commercial asset.

 

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Tarbell will be injured by Defendants' wrongful acts, and such harm will continue unless the Court enjoins Defendants' acts. Tarbell has no adequate remedy at law for Defendants' continuing violations of Tarbell's rights.

 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Contract against

A & L Partners/Marquez

 

53. Tarbell repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 52 above, as though fully set forth herein.

 

54. Tarbell entered into a valid and existing contract in the form of a settlement agreement with defendants A & L Partners, Marquez and former Sales Manager Jim Crotwell.

 

55. Tarbell fully performed under the contract by, among another things, allowing the First Action to be dismissed.

 

56. Defendants A & L Partners and Marquez breached the contract by failing to ensure that "Windermere Preferred Properties" was no longer used in advertising for Windermere Brea, and by not ensuring that their agents used "Windermere Preferred Living" rather than "Windermere Preferred Properties".

 

57. Tarbell has been damaged by the breach in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

58. Because the settlement agreement included covenants regarding the conduct of A & L Partners and Marquez with which A & L Partners and Marquez have failed to comply, Tarbell is entitled to injunctive relief to enforce the terms of settlement that governs the conduct of the defendants in the settlement.

 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations against

Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bob Bennion

KGR and King

 

59. Tarbell repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 58 above, as though fully set forth herein.

 

60. Defendants Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bob Bennion, KGR and King, and each of them, by virtue of their relationship with the owner and broker of Windermere Brea and their collective interests in promoting Windermere in Southern California, had knowledge of the terms of the settlement and that Tarbell had secured a covenant from A & L Partners and Marquez that the name "Windermere Preferred Properties" would no longer be used by the Windermere Brea office.

 

61. With the deliberate intent of depriving Tarbell of the benefit of its contract with A & L Partners and Marquez and the covenants therein, Defendants Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bob Bennion, KGR and King determined that as nonsignatories to the settlement agreement, they would engage in conduct prohibited by the settlement agreement for their own benefit and to the detriment of Tarbell by continuing to propagate "Windermere Preferred Properties" as a trade name for the Windermere Brea franchise in advertising that would benefit the nonsignatory defendants, and further cause the public in Southern California to associate the level of service provided by the Tarbell Preferred Propertiessm division.

 

62. This conduct deprived Tarbell of its contractual benefits under its contract with A & L Partners and Marquez, for which it had bargained and for which it had forbeared on pursuing full enforcements of its rights in the First Action.

 

63. Tarbell has been damaged as a result of the conduct of Defendants Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bob Bennion, KGR and King in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Tarbell demands judgment as follows:

 

A. Preliminarily and permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants and employees, and all persons in acting in concert and participation with them, from their unauthorized use of Preferred Properties trademark, including, without limitation, any confusingly similar variation, or colorable imitation thereof, in connection with the providing of real estate services in the Southern California communities in the Counties of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino by Defendants.

 

B. Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants and employees, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from any further conduct suggesting or tending to suggest that any services Defendants offer are directly or indirectly sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with Tarbell.

 

C. Awarding Tarbell damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and investigator's fees, and an accounting of Defendants' profits attributable to Defendants' unauthorized use of Tarbell's trademarks.

 

D. Awarding Tarbell treble damages, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), as a result of Defendants' wanton, deliberate, malicious, and willful conduct.

 

E. Entering an order, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118 and other applicable law, directing Defendants to deliver for impoundment and destruction all manuals, packaging, images, and promotional materials bearing any unauthorized use of Tarbell's Preferred Properties trademark or any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy, confusingly similar variation, or colorable imitation thereof.

 

F. Ordering Defendants A & L Partners, Inc. and Marquez to pay damages arising from their breach of contract.

 

G. Ordering Defendants Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bob Bennion, KGR and King to pay damages arising from their intentional interference of Tarbell's contract with Defendants A & L Partners, Inc. and Marquez.

 

H. Directing that Defendants pay to Tarbell the costs of this action, including their reasonable attorneys' fees incurred herein.

 

1. Awarding Tarbell punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants.

 

J. Awarding Tarbell pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary awards,

 

K. Ordering Defendants to disgorge all of their ill-gotten gains pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17203.

 

L. Granting Tarbell any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

 

Jury Demand

 

Plaintiff Tarbell demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Dated: October 19, 2010            By _________________________________

 

                                               David L. Aronoff (State Bar No. 152606)

                                                daronoff@winston.com

                                                Gayle I. Jenkins (State Bar No. 168962)

                                                gjenkins@winston.com

                                                Saul S. Rostamian (State Bar No. 235292)

                                                srostamian@winston.com

                                                WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

                                                333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor

                                                Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543

                                                (213) 615-1700; Facsimile: (213) 615-1750

 

                                                Attorneys for Plaintiff F.M. Tarbell Co. dba

                                                Tarbell, Realtors

 

 

 

 

 

Defendants Joseph R. Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. and Bob Bennion's First Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, Counterclaims & Jury Demand

 

DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE ANSWER HERE

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

 

F.M. TARBELL CO. DBA TARBELL REALTORS, a California corporation,

 

Plaintiffs,

 

vs.

 

A&L PARNTERS, Inc., a California corporation; ANDREA MARQUEZ, an individual; JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, an individual; BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES,INC., a California corporation; BOB BENNION, an individual; KRG REALTY GROUP, INC., a California corporation; RICHARD MICHAEL KING, an individual,

 

Defendants.

 

A&L PARTNERS, INC., a California corporation; ANDRE A MARQUEZ, an individual,

 

Counterclaimants,

 

vs.

 

F.M. TARBELL CO. DBA TARBELL, REALTORS, a California corporation; ROES 1 through 10,

 

Counterdefendants.

 

JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, an individual; BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., a California corporation, and BOB BENNION, an individual

 

Counterclaimants,

vs.

 

F.M. TARBELL CO. DBA TARBELL, REALTORS, a California corporation; A&L PARNTERS, INC., a California corporation; ANDREA MARQUEZ, an individual,

 

Counterdefendants.

 

CASE NO.: CV-10-01589 PSG (Ex)

 

 

DEFENDANTS JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. and BOB BENNIONS' FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, COUNTERCLAIMS & JURY DEMAND

 

 

JUDGE:           Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez

MAGIS.:          Hon. Charles Eick

DEPT.:            880 - Roybal

Complaint Filed: October 19, 2010

Trial Date: Not Yet Assigned

 

COMES NOW Defendants, JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. and BOB BENNION (hereinafter referred to as these "Answering Defendants") and in answer to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff F.M. TARBELL CO. DBA TARBELL REALTORS ("Plaintiff'), alleges as follows:

 

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

 

1. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

2. These Answering Defendants deny that they are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

3. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny that they engaged in any unauthorized and/or unlawful conduct concerning the name "Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties and Windermerepreffered.com" but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 3, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

4. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny that they engaged in any misappropriation of Tarbell's valuable intellectual property rights and that Tarbell has suffered any substantial damage to its goodwill and reputation in the marketplace as a result of any actions by these Answering Defendants, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 4, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

THE PARTIES

 

5. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

6. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny that A & L Partners, Inc. currently operates an entity referred to as Windermere Preferred Properties, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 6, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

7. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

8. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny that Joseph R. Deville is the licensed broker of record for Windermere Brea. These Answering Defendants admit that Joseph R. Deville is the licensed broker of record and co-owner of Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., dba Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 8, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

9. These Answering Defendants admit that Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. is a California corporation doing business as Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley but is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations as worded in Paragraph 9, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

10. These Answering Defendants admit that Bob Bennion is a co-owner of Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. which is doing business as Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, but is without sufficient information to admit or deny-the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

11. These Answering Defendants admit that KRG Realty Group, Inc. is a California corporation doing business as Windermere Real Estate King Realty Group at 2130 Grand Avenue, #A, Chino Hills, California 91709, but is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations as worded in Paragraph 11, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

12. These Answering Defendants are intended third party beneficiaries to the "Settlement Agreement" alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint, Paragraphs Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six, between Tarbell and other signatories, not including these Answering Defendants. Unaware of the alleged settlement agreement at the time of and after its execution until the present action was filed, these Answering Defendants are not bound by the provisions thereof.

 

13. These Answering Defendants admit that Richard Michael King is a licensed real estate broker, license ID number 00815016, but is without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 12, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

14. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the vague and ambiguous allegations set forth in Paragraph 13, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

15. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

16. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

17. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

18. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

TARBELL AND PREFERRED PROPERTIES

 

19. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

20. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

21. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

22. These Answering Defendant are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

23. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

WINDERMERE AND ITS WRONGFUL ACTS

 

24. These Answering Defendants admit that on or about May 2010, a Windermere office existed in Brea, California, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations as worded in Paragraph 23, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

25. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations set forth in Paragraph 24.

 

26. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25.

 

27. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 26, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

28. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 27, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

29. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically that Joseph R. Deville engaged in any advertising to the detriment of Plaintiff, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 28, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

30. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically that they continue to use Tarbell's mark, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph. 29, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

31. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically that they continue to use Tarbell's mark, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 30, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

32. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 31, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

33. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

34. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

35. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 34, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

36. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 35.

 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

37. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

38. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 37, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

39. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 38, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

40. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 39.

 

41. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 40.

 

42. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 41.

 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

43. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 42, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

44. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 43.

 

45. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 44.

 

46. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 45.

 

47. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 46.

 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

48. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 47, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

49. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 48, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

50. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 49.

 

51. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 50.

 

52. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 5 1.

 

53. These Answering Defendants deny generally and specifically the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 52.

 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

54. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 53, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

55. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 54, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

56. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 55, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

57. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 56.

 

58. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 57.

 

59. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 58, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

 

60. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as phrased in Paragraph 59, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

61. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 60.

 

62. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 61.

 

63. These Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations as set forth in Paragraph 62, and on that basis deny generally and specifically all such allegations.

 

64. These Answering Defendants generally and specifically deny the allegations as worded in Paragraph 63.

 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Cause of Action)

 

65. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these Answering Defendants.

 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Comparative Negligence)

 

66. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff is barred from any recovery or relief on the basis that its own negligence was the sole and proximate cause of any damages it may have sustained or will sustain. In the event that a determination is made that these Answering Defendants were negligent and/or otherwise responsible to Plaintiff, and such negligence and/or responsibility proximately contributed to Plaintiff’s damages, the amount of recovery, if any, shall be reduced on the basis of Plaintiff’s own comparative negligence which contributed to the damages sought by Plaintiff against these Answering Defendants.

 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Laches)

 

67. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that each and every allegation and cause of action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint against these Answering Defendants is barred under the equitable doctrine of laches.

 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands)

 

68. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that each and every cause of action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint against these Answering Defendants is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands in that Plaintiff, by its own conduct, has acted in such a manner as to preclude any recovery against these Answering Defendant.

 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Superseding Acts of Third Parties)

 

69. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that the damages alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint were exclusively caused or contributed to by the negligence or other acts or omissions of other defendants, persons, or entities, whether parties to this action or not. Said negligence or other acts or omissions were an intervening and superseding cause of injuries and damages, if any, and that such superseding forces are unforeseeable, independent, intervening actions breaking the chain of causation and barring recovery by Plaintiff against these Answering Defendants.

 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Mitigate Damages)

 

70. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps toward mitigating the losses alleged in its Complaint; therefore, Plaintiff’s right to recover damages against these Answering Defendants must be barred or diminished accordingly.

 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel)

 

71. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff is estopped from seeking relief requested in the Complaint against these Answering Defendants due to Plaintiff’s own acts or omissions with reference to the subject matter of the Complaint.

 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Fault of Others)

 

72. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times and places set forth in the Complaint, certain parties defendant(s)/Co-Defendant(s), other than these Answering Defendants, named or unnamed herein, whether served or unserved, failed to exercise ordinary care, caution or circumspection on their behalf, which negligence and carelessness was a proximate cause of some portion, up to and including the whole thereof, of the injuries and damages complained of by Plaintiff in this action. The fault, if any, of these Answering Defendants should be compared with the fault or contributory negligence of other defendant(s), and damages, if any, should be apportioned among the same in direct relation to each such defendant(s)' comparative fault. These Answering Defendants should be obligated to pay only such damages, if any, which are directly attributable to their percentage of comparative fault. To require these Answering Defendants to pay any more than their percentage of comparative fault violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.

 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Waiver)

 

73. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff has engaged in conduct and activities sufficient to constitute a waiver of any alleged breach of contract claim, negligence, or any other conduct, if any, as set forth in the Complaint.

 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Several Liability)

 

74. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that their liability, if any, for non-economic general damages is several only and not joint pursuant to California Civil Code §1431.2.

 

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Improper Prosecution of Action)

 

75. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff is prosecuting this litigation in bad faith and for an improper purpose. The claims of Plaintiff are frivolous, and therefore, entitle these Answering Defendants to an award of reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees.

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Absence of Probable Cause/Presence of Malicious Intent)

 

76. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff is prosecuting this litigation without probable cause against these Answering Defendants and with malicious intent.

 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Absence of Actual/Proximate Causation)

 

77. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that any and all damages or injuries alleged by Plaintiff were not, and are not, the result of acts or omissions by these Answering Defendants.

 

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Apportionment of Fault)

 

78. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of the acts and/or omissions alleged in the Complaint were solely, entirely, and fully those of defendant(s) and/or parties named or unnamed therein, other than these Answering Defendants and, therefore, such parties are fully and solely liable to Plaintiff. As a result, these Answering Defendants are entitled to total indemnification from said parties including, but not limited to, any and all damages, costs, and attorneys' fees that these Answering Defendants may sustain as a result of Plaintiffs claims. In the alternative, if it should be found that these Answering Defendants are in some manner legally responsible for injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff, if any, and it should be found that Plaintiff’s injuries or damages were proximately caused or contributed to by other defendant(s) in this case, whether served or unserved, and/or other persons or entities not parties to this action, then these Answering Defendants are entitled to a finding that the negligence and fault of each of the aforesaid person and/or parties, whether parties to this action or not, shall be determined, apportioned and prorated, and that any judgment rendered against these Answering Defendants shall be reduced not only by the degree of comparative negligence of the Plaintiff, but also shall be reduced by the percentage of negligence and/or fault and/or unreasonable conduct attributed to the aforesaid other defendant(s) and/or third persons or entities, whether parties to this action or not. Plaintiff’s contributory negligence and/or fault shall reduce any and all damages sustained by Plaintiff.

 

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Ratification)

 

79. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff is barred from asserting each and all of its causes of action by reason of its ratification of the conduct of these Answering Defendants.

 

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statute of Limitations)

 

80. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action contained therein, is barred by applicable statutes of limitation.

 

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Basis for Punitive Damages)

 

81. These Answering Defendants at all times acted in a proper, lawful, and legally permitted fashion without malice or oppression. These Answering Defendants exercised and possessed that degree of skill, care, and knowledge required of a real estate licensee and, therefore, there is no basis for an award of punitive or exemplary damages against these Answering Defendants.

 

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Contract is Void/Voidable)

 

82. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that the contract(s) referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint, are void or voidable and therefore unenforceable.

 

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Privity)

 

83. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that contrary to the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint, these Answering Defendants were not parties to any written contract with Plaintiff, and therefore, cannot be held liable for breach of contract.

 

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unasserted Defenses)

 

84. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that they may have additional, as yet unasserted, defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint or the purported causes of action contained therein. These Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as deemed appropriate at a later time.

 

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unjust Enrichment)

 

85. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that if Plaintiff were to recover on the claims in its Complaint, it would be unjustly enriched in that Plaintiff will have accepted the benefits and proceeds of the agreement referenced within Plaintiff’s Complaint while not honoring the terms of the same.

 

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Negligence)

 

86. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiffs claims are barred by its own negligence.

 

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Detrimental Reliance)

 

87. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiffs claims are barred by reason of making statements and representations to the defendants on which defendants reasonably relied to their detriment and prejudice.

 

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Loss Caused by Plaintiffs or Others)

 

88. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that if Plaintiff suffered or sustained any loss, damage or injury as alleged in the Complaint, the loss, damage or injury was proximately caused or contributed to by the actions and omissions of Plaintiff or others so as to bar Plaintiffs right to recovery in whole or in part.

 

TWENTY- FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to do Equity)

 

89. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that no relief may be obtained under the Plaintiffs Complaint by reason of Plaintiff's failure to do equity in the matters alleged in the Complaint.

 

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Accord and Satisfaction)

 

90. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff s claims are barred by the parties having reached an accord and satisfaction with regard to the matters in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

 

TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Contributory Negligence)

 

91. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff was negligent and its negligence was a substantial factor in causing its harm, if any, such that its recovery should be barred completely or reduced in proportion to its own fault and negligence.

 

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Negligent Misrepresentation)

 

92. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by reason of making representations to the defendants that were not true, or that Plaintiff had no reasonable grounds for believing to be true when it made them, Plaintiff intended that defendants would rely on Plaintiffs representations, and defendants did reasonably rely upon those representations to their detriment.

 

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Abandonment of Claim)

 

93. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that by conduct, representation and omissions, Plaintiff has waived, relinquished and abandoned. any claim for relief against defendants.

 

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Plead Registration of Trademark)

 

94. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege by conduct of Plaintiff, and each of them, that said Plaintiff failed to plead in the Complaint that they had registered a trademark or any trademark.

 

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Abandonment of Trademark)

 

95. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe that Plaintiff herein abandoned the Trademark on or about March 7th, 2006, and that therefore all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred.

 

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(No Claim to Use of Term "Properties")

 

96. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe and thereon allege that Plaintiff herein has no right, legal or equitable, to the use of the term "PROPERTIES" and "PREFERRED PROPERTIES."

 

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Invalid Service Mark)

 

97. Plaintiffs alleged service mark is invalid because it is merely functional, generic, or at most descriptive without secondary meaning.

 

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Invalid Service Mark)

 

98. To the extent Plaintiffs service mark is valid, it is not famous, distinct (or inherently distinct), nor has it acquired secondary meaning, in that the Service Mark alleged in the Complaint, upon information and belief of these Answering Defendants, bears little to no resemblance to the abandoned service mark filed for registration as a Service Mark by Plaintiffs on or about February 4, 2005.

 

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DFENSE

(No Claim to Exclusive Use)

 

99. To the extent Plaintiffs abandoned service mark is valid, Plaintiff cannot claim priority in its use, in that the word "properties" is, to these Answering Defendants' information and belief, specifically excluded from said abandoned service mark and that the word "Preferred" carries no special, unique, or valuable meaning.

 

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Claims Barred Due to Concurrent Use)

 

100. These Answering Defendants are informed and believe that Plaintiffs claims herein are barred and fail under the doctrine of concurrent use by "PREFERRED PROPERTY FINDER,' 'PINN CLE PREFERRED PROPERTIES," "PREFERRED PROPERTY PROGRAM," and "AT&T PREFERRED PROPERTY.”

 

THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Fair Use)

 

101. These Answering Defendants' use, if any, of the abandoned and dissimilar service mark constitutes classic fair use and/or nominative fair use.

 

THIRTY-EIGTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Good Faith by Defendants)

 

102. At all relevant times, these Answering Defendants acted in complete good faith, thereby prohibiting a finding of intentional or willful conduct, and prohibiting the imposition of treble and/or punitive damages.

 

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Preemption)

 

103. The claims in the Complaint are preempted.

 

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Consideration)

 

104. Plaintiff’s contract claim must fail for lack of consideration.

           

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DFENSE

(Failure of Consideration)

 

105. Plaintiff's contract claim must fail for failure of consideration.

 

FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Reservation of Right to Amend Answer)

 

106. These Answering Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a basis as to whether they may have additional defenses available based upon legal theories that may or will be divulged through discovery or further investigation. These Answering Defendants reserve the right to timely supplement their responses and defenses accordingly.

 

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Invalid and Void Contract Due to Illegality of the Subject Matter Trademark)

 

107. Plaintiff's contract claim must fail for illegality of subject matter, to wit, and upon information and belief, the purported trademark referred to as "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" and/or ‘TARBELL PREFERRED PROPERTIES", depending upon which document is referenced as produced by Plaintiff.

                       

FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure and Voidability of Contract Due to the Inducement to

Execute Said Contract by Fraudulent Misrepresentations)

 

108. Plaintiffs contract claim of breach by defendants herein must fail due to the negligent and intentional fraudulent misrepresentation of the validity of the subject matter which constitutes the central consideration of the subject contract.

           

COUNTERCLAIMS

 

Counterclaimants JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, an individual; BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., a California corporation; BOB BENNION, an individual (hereafter collectively referred to as "Counterclaimants"); allege the following:

 

1. Counterdefendant F.M. TARBELL CO. DBA TARBELL REALTORS ("Tarbell") alleges that it is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Ana, California.

 

2. An actual controversy exists as evidenced by the allegations contained in the Complaint.

 

3. Tarbell has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court.

 

4. Counterclaimant A&L PARTNERS, Inc. ("A&L") is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Brea, California.

 

5. Counterclaimant ANDREA MARQUEZ ("Marquez") is an individual who resides in Brea, California.

 

6. Counterclaimant JOSEPH R. DEVILLE ("Deville") is an individual who resides in Mountain Center, California.

 

7. Counterclaimant BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley ("Bennion & Deville" and/or "Windermere"), is a California corporation, which these Answering Defendants are informed and believe has its principal place of business in Rancho Mirage, California.

 

8. Counterclaimant BOB BENNION ("Bennion") is an individual who resides in Seattle, Washington.

 

9. Counterclaimant KRG REALTY GROUP, INC. ("KRG") is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Chino Hills, California.

 

10. Counterclaimant RICHARD MICHAEL KING ("King") is an individual who resides in a place unknown to these defendants.

 

11. On information and belief, third party defendant DONALD M. TARBELL ("Donald") is the owner of Tarbell and an individual who resides in Los Gatos, California.

 

12. On information and belief, third party defendant VALENTINA JIMOV-RED ("Jimov-Red") is an officer and broker for Tarbell and an individual who resides in Santa Ana, California.

 

13. On information and belief, third party defendant HAMID REZA KHARRAT ("Kharrat") is a broker for Tarbell and an individual who resides in Anaheim, California.

 

JURISDICTION

 

14. Jurisdiction of these counterclaims arise under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), 15 U.S.C. § 11211, and under the principles of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), with respect to the common law and state counterclaims. Jurisdiction of the third party claims is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

 

15. Venue, if proper in this Court, is conferred under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and/or 1400(a).

 

COUNTER-DEFENDANT TARBELL'S WRONGFUL ACTS

 

16. The Complaint is a sham, completely unprotected by the litigation privilege, unsupported by the United States Code concerning Trademark or any other Intellectual Property, or any Constitutional concern. These Answering Defendants and Counterclaimants have no inclination to believe, and they do not believe (nor should they believe), that this is a case possessing any merit whatsoever; rather, the Complaint is a vehicle through which Tarbell, through acts subsequent to the filing of the Complaint herein, intend to further their ulterior motives aimed squarely and solely at putting Deville, an individual; Bennion & Deville, a California corporation; and Bennion, an individual, out of business through protracted and frivolous litigation. These entities (these particular Tarbell and Windermere broker owners) have a long history of competitive disputes, of which this case is a continuation and extension. The misrepresentations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint deprive this Court and the judicial process of any legitimacy and any jurisdiction or venue with respect to this litigation. Tarbell is not engaging in protected activities; the evidence that Deville, Bennion & Deville, and Bennion, will put forth will support these assertions and, therefore, Tarbell cannot hide behind feigned "privileges" to avoid these counterclaims and third party claims.

 

17. Since at least 2005, Windermere and Tarbell have engaged in an ongoing business competition in the Southern California real estate market for agents, listings, commissions, and other real estate transactions and representations. On information and belief, Tarbell and Windermere have an ongoing adverse personal and business relationship due to the presence of both in the similar geographic area (the inland, desert region). This, on information and belief, includes a prior Department of Real Estate claim made by Co-Defendants against Tarbell for improperly soliciting Windermere sellers, and may include harassing personal conduct such as personal threats and property damages. On information and belief, Tarbell undertook these actions due to the large market share Windermere was gaining in recent years in the local business region. On further information and belief, Tarbell felt threatened by the significant strides Windermere was making, into the Southern California real estate market, and would engage in whatever action was needed to slow this expansion, including instituting these current litigations without any reasonable expectation of success. The instant action is nothing more than a continuation of this prior hostility, and an ill-gotten, wrongful attempt, and non-evidentiary premised attempt to slow Windermere's growth in the local business region.

 

18. Tarbell attempts to disguise the illegitimacy of its most recent filing as a "trademark infringement" action. It is not and never has been. Among other things, Tarbell lacks any objective or subjective basis on which to bring their infringement claims given the lack of any protectable rights in the "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" terin (which Tarbell has expressly disclaimed through an abandoned federal trademark application) through its failure to complete the application process and demonstrate proper, lawful and ethical ownership of the proposed trade mark, which is actually a service mark. Furthermore, Tarbell has not and cannot allege that Tarbell owns the alleged mark in any form. Tarbell is fully and unequivocally aware that Deville, Bennion & Deville, and Bennion, do not use - and have not used - an even remotely confusing term in commerce at any point relevant to these claims (e.g. A&L's business is called. "Windermere Preferred LivingTM"). Again, at no time has Tarbell believed in the merits of its own litigation but instead filed the litigation solely to harm Deville, Bennion & Deville, and Bennion and benefit Tarbell through the litigation process itself rather than the outcome of the process.

 

19. On or around February 4, 2005, Tarbell applied for a design mark containing the term "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), under Application Serial No. 78/560,923 ("USPTO Application").

 

20. On or around September 2, 2005, in response to the USPTO Application, the Trademark Examiner issued an Office Action requiring Tarbell to disclaim the phrase, "PREFERRED PROPERTIES," because the phrase was and remains merely descriptive. Tarbell, acquiescing to the determination, abandoned the USPTO Application and thereby waived any and all claims thereto.

 

21. Before, during and after the USPTO Application was rejected, various individuals and entities have used in commerce the phrase "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" in connection with goods and services including real estate services of the kind and type described in Plaintiff’s complaint. Said use by others has continued through the present day and has existed not only in Southern California specifically, but throughout the state of California and the United States. For example, the California Department of Real Estate lists fifty-five (55) different Realtors@ operating or that have operated throughout California (including Southern California) under the "Preferred Properties" term. Additionally, there are forty-one (41) business entities listed by the California Secretary of State as using "Preferred Properties" in their entity name. Marquez and A&L are not using the phrase in any event (they use "Windermere Preferred LivingTM").

 

22. On information and belief, at no time prior to the initiation of this or the prior identical lawsuit filed by Tarbell has Tarbell protected its alleged but nonexistent trademark rights as to any other pertinent individual or entity in the real estate sector.

 

23. Further, at least two (2) other separate and distinct real estate related entities have been required by the USPTO to disclaim the phrase, "PREFERRED PROPERTIES," because the phrase was and remains merely descriptive. These trademarks are "PINNACLE PREFERRED PROPERTIES" and "PATERSON'S PREFERRED PROPERTIES." The USPTO's repeated refusal to recognize the term "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" as a protectable mark provide further objective evidence of the lack of any reasonable basis on Tarbell's part to believe they possessed a valid and enforceable mark in "PREFERRED PROPERTIES."

 

24. On or around May 28, 2010, just months prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, Tarbell filed a prior frivolous lawsuit against all certain defendants, stating the exact same claims as here for purported and falsely premised trademark infringement notwithstanding the fact Tarbell knew that it had no valid rights to the claimed mark. Due only to the fact that the company known as "Windermere Preferred Properties" had only recently opened for business, and because they did not have the funds to defend the case, in exchange for a full general and specific release of all claims (known and unknown), A&L and Marquez voluntarily agreed to change their company name to "Windermere Preferred LivingTM," and they have not for a single moment deviated from their agreement. At all times relevant hereto, "Windermere Preferred LivingTM" was and remains a fictitious business name assigned to A&L Partners, Inc. Marquez is simply an officer of the company. Tarbell knows this and has known this since being made aware of the changes in written correspondence and through their own discovery efforts.

 

25. These two pieces of litigation, the other prior disputes with other Co-Defendants, and on information and belief actions initiated by Tarbell against other real estate sales professionals and entities in the local Southern California region, evidence a policy and practice on behalf of Tarbell of initiating, maintaining, and/or continuing legal proceedings without regards to the merits of those proceedings, and for the purpose of injuring or gaining an competitive advantage on Defendants and other local Southern California real estate sales professionals and entities. On information and belief, Tarbell has brought this current action pursuant to and in furtherance of this policy and practice.

 

26. Tarbell has made specific, unprotected misrepresentations in its pleadings and therefore in the judicial process. Tarbell falsely alleges (notwithstanding knowledge to the contrary of which it is obligated to know through the statutory process of mark registration and through its attorney in said application, Philip A. Kraft, Claremont, California) that the purported advertisement at issue in this case was "executed with the express approval, ratification and authorization of A & L Partners/Marquez." (See Complaint ¶ 28, pp. 10, 11. 4-6.) Tarbell was placed on notice that a reasonable inquiry was required prior to filing this case and that its factual assertion did not have objective evidentiary support. Disregarding notice to the contrary concerning its alleged ownership of a mark that is not owned by Tarbell, Tarbell filed a second complaint in this Honorable Court without reasonable inquiry as required under, inter alia, Rule 11. This statement also represents gross misrepresentation to the Court and in the judicial process and deprives the Court and the judicial process of any legitimacy and jurisdiction with respect to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s complaint.

 

27. In addition, Tarbell alleges Deville, Bennion & Deville, and Bennion "continued to engage in blatant misappropriation of Tarbell's" alleged trademarks after the signing of the settlement agreement. (See Complaint ¶ 4, pp. 3, 11. 19.) For the same reasons, this statement constitutes gross misrepresentation and untrue statements in the judicial process and to this Court, and again deprives the litigation of its legitimacy and jurisdiction and venue.

 

28. Both this litigation and the prior settled litigation are objectively baseless to the point that they lack probable cause because no reasonable litigant could have realistically expected to secure favorable relief under them. The lack of federal registration following the Trademark Examiner's finding of the claimed phrase "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" merely descriptive, and the failure to prosecute or attempt to prosecute the many other uses of "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" in Southern California, the state of California, and the United States of America evidence that Tarbell does not possess a trademark in "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" and evidence the lack of any objective probable cause to bring suit. Moreover, this objective lack of probable cause and any reasonable basis in both suits is further evidenced by the descriptive nature and plain-on-its-face descriptive meaning of the "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" term in the real estate sales context. Finally, the widespread use of the "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" mark in the real estate business in Southern California, the state of California, and across the United States, and the clear on-its-face, non-confusingly similar nature of "WINDEREMERE PREFERRED PROPERTIES" and "TARBELL PREFERRED PROPERTIES" in the real estate sales industry, given the two well-known franchise designations at the beginning of the mark, evidence that no reasonable litigant could have realistically expected to secure favorable relief

 

29. The current litigation is objectively baseless given the ill-gotten history between Tarbell and Windermere (involving other Co-Defendants) provide objective evidence that the action was initiated for wholly illegitimate means against Co-Defendants express denial of any knowledge of or involvement with the advertisement, and the proof of mark cancelation provides further evidence of the objectively baseless nature of this current suit against all Co-Defendants. Furthermore, the litigation is subjectively baseless. At no point during or relevant to either the first or second lawsuit did Tarbell or its conspirators actually intend or desire to obtain affirmative relief by way of the complaints. Both of the lawsuits were and are intended to cause harm to Co-Defendants through the use of the process as opposed to the outcome of the process. The true ulterior motive behind both lawsuits was and remains an intention to put Co-Defendants out of business and to harm their legitimate business interests and income and to use Tarbell's substantially superior financial leverage to force Co-Defendants to wastefully expend income and cash flow to fund the defense of these meritless lawsuits.

 

30. At no point relevant to the pendency of these two actions has Tarbell or its conspirators actually believed in the merit of their claims, nor has Tarbell or its conspirators actually believed they could or would prevail on their claims. Rather, on information and belief, following the issuance of process in the first lawsuit, Tarbell contacted prospective and actual clientele of Co-Defendants, providing them with false and/or malicious, defamatory (slanderous and libelous) information about Co-Defendants and/or their officers, agents, or employees. Tarbell used the issuance of process in the first lawsuit to bolster their false post-process actions to entities or individuals that had no reason to believe otherwise, to wit, said potential clientele were fraudulently led to opine that since Tarbell filed a lawsuit, the Defendants must have done something wrong and they must be untrustworthy, have non-credible reputations in the business community and must have, in the least, improperly and unethically misled clientele to believe Co-Defendants had some grievous wrong and therefore should not receive business from them in any form. The litigation privilege does not protect Tarbell. These actions occurred during and following settlement (and the illegal settlement agreement contained a non-admission of liability clause). This is abuse, and is further evidence of a subjective bad faith attempt to interfere with the business relationships of Co-Defendants. On information and belief, Tarbell and third party defendants have engaged through agreement and in furtherance of this agreement to conspire to engage in this abuse and interfere with the business relationships of Co-Defendants.

 

31. Tarbell intends to maintain its ulterior motive of seeking to put these defendants out of business and to further and continue to libel and slander them following the issuance of process in the second lawsuit by improperly using civil discovery techniques to destroy all Defendants' business and reputation irreparably in the community. Among other things, Tarbell has improperly used process to notice community agents, brokers, realtors, prospective and actual clientele, and interested third persons of the (meritless) lawsuit. Proper in many other instances not relevant here, the actions by Tarbell and its conspirators involving this lawsuit were and will all be done with a malicious and knowing intent to injure Co-Defendants' business and reputation. They were all done post-process (at no point herein do Co-Defendants allege the filing of a lawsuit amounts to abuse of process). These post-process actions amount to abuse, defamation and intentional injury and evidence of a subjective bad faith intent to harm Co-Defendants and interfere with their business relations. They evidence an attempt to abuse the discovery process and evidence the objectively baseless nature of the discovery.

 

32. Tarbell is also attempting to use the discovery process itself, and not the outcome of the process, to gain an advantage and to harm Co-Defendants; this constitutes an abuse of the intended purposes of litigation and legal process and further constitutes a gross waste of judicial time and resources. Through their post-process actions, Tarbell is attempting to utilize their financial resources and length of existence improperly through their abuse of the judicial system to diminish the value of Co-Defendants' business relations, with the hope of halting their expansion in the local real estate sales business, and ultimately putting them out of business.

 

33. Further, Tarbell intends to use the civil. discovery process to improperly discover or attempt to discover valuable business techniques and practices that otherwise would not be discoverable to Tarbell had that process been issued. Windermere has been able to quickly secure a strong presence in the local real estate sales business and continues to expand its business as fast as the defamatory abuses of Tarbell allows, thus theoretically threatening Tarbell's market share. On information and belief, Tarbell intends to use this lawsuit to gain improper insight into the valuable business techniques and practices that have allowed Windermere to expand quickly and threaten Tarbell and thereby appropriate said business practices to its own uses and benefit.

 

34. These actions and abuses in the discovery process itself (outside of the litigation and the initiation of the litigation) further evidence the objectively baseless nature of the discovery. And, the evidence that the subjective intent of the discovery was and is solely to harm Co-Defendants and benefit Tarbell. This is abuse.

 

35. On information and belief, Tarbell and its conspirators have also used the second lawsuit to falsely convey to current and prospective customers that Windermere had breached the settlement agreement and have falsely implied to these third persons that Co-Defendants had admitted that Tarbell owned a valid mark in "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" and that these defendants are not trustworthy, when in fact the settlement agreement expressly contradicts these false claims. Tarbell undertook these improper actions to intentionally and negligently interfere with Co-Defendants' business relations.

 

36. On information and belief, Tarbell and third party defendants acted in agreement and in furtherance of an agreement to conspire to convey this false information to Co-Defendants' customers and other third parties and to interfere with Co-Defendants' business relations.

 

COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY

(DESCRIPTIVENESS) OF TARBELL'S ALLEGED

"PREFERRED PROPERTIES"SM COMMON LAW MARK

(Against Counterdefendant)

 

37. Counterclaimants repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above.

 

38. This is a counterclaim under the trademark laws of the United States (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.) for a declaration that Tarbell's alleged common law mark, PREFERRED PROPERTIESSM, is invalid.

 

39. Tarbell asserts that Counterclaimants and other defendants, by virtue of acts alleged in the Complaint in this action, have infringed and continue to infringe the alleged common law mark- PREFERRED PROPERTIES. Counterclaimants have denied such infringement and assert that the alleged common law mark PREFERRED PROPERTIES is invalid.

 

40. An actual controversy exists between Counterclaimants and Tarbell in that Tarbell, although maliciously and frivolously (for the myriad of reasons stated hereinabove), alleges validity of the alleged common law mark PREFERRED PROPERTIES, while Counterclaimants maintain Tarbell does not possess an objective bases to claim validity of the alleged common law PREFERRED PROPERTIES mark.

 

41. The alleged common law mark PREFERRED PROPERTIES is invalid by virtue of the mark being merely descriptive, as it is understood by prospective customers to directly describe the realty services provided by Tarbell, modified by a merely laudatory (and therefore descriptive) term, and does not require the imagination of the prospective customer to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the services. The alleged mark has not acquired secondary meaning.

 

42. Unless enjoined by this Court, the acts of Tarbell  have caused and will continue to cause irreparable damage, loss, and injury to Counterclaimants for which Counterclaimants have no adequate remedy at law and from which Counterclaimants are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief

 

COUNTERCLAIM FOR A DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

(against Counterdefendant)

 

43. Counterclaimants repeat and re-allege each and every allegation set forth above.

 

44. This is a counterclaim under the trademark laws of the United States (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.) for a declaration that, should Tarbell's common law service mark PREFERRED PROPERTIES be found valid and enforceable, Counterclaimants' business activities and sales do not infringe upon said trademark rights of Tarbell.

 

45. An actual controversy exists between Counterclaimant and Tarbell in that Tarbell is attempting to enforce its "DEAD" service mark, although maliciously and frivolously (for the myriad of reasons stated hereinabove), without an objective basis on which to assert rights in said mark.

 

46. Unless enjoined by this Court, the acts of Tarbell has caused and will continue to cause irreparable damage, loss, and injury to Counterclaimants for which Counterclaimants have no adequate remedy at law and from which Counterclaimants are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.

 

COUNTERCLAIM FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION

UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)

(Against Counterdefendant)

 

47. Counterclaimants repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.

 

48. Counterclaimants have developed their real estate business at a substance expense and effort.

 

49. Tarbell's conduct as alleged herein demonstrates an attempt to commit, directly or indirectly, acts of unfair competition in violation of U.S.C. § 1125(a) by purposefully attempting to enforce an invalid and unenforceable trademark, by attempting to improperly obtain Counterclaimants' valuable business information through the process involved in enforcing their invalid and unenforceable trademark, by attempting to harm Counterclaimants through enforcement of an invalid and unenforceable trademark, by using the alleged enforcement of their invalid and unenforceable mark as an improper means through which to interfere with Counterclaimants' contractual and business relations, and as further alleged herein.

 

50. As a direct and proximate result of Tarbell's wrongful conduct, Counterclaimants have been and will continue to be injured.

 

51. Counterclaimants have no adequate remedy at law and such harm will continue unless the Court enjoins Tarbell's acts

 

COUNTERCLAIM FOR UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et. seq.

(Against Counterdefendant)

 

52. Counterclaimants repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above.

 

53. Counterclaimants have developed their real estate business at a substance expense and effort.

 

54. Tarbell's conduct demonstrates an attempt to commit, directly or indirectly, acts of unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code section 1.7200, et seq. including using attempts to improperly obtain Counterclaimants' valuable business information, use their superior financial position to harm Counterclaimants through the litigation and discovery process, interfere with Counterclaimants' contractual and business relations, misuse and abuse of the judicial and litigation process, and as further set-forth herein, all to the benefit of Tarbell, and to Counterclaimants' detriment.

 

55. As a direct and proximate result of Tarbell's conduct, Counterclaimants have suffered damages and injury to its business reputation and goodwill.

 

56. Unless ceased or restrained by court order, Tarbell's wrongful conduct will cause further great and irreparable injury to Counterclaimants because it will continue to cause injury to Counterclaimants' business reputation and goodwill and will cause Counterclaimants' clients to discontinue, cancel and breach their contractual relations with Counterclaimants.

 

57. As a direct and proximate result of Tarbell's breach of the Business and Professions Code, Counterclaimants seek restitution, disgorgement and attorneys' fees.

 

PRAYER

 

WHEREFORE, These Answering Defendants pray for judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs as follows:

 

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint and the Court denies its prayer for equitable relief;

 

2. That Plaintiff be enjoined temporarily and permanently from (a) alleging to any person or entity, at any time and for any purpose, in any manner, including verbal, written or other manner of publication, that it owns a mark, whether it be called trade mark, service mark, or word mark, which comprises the words "preferred," "properties," "property," and the use of the indications of ownership of a registered mark, including but not limited to, TM, SM, or WM. related to said words;

 

3. That the "settlement agreement" be rescinded in its entirety;

 

4. That Plaintiff be enjoined temporarily and permanently from any and all forms of defamation of Answering Defendants, whether said defamation may occur orally, in written form, or any combination thereof, including publication through the Internet;

 

5. That Plaintiff be enjoined temporarily and permanently from interfering in any way, whether it be orally or in writing, with the potential clientele, business relations, and potential business transactions of these Answering Defendants;

 

6. That Plaintiff compensate these Answering Defendants for damages resulting from their fraudulent inducement to become an intended third party beneficiary to the "settlement agreement," from breach of said contract, from their defamation of these Answering Defendants, for Plaintiff’s interference with the economic advantages of these Answering Defendants, and for malicious prosecution and abuse of the processes of this Court, in an amount to be decided at trial;

 

7. For all. costs of suit herein;

 

8. For reasonable attorneys' fees; and

 

9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

 

DATED: April 12,2011            SUNDERLAND McCUTCHAN, LLP

 

                                                By: /s/ Robert J. Sunderland

                                                      Robert J. Sunderland, SBN 189214

                                                      E-Mail: Rsunderland@sunmclaw.com

 

                                                      Cheryl D. Davidson SBN 149938

                                                      E-Mail: Cdavidson@sunmclaw.com

 

                                                      Attorneys for Defendants/

                                                      Counterclaimants, JOSEPH R.

                                                      DEVILLE, BENNION & DEVILLE

                                                      FINE HOMES, INC. and BOB

                                                      BENNION

 

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

Pursuant to FRCP Rule 38, defendants/Counterclaimants hereby demand a jury trial on all issues appropriate for a trial by jury.

 

DATED: March 14, 2011            SUNDERLAND McCUTCHAN, LLP

 

                                                By: /s/ Robert J. Sunderland

                                                      Robert J. Sunderland, SBN 189214

                                                      E-Mail: Rsunderland@sunmclaw.com

 

                                                      Cheryl D. Davidson SBN 149938

                                                      E-Mail: Cdavidson@sunmclaw.com

 

                                                      Attorneys for Defendants/

                                                      Counterclaimants, JOSEPH R.

                                                      DEVILLE, BENNION & DEVILLE

                                                      FINE HOMES, INC. and BOB

                                                      BENNION

 

DOWNLOAD DEFENDANTS JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, BENNION AND DEVILLE FINE HOMES INC., BOB BENNIONS' FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS & JURY DEMAND HERE

 

Court Dismisses Defendants and Counterclaimants A & L Partners, Inc., et al; Windermere Preferred and Andrea Marquez's Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

#25

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

 

Case No. CV 10-1589 PSG (Ex)

Date  March 23, 2011

Title F.M. Tarbell Co., d/b/a Tarbell Realtors v. A & L Partners, Inc., et al

Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy K. Hernandez, Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter, Not Present

Tape No. n/a

 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Not Present

 

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present

 

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING Plaintiff/Counterdefendant's motion to [dis]miss Defendants/Counterclaimants' Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amended Counterclaims

 

Before this Court is Plaintiff and Counterdefendant F.M. Tarbell Co., d/b/a Tarbell Realtors's ("Tarbell") motion to dismiss certain counterclaims filed by Defendants and Counterclaimants A & L Partners, Inc. and Andrea Marquez. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After considering the moving and opposing papers, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion.

 

I. Background

 

The motion presently before the Court is part of a long-running dispute between two real estate agencies that compete for business in the Southern California inland-desert region real estate market. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant F.M. Tarbell Co. d/b/a Tarbell Realtors ("Tarbell") is a real estate agency that sells "upper-scale homes" in Southern California through its "Preferred Properties" division. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2. Defendants A & L Partners, Inc., Andrea Marquez, Joseph R. Deville, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bob Bennion, KRG Realty Group, Inc. and Richard Michael King (collectively, "Defendants" or "Windermere") do business as, are employed by, or are in some way related to Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties real estate agency ("Windermere").1 Compl. ¶¶ 6-12. On October 19, 2010, Tarbell filed suit against Defendants, asserting six causes of action: one Lanham Act claim for trademark infringement and unfair competition, and five state law claims for false advertising, unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations. Tarbell's trademark infringement and unfair competition claims are based on allegations that Windermere unlawfully used Tarbell's "Preferred Properties" mark in connection with Windermere's recruiting and marketing efforts. Compl. 3. Tarbell's contract-based claims arise from allegations that Defendants' unauthorized use of Tarbell's mark violates the parties' settlement agreement in an earlier case, CV 10-4048 PSG (Ex) ("First Action"), in which Tarbell similarly claimed that Windermere violated its Preferred Properties trademark. See No. CV 10-4048, Dkt. #1 (May 28, 2010).

 

On January 21, 2011, A & L Partners, Inc. and Andrea Marquez (together, "Counterclaimants" or "Windermere") filed an amended Counterclaim against Tarbell, alleging the following counterclaims: (1) declaration of invalidity of Tarbell's alleged common law mark; (2) declaration of non-infringement; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) tortious interference with contracts; (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (6) unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (7) unfair competition under Cal. Bus. Code § 17200 et seq.; (8) abuse of process; and (9) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. See Dkt. #17 (Jan. 21, 2011) (amended Counterclaim). In essence, Counterclaimants allege that Tarbell improperly solicited Windermere sellers, harassed Counterclaimants, damaged property belonging to Windermere, and filed this lawsuit (as well as the First Action) in an "ill-gotten, wrongful attempt to stifle Windermere's growth in [the] real estate market." CC ¶¶15, 18-21, 25-37.

 

On February 10, 2011, Tarbell moved to dismiss five of Windermere's nine counterclaims: the Third Counterclaim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; the Fourth Counterclaim for tortious interference with contracts; the Fifth Counterclaim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; the Eighth Counterclaim for

_________________________________

 

1 Counterclaimant A & L Partners, Inc. allegedly does business as Windermere Real Estate/Preferred Properties and Windermere Preferred LivingTM. See Amended Counterclaims ("CC”) ¶ (Dkt. #17 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Counterclaimant Andrea Marquez is an officer of A & L. id. ¶ 5.

_________________________________

 

abuse of process; and the Ninth Counterclaim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.2

 

II. Legal Standard

 

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may move to dismiss a cause of action if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), courts should be mindful that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally require only that the complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not required to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint that "offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”’ Ashcroft v. Iqbal, -U.S.-, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). Rather, the complaint must allege sufficient facts to support a plausible claim to relief. See id.

 

In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must engage in a two-step analysis. See id. at 1950. First, the court must accept as true all non-conclusory, factual allegations made in the complaint. See Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S. Ct. 1160, 1161, 122 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1993). Based upon these allegations, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 579 F.3d 943, 949 (9th Cir. 2009). Second, after accepting as true all non-conclusory allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, the court must determine whether the compl[ai]nt alleges a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Despite the liberal pleadings standards of Rule 8, conclusory allegations will not save a complaint from dismissal. See id.

 

Finally, the Court notes that in ruling on a motion to dismiss, it may consider documents outside the pleadings without the proceeding turning into summary judgment. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001). In particular, the Court may consider: (a)

_______________________________

 

2 Tarbell does not take issue with Windermere's declaratory judgment or unfair competition claims in this motion. Accordingly, Windermere's First, Second, Sixth and Seventh Counterclaims remain unchallenged.

_______________________________

 

documents that are "properly submitted as part of the complaint,"; (b) documents on which plaintiff’s complaint necessarily relies and whose authenticity is not contested; and (c) "matters of public record" of which the court may take judicial notice under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See id. (internal quotations omitted).

 

Ill. Discussion

 

In moving to dismiss portions of Windermere's Counterclaim, Tarbell contends that Windermere failed to adequately plead its causes of actions for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contracts, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and abuse of process. Accordingly, Tarbell argues, Windermere's Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Counterclaims must be dismissed. For the following reasons, the Court agrees.

 

A. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Third Counterclaim)

 

Tarbell first contends that Windermere failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Mot. 5:9-8:8. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing aims to "prevent one contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party's right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made." Guz v. Bechtel Nat., Inc., 24, Cal. 4th 317, 349, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d. 352 (2000) (emphasis in original). Additionally, it imposes a "duty to do everything that the contract presupposes that he will do to accomplish its purpose." Pasadena Live, LLC v. City of Pasadena, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1089, 1093, 8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 233, 236 (2004). Notably, however, the covenant is limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, id. at 1094; it may not "impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement." Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 3 50; cf Storek & Storek, Inc. v. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc., 100 Cal. App. 4th 44, 55, 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d. 267 (2002) (holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot contradict the express terms of a contract).

 

Windermere's claim that Tarbell breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing appears to have two discrete bases. First, Windermere alleges that Tarbell misrepresented the parties' prior settlement agreement in communications with Windermere's actual and potential customers, specifically, asserting that the settlement agreement recognized that Tarbell had a valid mark in the term "Preferred Properties" when the agreement did not. CC ¶¶ 50-51. Second, Windermere alleges that Tarbell breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by filing what it claims is a baseless lawsuit. Id. ¶ 52. Neither allegation, however, suffices to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Given the vagueness and generality of the allegations upon which Windermere's implied covenant claim is based, the Court cannot ascertain whether either the allegedly misleading communications or the filing of this lawsuit constitute a breach of the settlement agreement. See Pasadena Live, 114 Cal. App. 4th at 1094; Guz, 24 Cal. 4th at 349. Thus, because the Counterclaimants fail to plead specific facts showing that Tarbell's conduct actually violated an express term of the settlement agreement, or frustrated Windermere's right to receive the benefits of such, the Court DISMISSES Windermere's Third Counterclaim with leave to amend.

 

B. Tortious Interference with Contracts (Fourth Counterclaim)

 

Next, Tarbell contends that Windermere fails to adequately plead all of the elements required to state a claim for tortious interference with contracts. Mot. 8:22-10:18. There are four elements to this cause of action: (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) defendant's knowledge of this contract; (3) defendant's intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and (5) resulting damage. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 50 Cal. 3d 1118, 1126, 270 Cal. Rptr. 1 (1990).

 

Here, Windermere asserts that it has "existing, valid, and profitable contracts and relationships with their customers[,]" CC ¶ 58, and that "[a]t all relevant times, Plaintiff and its agents and/or conspirators were aware of counterclaimants' contracts and relationships." CC ¶ 59. Given the absence of specific facts establishing the existence of valid contracts with third parties and Tarbell's awareness of such contracts (let alone the absence of facts showing that Tarbell's conduct induced a breach of the contracts, thereby causing damage to Windermere) the Counterclaim fails to satisfy the standard set forth in Twombly and its progeny.3 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Fourth Counterclaim with leave to amend.

_________________________

 

3 To this end, Windermere's reliance on a pre-Twombly case, Jenson Enters. Inc, v. Oldcastle, Inc., No. C 06-00247 SI, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68262, at *28-29 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2006), is of little avail.

_________________________

 

C. Intentional and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Fifth and Ninth Counterclaims)

 

Next, Tarbell argues that Windermere's Fifth and Ninth Counterclaims for Intentional and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage fail to state plausible claims upon which relief could be granted. Again, the Court agrees.

 

1. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

 

To state a claim for the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege the following: (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant. Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1153, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d. 29 (2003).

 

Here, Windermere fails to present the specific, factual allegations necessary to maintain its IIPEA Counterclaim. The Counterclaim merely asserts that Windermere "had and have existing business relationships or prospective business relationships which had probability of future economic benefit and/or advantage[,]" CC ¶ 65, and that "at all relevant times, [Plaintiff], and each of them, were aware of counterclaimants' prospective business advantage." CC ¶ 66. For largely the same reasons explained above, these allegations are insufficient. To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Windermere was required to allege specific facts showing, inter alia, an existing business relationship with a probability of future economic benefit, Tarbell's knowledge of this relationship, actual damage to this relationship that was intentionally caused by Tarbell, and that it suffered economic harm as a result. It failed to do so. Thus, Windermere's Fifth Counterclaim is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

 

2. Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

 

Relatedly, a plaintiff bringing a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage must sufficiently allege: (1) an economic relationship existed between the plaintiff and a third party which contained a reasonably probable future economic benefit or advantage to plaintiff, (2) the defendant knew of the existence of the relationship and was aware or should have been aware that if it did not act with due care its actions would interfere with this relationship and cause plaintiff to lose in whole or in part the probable future economic benefit or advantage of the relationship; (3) the defendant was negligent; and (4) such negligence cause damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship. N. Am. Chem. Co. v. Super. Ct., 59 Cal. App. 4th 764, 786, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466 (1997).

 

Once again, Windermere comes up short. It states that it "had and ha[s] existing business relationships or prospective business relationships which had probability of future economic benefit and/or advantage[,]" CC ¶ 88, and cryptically refers to "false, defamatory information" that Tarbell allegedly made to Windermere's prospective customers. CC ¶ 91. As to Tarbell's purported negligence, the Counterclaim merely asserts that "Counterdefendants knew or should have known the interference described herein would cause damage to counterclaimants." CC ¶ 92. As previously explained, these allegations do not suffice under Twombly and its progeny. Accordingly, because Windermere failed to adequately plead a cause of action for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court DISMISSES the Ninth Counterclaim with leave to amend.

 

D. Abuse of Process (Eighth Counterclaim)

 

Lastly, Tarbell contends that Windermere fails to adequately plead a claim for abuse of process. The tort of abuse of process is comprised of two elements: (1) an ulterior purpose; and (2) a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding. Ramona Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tsiknas, 135 Cal. App. 4th 510, 520, 37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 38 1, 389 (2005) (citing Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernhard, Weiss & Karma, Inc., 42 Cal. 3d 1157, 1168, 232 Cal. Rptr. 567 (1986)). Further, as the California Supreme Court explained, while the prosecution of an obviously meritless claim may expose a party to damages for malicious prosecution, "the mere filing or maintenance of a lawsuit - even for an improper purpose - is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action." Oren, 42 Cal. 3d at 1169. Rather, "some definite act or threat" must accompany the improperly motivated judicial process. See Carlock v. RMP Fin., No. 03-CV-0688 W, 2003 WL 24207625, at *2 (S.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2003) (quoting Silver v. Gold, 211 Cal. App. 3d 17, 24, 259 Cal. Rptr. 185 (1989)).

 

Here, the Court finds that Windermere's Eighth Counterclaim does not sufficiently state facts showing abuse of process. While Windermere alleges that Tarbell acted with an ulterior purpose, see CC ¶ 85, the predicate "willful act" alleged in the Counterclaim is Tarbell's "maintaining and initiating this objectively baseless action." Id. ¶ 86. Windermere's opposing papers, conceding that the filing of the suit itself is not a proper basis for an abuse of process claim, Opp'n 18:24-25, argue that - notwithstanding the allegation in paragraph eighty-six noted above - its abuse of process claim is not actually based on the filing of this lawsuit. Id. at 18:2728. Rather, according to Windermere, its abuse of process claim arises from Tarbell's alleged “post-filing, 'post-process' actions executed under the guise of litigation" and efforts to "obtain valuable business information" through the discovery process that would "injure [Counterclaimants'] business and reputation", and "interfere with their business [relationships]." CC ¶¶ 31-32, 34, 36, 84.

 

Even accepting Windermere's position that the Eighth Counterclaim is based on "post-process" discovery actions, the Court does not find the allegations sufficiently state a plausible claim for abuse of process. As previously noted, California law is clear that "maintenance of a lawsuit...is not a proper basis for an abuse of process action." Oren, 42 Cal. 3d at 1168. Discovery is an integral part to maintaining a lawsuit. Here, given that Windermere alleges no specific facts showing any unauthorized or wrongful conduct, the mere conducting of civil discovery in civil litigation cannot provide a basis for bringing a tort claim for abuse of process - even if Windermere alleges that Tarbell is conducting discovery with bad intentions. See Silver, 211 Cal. App. 3d at 24 ("[T]here is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.") (internal quotations omitted).

 

To the extent it believes that "Tarbell improperly used and/or intends to use civil discovery techniques[,]" Windermere may pursue discovery sanctions through properly noticed procedures. CC ¶ 32. But it may not maintain a claim for abuse of process based on conclusory allegations of discovery abuse. Thus, Windermere's Eighth Counterclaim is also DISMISSED with leave to amend.

 

IV. Conclusion

 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Tarbell's motion, thereby DISMISSING the following Counterclaims:

 

• the Third Counterclaim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

 

• the Fourth Counterclaim for tortious interference with contracts;

 

• the Fifth Counterclaim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage;

 

• the Eighth Counterclaim for abuse of process; and

 

• the Ninth Counterclaim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.

 

Counterclaimants are hereby ordered to file a Second Amended Counterclaim by April 13, 2011. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the Counterclaims with prejudice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 

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.