"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 and Realtor Associations are 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.

ABOUT WINDERMEREWATCH.COM CONTENT: Various image and editorial WindermereWatch.com content is protected from copyright infringement by 17 U.S.C. § 107, Non-Commercial Fair Use.Learn more about Fair Use here. All legal documents, pleadings, and case summaries presented on WindermereWatch.com have been collected from public resources. Challenges to WindermereWatch.com and/or Windermere Victims' speech rights will be vigorously defended. For proof that Windermere intimidates, threatens and submits false statements to website hosting companies, click here. Attention legal community: Review of Windermere corporate counsel, Paul Stephen Drayna.

________________

 

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!

__________________

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

__________________

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.

__________________

Windermere Real Estate Opens Ukiah Office: David Ryan, Diane Ryan, and Douglas Ware, the owners of Windermere Platinum Real Estate Services, proudly announce the opening of their new Windermere Real Estate Office in Ukiah, CA...

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)

__________________

 

From the WindermereWatch E-Mailbag:

RENTAL CLIENT WONDERS IF FREQUENT INSURANCE FRAUD IS A WINDERMERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PROFiT CENTER: "...But afterward I was suspicious as we were told we left gum wrappers and refuse in the hot tub causing a need for a major clean out. I know we didn’t but they used the mandatory insurance to file a claim. I wondered if, possibly, they do this a lot and if it’s fraudulent." ... "The house itself was absolutely beautiful as was the island but dealing with Windermere was NOT beautiful at all and we would never deal with them again."

 

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

__________________

 

 

WindermereWatch

Fraud News Pages:

The Grand Jury Indictment of Former U.S. Speaker of the House, John Dennis “Denny” Hastert

The People of California Sue Wells Fargo Bank for Unfair Competition and Failure to Provide Notice of Data Breach

A California Department of Real Estate Accusation

Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Windermere Coachella Valley Indian Wells office agent, Peggy Anne Shambaugh, and husband, indicted on federal bribery and money laundering charges

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 "...that Defendants falsified a document signed by Seller..."

Complaint Against Alleged Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

__________________

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, PALM SPRINGS—CASE NO. PSC 1403783

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." DOWNLOAD THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE

 

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

 

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

 

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.

Windermere Real Estate Opens Ukiah Office: David Ryan, Diane Ryan, and Douglas Ware, the owners of Windermere Platinum Real Estate Services, proudly announce the opening of their new Windermere Real Estate Office in Ukiah, CA..

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.

 

 

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WINDERMERE FOUNDATION—NO PROFIT, NO CHARITY: Windermere Lynwood owner Lena Maul “...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.”

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—FOR WHICH THE WINDERMERE BRAND TAKES CREDITNOT THE AGENT WHO ACTUALLY MAKES THE CONTRIBUTION.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 
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.

Windermere Offices in Alaska

Windermere Anchorage Downtown  
Office Address:
Windermere Avenue Properties
201 East 3rd Avenue 
Anchorage, AK 99501  

Phone: (907) 257-7600 

Josh Boots 
Reginald Carney Jr. 
Steve Cavin 
Breauna Cook 
Office Coordinator 
Gail Dossman Tolliver 
Ghislaine Gillespie 
Viola Kaye Smith 
Wendy Lawrence
Kayla Lazenby
Sharon Lohman 
Sara Villafuerte

Windermere Offices in Arizona

Windermere Phoenix
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Northern Arizona
2375 East Camelback Road Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85016

Phone: (602) 730-5368
Fax: 928-541-4388
Email: phoenix@WindermereNAZ.com
Website: www.arizonahomeconnections.com

Office Coordinator
Dana Grant
Kent Morrison

Windermere Prescott
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Northern Arizona
914 E. Gurley St.
Prescott, AZ 86301

Phone: 928-776-1166
Fax: 928-541-4109
Email: prescott@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereNAZ.com

Diana Allen
Dyan Allmon
Lisa Amore
Tim Anderson
Mike Breen
Laura Carder
Harry Chandler
John Chase
Terri Chase
Nancy Christopherson
Sam Dumas
Suzanne Duskey
Karen Dusman
Sue Feltmann
Scott Gebhardt
Vilma Graller
Colleen Greco
Holly Hankinson
Cheri Henderson
Ann Howell
Ed Hume
Steve Huttmann
Valarie Isley
Sandra Jo Jackson
Cathy Kamper
Janis Keeling
Karen Klabacha
Jeff Lewis
Len McGee
Andrea McIntyre
Jeff McIntyre
Robin McManus
Kat Mentken, AB
Tonya Merritt
Mary Palais
Ed Pattermann
John Pettit
Deanna Poppenberger
Kathi Rafters
Susan Roos
Joe Rowitsch
Customer Service
Diane Sowinski
Brenda Steelman
Heather Stephanoff
Chad Steverson
Sue Stratford
Petra Thull-Webster
Valorie Toth
Nancy Twynham
Carole Vandersteeg
Bob Ward

Windermere Prescott Valley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Northern Arizona
8088 E. State Highway 69
Prescott Valley, AZ 86314

Phone: (928) 759-2299
Fax: (928) 541-4109
Email: PV@WindermereNAZ.com
Website: www.PrescottValleyRealEstate.com

Lori-Beth Anglin
John Black
Jim Budd
Connie Decker
Kathleen McKinnon
Barbara Owen
Warner Owen
Dave Paulin
Chuck Ray
Craig Tissot
Nancy Twynham

Windermere Scottsdale
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Northern Arizona
17470 North Pacesetter Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85255

Phone: 480-403-1803
Fax: 928-541-4372
Email: Evelyn@EvelynAZ.com
Website: www.evelynaz.com

Internet Coordinator
Evelyn Logosso

Windermere Offices in California

Windermere Brentwood

Office Address:
Windermere Ellsworth & Associates
8290 Brentwood Blvd.
Brentwood, CA 94513

Phone: (925)513-2605
Fax: (925)516-3254
Email: brentwood@windermere.com
Website: EllsworthAssociates.myWindermere.com

Angelique Booth
Bryce Ellsworth
Vanessa Gutierrez
Denise Powell

Windermere Clayton
Office Address:
Windermere Lynne French & Associates
6200 Center Street, Suite E
Clayton, CA 94517

Phone: (925) 673-2188
Fax: (925) 672-3232
Email: clayton@windermere.com
Website: www.clayton.windermere.com

Angelique Booth
Pam Chase
Admin Clayton
Nancy D'Onofrio
Michael Davis
Julie Dunn
Roxanne Fernandez
Lynne French
Michelle Gittleman
Heather Gray
Shelly Gwynn
Stacy Hengemihle
Bonnie Manolas
Kelly McDougall
Walter Merlino
John Silvester
Carol Van Vaerenbergh
Inge Yarborough

Windermere Del Mar
Office Address:
Windermere Homes & Estates
1201 Camino Del Mar, Suite 215
Del Mar, CA 92014

Phone: (858) 755-4862
Email: heathermarie@windermere.com

Maxine Allen
John Buteyn CalBRE#00991126
Jeffrey Cole CalBRE#01389839
Melody Davies CalBRE 01327075
Janet Douglas
Ani Douzdjian CalBRE#01405875
Debra Fine CalBRE#01271657
Debra Fisher
Dee Marie Fisher CalBRE#01232612
Wendy Forrester DRE#01848770
Ian Fowler Cal BRE 01951302
Hedy Goldman CalBRE#01308147
Ana Gramling CalBRE#01727389
Rhonda Hebert CalBRE#01372413
Melissa Hughes CalBRE#01860224
Gail Hund Bre# 01380182
Diane Kephart
Jennifer Locke CalBRE#00642855
Elizabeth Lovenberg CalBRE#01880861
Yvonne McElfresh CalBRE#01377048
Janet McMahon CalBRE#01513670
Heather Vuytowecz
Lisa Walton CalBRE#01510719
Jean Wilson DRE# 01241188
Mike Yazdani DRE# 01167186
Sean Zanganeh DRE# 01851910
Mike Morris CalBRE#01437772
Janie Munce
Glennis Dawson Pleysier CalBRE#01790812
Kim Puttkamer CalBre# 00988668
Cheri Rice
Kelly Skemp CalBRE#00844754
Lisa Thompson CALBRE#01899378
Paul Tibbetts CalBRE#1739187
Rochelle Vandermerwe CALBRE:01941632
Heidi Ventura
Bopi Villarino CalBRE#01301047

Windermere El Sobrante
Office Address:
Windermere Rowland Realty
3575 San Pablo Dam Road
El Sobrante, CA 94803

Phone: (510) 222-9150
Fax: (510) 222-9165
Email: elsobrante@windermere.com
Website: www.windermererowlandrealty.com

Bonnie Andrews, BRE #01085442
Victor Campbell, BRE #01749077
Manuel Cantiga Jr.,BRE # 01347319
Mario Castro, BRE #01251414
Luis Cintron, BRE# 01825763
Diane Cockrell, BRE #01363762
Dione Coleman, BRE #01786494
Linette Coles-Spaccavento BRE# 01911381
Areta Crivelari De Brito, BRE #01439288
Amy Davis, BRE #01310577
Tammie Decker, BRE#01710300
Veronica Fernandez, BRE #01432121
Gladys Gonzalez, Bre#01469271
Eric Herbert, BRE #01793470
Adrinda Johnson
Melanie Johnson, BRE #01745156
Ronald Kraemer, BRE# 01904797
Laura Michieli, BRE #01109244
Windermere
Rita Nozzolillo, BRE #01786025
Joseph Pineda, BRE #01367045
James Quintero
Sharon Quintero, BRE# 00962864
Sharon Quintero, BRE #00962864
Renee Rowland
Windermere Rowland Realty, BRE #01520592
Mike Rowland, BRE #01331280
Thone Soungpanya, BRE#01704916
Aki Taguchi, BRE# 01180974
Barbara Taylor, BRE#01944446
Rental Team
The Bishop Team BRE# 01274427
Ron Thomas, BRE #01723814
Scott Tuffnell, BRE# 01957627
John Vanni, BRE# 01021521
Ylana Velozo D'Oliveira BRE# 01460163
Sharon Werbe, BRE # 00684573
Maria Werbel, BRE #01305629

Windermere Fallbrook
Office Address:
Windermere Homes & Estates
1593 South Mission Road, Suite B
Fallbrook, CA 92028

Office: (760) 230-8401
Email: heathermarie@windermere.com

Kim Carlson CalBRE 00968586
CeII/Direct:(760) 230-8268
Email: kimsold@aol.com

Office Coordinator
CeII/Direct:(760) 230-8401
Email: heathermarie@windermere.com

Roselyn Desander
CeII/Direct:(760) 330-1078
Email: rdesander@gmail.com

Ken Follis CalBRE 00799622
CeII/Direct:(760) 230-8258
Email: kenfollisrealtor@gmail.com

Bonnie Haines
CeII/Direct:(760) 445-5200
Email: bonniehaines4realestate@gmail.com

Lisa Higbee
CeII/Direct:(951) 225-5009
Email: lisahigbeerealtor@gmail.com
Website:lisahigbeerealtor.com

Donna Moore CalBRE 00458389
CeII/Direct:(760) 807-5144
Email: donnam71@cox.net

Rebecca Reilly CalBRE 01827033
CeII/Direct:(760) 458-5211
Email: reilly-news1@gmail.com
Website:www.SDCounty-ReaIEstate.com

Windermere Granite Bay
Office Address:
Windermere Granite Bay Realtors
9257 Sierra College Blvd, Suite A
Granite Bay, CA 95746

Phone: (916) 797-0707
Fax: (916) 751-2194
Email: granitebay@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeregranitebayrealtors.com

Zac Bacon Cal BRE# 01385370
Tricia Browning Cal BRE# 01506000
Brian Burke Cal BRE# 01745686
Kari Jo Clark Cal BRE#01142429
Robyn Copper Cal BRE#00902980
Sue Crowder Cal BRE# 00986228
Gloria Doze Cal BRE #00818321
Susan Fernandez Cal BRE# 01855151
Kay Flajole Cal BRE# 01323265
Korbi Gomes Cal BRE# 01218893
Briana Gomes Cal BRE# 01917466
Windermere Granite Bay Realtors
Gail Hargis Cal BRE #01211488
Jodi Les Cal BRE# 01923198
Mickey Maxey Cal BRE #01787362
Trudy Monaco Cal BRE #01700005
Chris Munkdale Cal BRE #01912971
Shannon Perry-Smith Cal BRE# 01469360
Tad Thompson Cal BRE# 01034942

Windermere Morgan Hill
Office Address:
Windermere Valley Properties
1295 E. Dunne Avenue, Suite 220
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

Phone: 800-553-2131
Fax: (866) 490-5389
Email: chuckvargas@windermere.com
Website: www.WinVP.com

Mary Alvarez
Nathan Benich
Office Coordinator
Joshua Cousins
David Dolfin
Sherry Dolfin
Ruth Garcia
Jody Guerriero
Nancy Jabr
Debbie Kline
Sherry Li
Chase Locsin
Edward Lujan
Rob Malech
Katherine McBride
Kristen Mull
Ryan & Kristen Mull
Tina Salos
Jackie Sanchez
Chuck Vargas
Jeni Vargas
Richard Vargas
Eleanor Villarreal
Camille Zuniga

Windermere Napa
Office Address:
Windermere Napa Valley Properties
1040 Third Street
Napa, CA 94559

Phone: (707) 226-1823
Fax: (707) 226-2568
Email: napa@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerenapavalley.com

Nathaniel Bethard
Travis Cloud
Mark Lesti BRE#01784430
Christine Lesti BRE#01854423
Breanna Lesti BRE#01855196
Brendan Lesti BRE#01855197
Christine S Marek BRE#01730063
Carl Mianecke BRE#00492411
Windermere Napa Valley
John Prince BRE#00767534
Gary Prince BRE#01735857
Allen Ray BRE#01856779
Dave Samson BRE#01915989
Robert Souza BRE#01439572
Robert Wallin BRE#01492251

Windermere Pleasanton- Hacienda
Office Address:
Windermere Select Properties
4637 Chabot Drive #108
Pleasanton, CA 94588

Phone: (925) 551-3040
Fax: (925) 551-3133
Email: pleasanton1@windermere.com

Jeri Lou Anderson BRE # 01518103
Vahid Anvari, BRE # 01949700
Jason Bellini BRE #01919959
Gina Bentley BRE#01811370
Vickie Coker BRE#01085216
Kristina Demarest BRE # 01490403
John DeMarinis BRE# 01378667
Linda FabucciBRE#01242444
Li-Chuan HsuehBRE#01710604
Belia MartinezBRE#01705381
Nahid Monahelis BRE#01278165
Ignatio Monahelis BRE#01413644
Jasmine Monahelis BRE#01915598
Mary Ellen & Greg Nieto Team BRE#01773789 & 00670330
Warren Oberholser BRE#01861944
Windermere Pleasanton Office
Kathy Wang BRE # 01143455
Wayne Wright BRE#00962806

Windermere Rancho Bernardo 
Office Address:
Windermere Homes & Estates
16783 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite D-1
San Diego, CA 92128 

Phone: (858) 487-5110 
Email: alanahardy@windermere.com
Website: www.WHESD.com

Rich Johnson CaIBRE# 01050097, Owner.Broker
CeII/Direct:(858) 412-7870
Email: richjohnson@windermere.com

Art Abbett CaIBRE# 01144987
CeII/Direct:(619) 977-6810
Email: artabbett@gmail.com
Website :www.artabbett.com

Kris Akagi CaIBRE# 01378223
CeII/Direct:(760) 855-5281
Email: tkakagi@aol.com

Ren Bartlett CaIBRE# 01965634
CeII/Direct:(858) 248-7152
Email: ren@rensrealestate.com
Website:rensrealestate.com

Chad Basinger CaIBRE# 01817600
CeII/Direct:(858) 997-3704
Email: chad@chadbasinger.com
Website:www.ChadBasinger.mywindermere.com

Dolores Beddow CalBRE # 01407924
CeII/Direct:(858) 449-9644
Email: doloresb@san.rr.com
Website:www.YourSDteam.com

Nelly Bulkin CaIBRE# 01931424
CeII/Direct:(760) 613-6645
Email: nellybulkin@gmail.com

Jennifer Burroughs CaIBRE# 01400503
CeII/Direct:(858) 229-2965
Email: jennifer@jenniferteti.com

Nancy Canfield CaIBRE# 01386677
CeII/Direct:(619) 871-9333
Email: ncanf@san.rr.com

Judy Chung CaIBRE# 01304926
CeII/Direct:(858) 863-3445
Email: agentjudychung@gmail.com

Nancy Cook CaIBRE# 01243849
CeII/Direct:(858) 472-4744
Email: nancycook@windermere.com
Website :www.NancyCook.mywindermere.com

Office Coordinator CeII/Direct:(858) 487-5110
Email: alanahardy@windermere.com

Cynnthia Elizondo CaIBRE# 01924853
CeII/Direct:(858) 353-1638

Arleen Gimbel CaIBRE# 00465842
CeII/Direct:(619) 507-5432
Email: arleengimbel@gmail.com
Website:www.arleengimbel.coml

Kathleen Glen CaIBRE# 01731988
CeII/Direct:(858) 212-8711
Email: kathleenglen@sbcglobal.net

Michael Gusky Ca1BRE#00553055
CeII/Direct:(858) 722-4094
Email: mikegusky.gusky@gmail.com

Patti Hall CaIBRE#01487122
CeII/Direct:(858) 414-3950
Email: phallhomes@gmail.com
Website: www.pattihallhomes.com

Fred Hamblin CaIBRE# 01773830
CeII/Direct:(858) 617-9237
Email: broker@sandihome.com

Nellie Hanlon CaIBRE# 01065678
CeII/Direct:(858) 472-5421
Email: nhanlon@san.rr.com
Website:NHanlon.myWindermere.com

Alana Hardy CaIBRE# 01935781
CeII/Direct:(760) 419-2508
Email: alanahardy@windermere.com

Lisa Herndon CaIBRE# 01886777
CeII/Direct: (760) 579-1183
Email: lisa@sandiegogreathomes.com

Janelle Hotz CaIBRE# 01936548
CeII/Direct: (714) 904-8709
Email: jagruneisen@gmail.com

AI Iniguez CalBRE # 01460382
CeII/Direct: (858) 414-6500
Email: aliniguez@gmail.com

Sue Johnson CaIBRE# 01394323
CeII/Direct:(760) 801-0414
Email: sjg2020@gmail.com
Website :www.HotOnSanDiego.com/

Thomas Kaa CaIBRE# 01443700
CeII/Direct:(619) 742-3440
Email: Tom@TomKaa.com
Website:TomKaa.mywindermere.com

Reyna Kat-Woods CaIBRE# 01948089
CeII/Direct:(858) 231-0175
Email: rkatwoods11@gmail.com
Website:www.reynakatwoods.withwre.com

Amy Kitchens CaIBRE# 0187349
CeII/Direct:(619) 507-2271
Email: amykitchens.realestate@gmail.com
Website:amykitchens.com

Wolfgang Kranzle CaIBRE# 01077374
CeII/Direct:(760) 737-9800
Email: wkranzle@gmail.com
Website :www.ListingsSanDiegoCounty.com

Jeannine LaChance CaIBRE# 01522123
CeII/Direct:(858) 442-3179
Email: lachance.jeannine@gmail.com

Linda Lambson CaIBRE# 00640375
CeII/Direct:(858) 472-4175
Email: lalambson@sbcglobal.net
Website:www.lindalambsonrealestate.com

Nancy Layne CaIBRE# 00989186
CeII/Direct:(858) 361-8713
Email: nancylayne59@gmail.com

Anne Levig CaIBRE# 00679235
CeII/Direct:(760) 518-8875
Email: annelevig@aol.com

Bernie Linden CaIBRE# 01358914
CeII/Direct:(858) 663-7444
Email: bernie.linden@gmail.com
Website:bernielinden.com

Lee Liptak CaIBRE# 01390408 CeII/Direct:
(619) 889-5298
Email: lee@leeliptak.com

Lydia Liu, CRS CaIBRE# 01042201
CeII/Direct:(858) 361-7685
Email: Lydiahliu@gmail.com
Website :www.lydialiu.com

Nicole Madison CaIBRE# 01872088
CeII/Direct:(760) 484-4094
Email: madison-realty@att.net

Jamie Melim CaIBRE# 0136960
CeII/Direct:(858) 354-4906
Email: jamiemail@aol.com

Bree Mercer James CaIBRE#01448170
CeII/Direct:(619) 517-0021
Email: breemercer@windermeresocal.com

Patty Moore-Davidson CaIBRE# 00757852
CeII/Direct:(858) 613-9484
Email: pattymd99@gmail.com
Website :pattymd .com

Janice Olen CaIBRE# 01332239
CeII/Direct:(760) 715-4748
Email: janiceolen@yahoo.com

John Olenik CaIBRE# 00663692
CeII/Direct:(858) 204-5687
Email: John@johnolenik.com
Website:JohnOlenik.mywindermere.com

Diane Olsen CaIBRE# 01265194
CeII/Direct:(760) 840-0282
Email: dianeolsenhomes@gmail.com

Fatema Omar CaIBRE# 01380753
CeII/Direct:(858) 733-0785
Email: fatema.dvsg@gmail.com

Diane Orvis DRE# 00842798
CeII/Direct:(858) 395-3426
Email: diane@orvisandorvis.com
Website :www.orvisandorvis.com

Megan Orvis Morris DRE# 01268323
CeII/Direct:(858) 442-5631
Email: megan@orvisandorvis.com
Website :www.orvisandorvis.com

Karen Pado CaIBRE# 01307393
CeII/Direct:(858) 967-5784
Email: karenpado@gmail.com

Karen Peterson CaIBRE# 00943025
CeII/Direct:(858) 361-5771
Email: karen@karenfpeterson.com

Tammy Potter CaIBRE# 01945379
CeII/Direct:(858) 213-1963
Email: tammypotter14@gmail.com

Candace Poucher CaIBRE# 01380185
CeII/Direct:(858) 688-3562
Email: candacepoucher@gmail.com
Website:candacepoucher.withwre.com

Tony Ramos CaIBRE# 01903884
CeII/Direct:(858) 776-6629
Email: tony.ramos92128@gmail.com

Iva Rice CaIBRE# 00462733
CeII/Direct:(925) 768-0041
Email: ivarice@roadrunner.com

Sheila Rotunno CaIBRE# 01870284
CeII/Direct:(858) 943-1080
Email: sheilarotunno@gmail.com

Becky Rubino CaIBRE# 01953021

CeII/Direct:(619) 991-3456
Email: becky@rubino.us

Kalinka Rutberg CaIBRE# 01849679
CeII/Direct:(619) 972-9274
Email: kalinka.rutberg@gmail.com
Website :www.kalinkarutberg.com

Julie Seebruch CaIBRE# 01880400
CeII/Direct:(858) 354-6199
Email: juliesellsre@gmail.com
Website:www.BuyAHouseMakeAHome.com

J.R. Shippey CaIBRE# 00871647
CeII/Direct:(858) 361-6072
Email: jrshippey@gmail.com

Kay Sorenson CaIBRE# 00920002
CeII/Direct:(858) 735-2355
Email: ksorenson7@aol.com

Todd Stoltenberg CaIBRE# 01335448
CeII/Direct:(858) 603-1177
Email: toddstoltenberg@hotmail.com
Website :toddstoltenberg.withwre.com

Barbara Stuart CaIBRE# 00876985
CeII/Direct:(858) 204-5700
Email: barbarastuart@cox.net
Website:www.barbarastuart.net

Jeanne Taylor CaIBRE# 00626679
CeII/Direct:(858) 395-6280
Email: jeannetaylor1@hotmail.com
Website :www.taylorpropertiessandiego.com/

Rick Taylor CaIBRE# 01037794
CeII/Direct:(858) 353-2541
Email: ricktaylor@hotmail.com
Website :www.taylorpropertiessandiego.com/

Susan Taylor CaIBRE# 01272945
CeII/Direct:(858) 775-1232
Email: susantaylorst@hotmail.com

Diane Teti CaIBRE# 00937030
CeII/Direct:(858) 449-8384
Email: diane@dianeteti.com
Website:DianeTeti.mywindermere.com

Catherine Thoreson CaIBRE# 01126564
CeII/Direct:(858) 592-9757
Email: mail@catherinethoreson.com
Website:www.catherinethoreson.com

Greg Timms CaIBRE# 00417175
CeII/Direct:(858) 774-3049
Email: gtimms1@gmail.com
Website:www.gregtimmsrealestate.com

Susi Vickery CaIBRE# 01710511
CeII/Direct:(619) 922-2801
Email: susivickery@msn.com
Website:SusiVickery.mywindermere.com

Mary Wagner CaIBRE# 01956284
CeII/Direct:(858) 735-1483
Email: mcrwagner76@gmail.com
Website:Maryrwagner.realtor.com

Fred Westfall CaIBRE# 01258211
CeII/Direct:(858) 212-1964
Email: fredwestfallx2@gmail.com

Windermere Redding
Office Address:
Windermere NorCal Properties
2415 Larkspur Lane, Suite A
Redding, CA 96002

Phone: (530) 224-2270
Fax: (530) 224-2378
Email: WayneMartin@Windermere.com
Website: www.norcalproperties.com

Jerry Boren
Gayle Boren, Marketing & Advertising Specialist
Wayne Martin Broker/Manager/Owner
Kori Cadorin
Chris Johnson
Laurie Johnson
Fredericka (Freddie) Martin
Wayne Martin
Sarah Matthews
Jeanette McGarva
Sue Morehouse
Redding Office
Leigh Ann Phillips
Rick J. Phillips
Luxe REGroup
Katie Robison
James Stauffer
Denise Towe
Cathy Weil, Marketing Coordinator
Dave Wilson
Cindy D Young

Windermere Riverside
Office Address:
Windermere Tower Properties
7197 Brockton Avenue Suite 6
Riverside, CA 92506

Phone: (951) 369-8002
Fax: (951) 369-8059
Email: lauren@windermeretower.com
Website: www.windermeretower.com

Ashley Adkins
Office Admin
Sarah Ayala
Tracey Ayala
Barbara Barajas
Jason Beatty
Lisa Buchanan
Heidi Carter
Crystal Coleman
Lisa De Armas
Shirley DeHart
Mark Finnigan
Freya Foley
Jennifer Gamble
Shannon Gill
Fred Gordon
Sharene Greer
Kathleen Hartman
Colleen Hinrichs
Lisa Jenkins
Ted Jenkins
Marni Jimenez
Raul Jimenez
Chandler Kapoor
Lynn Lamberson
Brent Lee
Collette Lee
Lauren Lee
Peter Lewis
Tristan Loop
Alex Martinez
James Monks
Leah Monks
Cyndi Noe
Michael Nugent
Philip Parker
Debbie Phelps
Bonnie Pregent
Araceli Reyes
Dan Sewell
Vern Sewell
Debra Singleton
Cheryl Smith
Karen Solomon
Theo Solomon
Jason Sparks
David Stapleton
George Tavaglione
Patti Triplett
Miles Turner
Cindy Valdez
Karla Valdez
Joe Vandervort
Eugene Wells
Peter Wilson

Windermere Salinas
Office Address:
Windermere Valley Properties
1191 A North Main Street
Salinas, CA 93906

Phone: (800) 553-2131
Fax: (866) 490-5389
Email: chuckvargas@windermere.com

Adrienne Amader
Genaro Anaya
Maria Barrera
Office Coordinator
Carlos Dominguez
Marie Evans
Ben Gacayan
Gloria Grisales
Ana Gutierrez
Marta O'Mary
Rafael Ramos
Sonia Sandoval
Manuel Servin Jr.
Norma May Silva
Chuck Vargas
Clair Wright

Windermere Santaluz
Office Address:
Windermere Homes & Estates
14677 Via Bettona
San Diego, CA 92127

Phone: (858) 386.4802
Email: santaluz@windermere.com
Website: http://www.WHESD.com/

Sepi Abedian CalBre# 01469428
Sara Bakehorn CALBRE #01179029
Jeff Bales CalBRE#01921716
Chad Basinger CalBRE#01817600
Michael Beauregard
Daniel Beer CalBRE #01504952
Ramona Broekma
Brian Danney CalBRE#01834669
Austin Fisher CalBRE#01914646
Kathy Foley
Janie Forge CalBRE# 01276383
Gerald M. Golden
Jerry A. Golden
Blair Golden CalBRE#01928353
Cassandra Groesch CalBRE#01943500
Dave Henderson CalBRE# 00912503
Windermere Homes & Estates
Deanna Johnson
Nasim Johnson
Matt Kolker CalBRE #01422911
Michelle Kolker CalBRE #01955415
Steve Leggitt CalBRE#00968198
Rhonda Leggitt CalBRE#01342717
Natalie Nguyen CalBRE#01922369
Donna Niksich CalBRE#01207503
Molly Olen CalBRE#01906074
Alan Pagnotta CalBRE# 00635270
Gretchen Pagnotta CalBRE# 00633791
Fred Schuster CalBRE#01432302
Tony Sciarrino CalBRE:01941806
Lori Shannon CalBRE#01413691
Courtney Sloan
Beverly Stuart
Melissa Synnott
Sarah Theroff
Stacy Thorne
James Webb

Windermere Santa Rosa
Office Address:
Windermere Wine Country
2544 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 110
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Phone: (707) 623-1743
Fax: (707) 891-3050
Email: santa.rosa@windermere.com

Office Coordinator
Melinda Scalese
William Severi

Windermere South Carlsbad-Aviara
Office Address:
Windermere Homes & Estates
6965 EI Camino Real, Suite 0-107
Carlsbad, CA 92009

Office: (760) 683-8626
Email: briangooding@windermere.com
Website: www.WHESO.com

Brian Gooding CaIBRE# 00917944
Cell/Direct:(760) 585-8868
Email: briangooding@windermere.com
Website:bgooding.my-windermere.com

KyIe Albi CalBRE#01907372
Cell/Direct:(760) 685-3008
Email: kmalbi@hotmail.com

Jackie Bendix CalBRE 01257073
Cell/Direct:(760) 214-3898
Email: jabendix@aol.com

Lana Bostrom CaIBRE#01292768
CeLL/Direct:(760) 803-7704
Email: lanabostrom@gmail.com

Kara Brem CalBRE#01939667
Cell/Direct:(831) 818-3050
Email: kara@bremp-rop-erties.com
Website:www.bremp-rop-erties.com

Steve Cardinalli CalBRE#01323509
Cell/Direct:(760) 814-0248
Email: steve@cardinallirealestate.com

Anamaria Contis-Steers CalBRE#01451012
Cell/Direct:(916) 541-6140
Email: acontis-steers@gmail.com
Website:www.besthomeforsalesandiego.coml

Office Coordinator
Cell/Direct:(858) 386-4802
Email: fschuster@windermere.com

Teresa Darrow CalBRE#01184022
Cell/Direct:(760) 685-2266
Email: teresa.darrow@gmail.com

Gini De Armas CalBRE#00879140
Cell/Direct:(760) 207-5017
Email: ginidearmas@y-ahoo.com

Jeff DeChamplain CaBRE 01342224
Cell/Direct:(858) 883-3324
Email: jeff@jeffdhomes.com

Christopher DeMartino CalBRE#01401 093
Cell/Direct:(760) 522-0016
Email: chris@demartinohomes.com

Danette Dils CaIBRE# 00923136
Cell/Direct:(760) 390-3890
Email: danettedils@gmail.com

Eileen Drutman CalBRE # 00849783
Cell/Direct:(760) 845-5001
Email: eileen@eileendrutman.com
Website:coastalhomeconnection.com

Michelle Drutman CalBRE # 01714508
Cell/Direct:(858) 926-6545
Email: beachhomespecialist@gmail.com

Myrna Evans CalBRE#01220289
CeLL/Direct:(858) 472-1051
Email: Myrna@MyrnaEvans.com
Website :www.My-rnaEvans.com

Jennifer Frechette CalBRE#01271496
Cell/Direct:(760) 224-6438
Email: jenfrechette@gmail.com

Theresa Frith CaIBRE# 01338571
Cell/Direct:(760) 822-4668
Email: theresafrith@gmail.com
Website:theresafrith.withwre.com

Eliot Geeting CaIBRE#01743915
Cell/Direct:(760) 985-0003
Email: mail@geetingteam.com
Website :www.GeetingTeam.com

Judy Goldberg CaIBRE#01826333
Cell/Direct:(760) 274-5910
Email: judygoldberg15@gmail.com
Website:www.JudyGoldberg.com

Shiann Haydon CalBRE 01767307
Cell/Direct:(760) 214-3751
Email: shiann@shiannhaydon.com
Website:www.shiannhay-donwithwre.com

Brooke Hendricks CalBRE 01402033
Cell/Direct:(858) 342-5458
Email: brooke@brookehendricks.com
Website:brookehendricks.com

Lauren Hill CalBRE 01823125
Cell/Direct:(760) 641-4622
Email: lauren@laurenandtonyhill.com
Website:LaurenandTonyHill.com

Tony Hill
CalBRE # 01897848
Cell/Direct:(760) 774-8669
Email: tony@Iaurenandtony-hill.com
Website:www.LaurenandTonyHill.com

Diane Hogencamp- CalBRE 01064053
Cell/Direct:(760) 505-6709
Email: dianehogencamp@hotmail.com

Thad Hutton CaIBRE#01903259
Cell/Direct:(760) 212-2241
Email: thadhutton@gmail.com

Randy Johnson CaIBRE#01506620
Cell/Direct:(760) 533-7791
Email: randy@randyjproperties.com
Website :www.randyjohnsonproperties.com

Karen Johnston CaIBRE#01878961
Cell/Direct:(760) 579-3064
Email: karen@johnstonfineproperties.com
Website:www.johnstonfinep-rop-erties.com

Alexa Kingaard Ca1BRE#01360932
Cell/Direct:(760) 224-3857
Email: alexaforreal@gmail.com

Debora Klein
Cell/Direct:(760) 803-6796
Email: deboraannklein@gmail.com

Christine Kueneke CaIBRE#01809365
Cell/Direct:(760) 613-1626
Email: christinekuenke@gmail.com
Website:www.christinekueneke.com

Madeleine Lavelle
Cell/Direct:(760) 805-7663
Email: madeleine@northcountyhomesource.com

Jeanne Lopez CalBRE# 00841646
Cell/Direct:(858) 405-7496
Email: jlop-ezrealty-p-ro@y-ahoo.com
Website :www.jeannelopez.mywindermere.com

Patti Manley Ca1BRE#01909813
Cell/Direct:(858) 735-2596
Email: patti@sanelijoassociates.com
Website:www.pattimanley.com

Michele Massion CalBRE# 01042507
Cell/Direct:(760) 455-8527
Email: REALTORMICHELE@GMAIL.COM
Website:michelemassion.com

Steve Matsumoto CalBRE 01722560
Cell/Direct:(760) 828-8151
Email: steve@sdhomewire.com

Diana Matteson CalBRE 01400363
Cell/Direct:(949) 294-9129
Email: venezianna@me.com

Karen J. May CaIBRE#01279030
Cell/Direct:(760) 685-0785
Email: Karen@KarenMay.com
Website :www.karenmay.com

Monica McCormick CaIBRE#00957652
Cell/Direct:(760) 583-2528
Email: monicamc21@cox.net

Sherry McKenzie CaIBRE#01911646
Cell/Direct:(760) 402-6307
Email: sherry.mckenzie@hotmail.com
Website:sherrymckenzie.com

Stan McNiel CalBRE 00623897
Cell/Direct:(760) 224-2292
Email: stanmcniel@gmail.com

Carol Mohan CalBRE #01447347
Cell/Direct:(858) 945-6165
Email: carol@carolmohan.com
Website:www.carolmohan.com

Sherry Moore Ca1BRE#01909925
Cell/Direct:(760) 799-7701
Email: sherrymoore760@gmail.com
Website:www.SherryMooreReaIEstate.com

Mike Mullen CalBRE 01309775
Cell/Direct:(760) 908-6571
Email: mikemullenhomes@gmail.com
Website:mikemullenhomes.com

Pam O'Donnell CalBRE # 01774230
Cell/Direct:(760) 420-3990
Email: pamod4re@gmail.com
Website:www.pamodproperties.com

Jennifer Olayvar Ca1BRE#01857807
Cell/Direct:(760) 583-4778
Email: jennolayvar@gmail.com
Website:JenniferSellsSanDiego.com

Alison Peterson CaIBRE#01872325
Cell/Direct:(760) 889-7934
Email: alisonpeterson@me.com
Website:PetersonFineProperties.coml

Karen Rewoldt CaIBRE# 01150327
Cell/Direct:(760) 519-1857
Email: krewoldt@yahoo.com
Website:www.karenshomes.com

Cheri Rice
Cell/Direct:(760) 683-8626
Email: cheririce@windermere.com

Karen Ritz CaIBRE# 01016475
Cell/Direct:(760) 415-8908
Email: karen@karenritz.com
Website:www.karenritz.com

Gabriele Rogers CalBRE# 00607748
Cell/Direct:(760) 809-9634
Email: rogersgabriele1445@yahoo.com
Website:www.buy-sellwithgabriele.com

Nancy Ruggles CalBRE 01366041
Cell/Direct:(619) 788-6388
Email: nancyaruggles@gmail.com

Craig Schniepp CalBRE 01732867
Cell/Direct:(760) 889-3929
Email: realtorcraig008@gmaiLcom
Website :www.realtorcraig.withwre.com

Susan Schweiker CaIBRE#01327989
Cell/Direct:(760) 672-5034
Email: susanstherealtor@gmaiLcom

Kevin Sharrar CalBRE 01170694
Cell/Direct:(760) 274-4710
Email: kevin@sharrarbuildscommunity.com

Tracy Sharrar CalBRE 01335495
Cell/Direct:(760) 274-5228
Email: tracy@sharrarbuildscommunity.com

Patti Shively CaIBRE#00831317
Cell/Direct:(760) 707-9856
Email: pattishively@sbcglobaLnet

Jim Shively CaIBRE#00832030
Cell/Direct:(949) 683-4379
Email: jwshively@earthlink.net

Kari Sisson CalBRE # 01876499
Cell/Direct:(619) 218-9800
Email: karisisson1@gmail.com

Klara Straus-Henkels CaIBRE# 01182127
Cell/Direct:(760) 207-7001
Email: homesbyklara@gmaiLcom
Website:WWW.HOMESBYKLARA.COM

Paul Tornillo CaIBRE#01 050795
Cell/Direct:(760) 484-4603
Email: ptornnillo@cox.net

Jennifer Trafficanda CaIBRE#01336778
Cell/Direct:(760) 822-4667
Email:jen@jentrafficanda.com
Website:www.jentrafficanda.com

Chad Voisen CalBRE 01448053 Ce
Cell/Direct:(760) 420-1576
Email: cvoisen@gmaiLcom
Website:chadsellssandiego.com

Terry Voisen CalBRE 01725162
Cell/Direct:(858) 945-4711
Email: terryvoisen@gmaiLcom

Steve West CalBRE 0142253
Cell/Direct:(760) 219-6362
Email: swest.eg@gmaiLcom

Donna Wettstein CaIBRE# 01380900
Cell/Direct:(619) 884-1884
Email: donnawettstein@yahoo.com
Website:donnawettstein.withwre.com

Jody Wilkins CalBRE 01945046
Cell/Direct:(760) 271-7230
Email: jodywilkinsrealestate@gmaiLcom

Eric Woods CaIBRE# 01344075
Cell/Direct:(760) 415-2108
Email: ericp-woods@mac.com
Website:ericwoods.mywindermere.com

Windermere Vacaville
Office Address:
Windermere Hulsey & Associates
490 Merchant Street, Suite 101
Vacaville, CA 95688

Phone: (707) 448-0700
Fax: (888) 381-0701
Email: vacaville@windermere.com

Bonnie Almarez
Jennifer Blandford
Erin Brethour
Denise Carreon
Office Coordinator
Deanna Deckard
Melanie Dye
Kathleen Fannan
Lynn Farris
Royce Farris
Christine Fight
Jenna Hulsey
Michael Hulsey
Charlotte Lloyd
Octavio Maravilla
Fidel Moralez
Josh Murphy
Windermere
April Nolte
Sally Ohlhausen
Maria Paz
Cindi Robbins
Bebe Sorenson
Ronald Tolentino
Everardo Valadez
Angel Velasquez

Windermere Walnut Creek
Office Address:
Windermere Bay Area Properties
1981 N. Broadway, Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Phone: (925) 256-1600
Fax: (925) 256-3100
Email: walnutcreek@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewalnutcreek.com

Christopher Curtis
S Curtis
Steve Curtis
Donna DeSino
Peter Fletcher
Trish Moore

Windermere Walnut Creek- Diablo Realty
Office Address:
Windermere Diablo Realty
975 Ygnacio Valley Rd.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

Phone: (925) 933-9300
Fax: (925) 935-2873
Email: Diablo@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereDiabloRealty.com

Sharon Adams Mobley
Linda J. Anderson
Linda Anderson Team
Linda Baehr
Rommel Bagay
Sherri Bouslog
Tamara Boutte
Bob Byers
Dorothy Cain
Patrick Campbell
Sharon Dearing
Windermere Diablo
Liz Drozda
Shantelle Durbin
Sheila Eggers
Julene Evans
Patty Flannery
George Gross
Sandy Gross
Glenn Guillory
JoAnn Pineda Guillory
Diane Ham
Leila Hamalainen
Mike Hotaling
Jeremy Kemper
Lupe Kemper
Eric Kinder
John Kula
Kate LeVine
Mona Logasa
Angela Martinez
Brian McCarthy
Sybil Renee McGowan
Charla Miller
Pamela Hale Mitchell
Jason Moon
Sandi Muccino
David J. Nardi
Judy M. Olvera
Columba Perez
Rhonda Povlak
Luis Ramirez-Agudelo
Daniel Ripper
Lou Ritthaler
Mike Rowland
Mike Rowland
Steve Setzer
Bette Silva
Sue Sullivan
Diana van Rooyen
Janice Wells

Windermere Windsor
Office Address:
Windermere Wine Country
9071 Windsor Road
Windsor, CA 95492

Phone: (707) 623-1743
Fax: (707) 623-1751
Email: windsor@windermere.com

Office Coordinator
Catherine Deeths

Windermere Homes & Estates

14677 VIA BElTONA
STE 120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127

1201 CAMINO DEL MAR
STE 215
DEL MAR, CA 92014

16777 BERNARDO CENTER DR
STE E-3
SAN DIEGO, CA 92128

9988 HIBERT ST
STE 150
SAN DIEGO, CA 92131

7825 FAY AVE
STE 190
LA JOLLA, CA 92037

746 S MAIN AVE
STE A
FALLBROOK, CA 92028

16777 BERNARDO CTR DR
STE E-5
SAN DIEGO, CA 92128

16783 BERNARDO CTR DR
STE B-1
SAN DIEGO, CA 92128

6949 EL CAMINO REAL
STE C-101
CARLSBAD, CA 92009

6965 EL CAMINO REAL
STE D-107
CARLSBAD, CA 92009

01293669 – Aaris, Dawn Lisa
01469428 - Abedian, Sepi
01306504 - Accordino, Barbie Ann
01378223 - Akagi, Kristen Lynn
01357466 - Alexander, Robynne Alisa
00516448 - Allen, Maxine Louise
01823445 - Alvarez, Minerva G
01978534 - Avila, Bianca Elizabeth
01978736 - Avila, R Ann
01921716 - Bales, Jeff Allen
01965634 - Bartlett, Ren Orion
01817600 - Basinger, Chad Ryan
01909160 - Beauregard, Michael Anthony
01407924 - Beddow, Dolores Grohmann
01504952 - Beer, Daniel
01381368 - Bellamy, Duetta Ann
01257073 - Bendix, Jacqueline Ann
01893550 - Bergman, Nancy S
01504111 - Binns, Cory Wayne
01926416 - Birkle, Sean E
01292768 - Bostrom, Lana D
01960145 - Boudreault, Anthony Allen
01939667 - Brem, Kara Lee
01466811 - Breslin, Timothy Patrick
01931920 - Brickell, Douglas Charles
01931233 - Briggs, Joette L
01746391 - Broekema, Ramona Jean
01931424 - Bulkin, Nelly
00991126 - Buteyn, John Martin II
01386677 - Canfield, Nancy Ann
01323509 - Cardinalli, Steven Joseph
01463368 - Cardinalli, Treena Rose
00968586 - Carlson, Kimberly Diane
01962025 - Castro, Breanna Sheree
01374446 - Cavey, Diane M
01966160 - Chalmers, Heather Marie
01319338 - Chocano, Adelaida Isabel
01327246 - Chocano, Pablo Jose
01334705 - Chong, Elis Tang
01009490 - Cook, Nancy G
01294248 - Cooper, Mary
01355757 - Danko, Deborah Kay
01251643 - Danly-Yellich, Betty Louise
01834669 - Danney, Brian Evan
01184022 - Darrow, Teresa A
01327075 - Davies, Melody Elizabeth
01342224 - DeChamplain, Jeffrey 0
01503568 - De La Rosa, Patricia Maria
01407093 - De Martino, Christopher B
01276030 - Desander, Roselyn
01982108 - Dirks, Stephen Merle
01197168 - Ditzler, Rosemary Alexandra
00463763 - Douglas, Janet Graham
01864784 - Douheret-Denhart, Christine
00849783 - Drutman, Eileen Joan
01714508 - Drutman, Michelle
01939479 - Dvorak, Lisa Kelly
01924853 - Elizondo, Cynthia Rae
01220289 - Evans, Myrna
01271657 - Fine, Debra M
01914797 - Fine, James Bennett
01914646 - Fisher, Austin Jude McKenna
01941350 - Fisher, Debra Kay
01938362 - Fleming, Lydell Sherrad
01375424 - Foley, Kathryn Anne
00799622 - Follis, Kenneth William
01276383 - Forge, Jane Prebble
01848770 - Forrester, Wendy Lee
01951302 - Fowler, Ian Thomas-Robert
01271496 - Frechette, Jennifer Dawn
01324390 - Freestone, Lane Wilford
01158130 - Freestone, Silvana Araceli
01338571 - Frith, Theresa Jean
01360604 - Fulton, Mary Ellen
01743915 - Geeting, Eliot James
01743914 - Geeting, Tiffini Alea
00465842 - Gimbel, Arleen Silverman
01731988 - Glen, Kathleen Anne
01826333 - Goldberg, Judith
01928353 - Golden, Blair Hope
00894769 - Golden, Gerald Arno
01955364 - Golden, Gerald Michael
01308147 - Goldman, Hedy L
01727389 - Gramling, Ana Maria
00832651 - Gregory, Alice G
00553055 - Gusky, Michael Kay
01487122 - Hall, Patricia Jean
01206380 - Hallmark, Kathleen Frances
01065678 - Hanlon, Nellie J
01767307 - Haydon, Shiann Joy
01966057 - Hayes, Brianna Kathleen
01372413 - Hebert, Rhonda N
01402033 - Hendricks, Brooke Schakel
01886777 - Herndon, Lisa Brownlee
01935723 - Higbee, Lisa Suzanne
01897848 - Hill, Anthony Lynn
01823125 - Hill, Lauren Leigh
01953033 - Hitchcock, Alton Jr
01922993 - Hoey, Vickie Rose
01064053 - Hogencamp, Diane
01421725 - Holley, Julie Lynn
01946442 - Holten, Matthew Luke
01943592 - Hornsveld, Kathleen Rose
01936548 - Hotz, Janelle Anne
01503283 - Howard, Diana Monica
01803027 - Howard, Nancy Ann
01860224 - Hughes, Melissa Ann
01380182 - Hund, Gail Gallagher
01903259 - Hutton, Thaddius Trevor
01460382 - Iniguez, Al
01898008 - Johnson, Nasim
01506620 - Johnson, Randy Steven
01394323 - Johnson, Sue G
01878961 - Johnston, Karen Monique
01216909 - Jones, Jill Roberta
01965738 - Jurowski, Kathleen Ann
01443700 - Kaa, Thomas Ross
01948089 - Kat-Canto, Reyna Del Carmen
01026996 - Kephart, Diane Marie
01977421 - Kibble, James John
01360932 - Kingaard, Alexa Holmes
01873494 - Kitchens, Amy Suzanne
01958711 - Klein, Debora Ann
01422911 - Kolker, Matthew Alan
01955415 - Kolker, Michelle Cole
01095358 - La Bar, Renee Alline
01522123 - LaChance-Rueckert, Jeannine Marie
00640375 - Lambson, Linda Arlene
01413337 - Lavelle, Madeleine
01446152 - Lawler, Mary Katherine
00989186 - Layne, Nancy Richards
00853708 - Leist, Sherrill
01304622 - Leyva, Kristina Lee
01390408 - Liptak, Lee John
01042201 - Liu, Lydia H
01947779 - Lopez, Helena Antonia
00841646 - Lopez, Jeanne M
01880861 - Lovenberg, Elizabeth Englund
01420576 - Lowe, Marilee Anne
01887793 - Luna-Rosenstein, Virginia Isabel
01889910 - Luts, Hue H
01872088 - Madison, Nicole A
01948573 - Mageo, Matthew Tony
01394492 - Maggiora, Michael Bryan
01923828 - Mallory, Shannon Elaine
01909813 - Manley, Patricia Lynn
01938143 - Manly, Christina
01833091 - Manzano, Tasha
01940881 - Markowitz, Alona
01969276 - Markowitz, Amram Peretz
01975698 - Marson, Tiffany Elizabeth
01159396 - Martin, Sharon Diane
01042507 - Massion, Michele
01400363 - Matteson, Diana Lynn
01024385 - Matz, Eric Scott
01279030 - May, Karen Jean
01464477 - McAfee, Lisa Joan
01358104 - McCandless, Richard Kevin
00957652 - McCormick, Monica Louise
01377048 - McElfresh, Marilyn Yvonne
00662209 - McKay, Lance Atkins
01911646 - McKenzie, Sherry Kaye
01513670 - McMahon, Janet Lynn
01369604 - Melim, Jamie Lee
00880748 - Merson, Maureen
00962647 - Miceli, Joseph Charles
01886387 - Mihoc, Ameelia
00243871 - Miller, Jean Rosemary
01891020 - Mittelman, Ariel Jennifer
01447347 - Mohan, Carol Shevrin
01964548 - Molloy, Tamara Gia
00458389 - Moore, Donna Lee
01909925 - Moore, Sherryl A
00757852 - Moore-Davidson, Patricia Jean
01268323 - Morris, Megan Orvis
01437772 - Morris, Michael Hugh
01309775 - Mullen, Michael Edward
01905349 - Mulvihill, Debra
01259372 - Munce, Jane A
01852058 - Nguyen, Lok Loretta Lui
01922369 - Nguyen, Natalie C
01207503 - Niksich, Donna L
00825643 - Nunn, Maria Lynn
01774230 - O Donnell, Pamela
01857807 - Olayvar, Jennifer Kathleen
01332239 - Olen, Janice L
01906074 - Olen, Molly Patricia
00663692 - Olenik, John A.
00842798 - Orvis, Diane Marie
01968685 - Ostrander, Craig David Jr
00633791 - Pagnotta, Gretchen Barber
01934142 - Parakkal, Betty
01973311 - Persell, Suzanne Linda
01426089 - Peters, James Richard
01872325 - Peterson, Alison A
01945379 - Potter Marden, Tammy S
01380185 - Poucher, Candace Ann
01874946 - Poulsen, Marilyn Campbell
01871566 - Poulsen, Todd Warren
00988668 - Puttkammer, Kimberly Ann
01135298 - Quinn, Steven William
01977379 - Radford, Ryan James
01036295 - Raider, Joanne
01903884 - Ramos, Anthony Albert
01970459 - Rankin, Christine Michelle
01838796 - Raza, Shahla K
01816574 - Reeves, Margo Elizabeth
01827033 - Reilly, Rebecca Elaine
01257745 - Reisdorf, Lois Ann
01150327 - Rewoldt, Karen Lynne
01944479 - Riley, Christine Ann
01016475 - Ritz, Karen
01438030 - Robertson, Christopher Bryce
01384726 - Robinson, Sharon Lee
00906906 - Rogers, Alberta Sylvia
00607748 - Rogers, Gabriele
01968684 - Rolle, Cristina Louise
01170311 - Romero, Patricia Anne
01249177 - Rossi, Martin Vincent
01870284 - Rotunno, Sheila Rodriguez
01957467 - Routh, Krystal Rose
01953021 - Rubino, Rebecca Michelle
01366041 - Ruggles, Nancy Ann
01849679 - Rutberg, Kalinka L
01375405 - Sandberg, Sandra Pauline
01413231 - Sauer, Richard Terrence
01124089 - Schechner, Linda B
01976244 - Scheuch, Jenny
01986058 - Scheuch, Randall James
01732867 - Schniepp, Craig P
01327989 - Schweiker, Susan Joyce
01941806 - Sciarrino, Anthony
01291999 - Scott, Donna J
01797447 - Scruggs, Susan Theresa
01880400 - Seebruch, Julie Diane
01275668 - Sharma, Prashila D
01170694 - Sharrar, Kevin Anthony
01335495 - Sharrar, Tracy Dawn
01952835 - Shelton, Katia Lorena
00832030 - Shively, James William
00831317 - Shively, Patricia Jane
01876499 - Sisson, Kari
00844754 - Skemp, Kelly J
01462868 - Slayter, Heather Jo
01933648 - Smith, Catherine Ann
01843713 - Smith, Patricia Ann
01920937 - Smoot, Jason James
00920002 - Sorenson, Marsha Kay
01192720 - Stanifer, Matthew Guy
01935262 - Steers, Timothy Seldon
01335448 - Stoltenberg, Louis Todd
01415305 - Stoney, Cynthia Lee
01182127 - Straus-Henkels, Klara
01700710 - Stuart, Ashley Marie
00876985 - Stuart, Barbara Thomas
01888710 - Sullivan, John
01374769 - Tate, Beverly Alina
01350447 - Taylor, Jason Allen
00626679 - Taylor, Jeanne Anne
01272945 - Taylor, Susan Lee
00937030 - Teti, Diane Susan
01400503 - Teti-Burroughs, Jennifer L
01899378 - Thompson, Lisa Anne
01343351 - Thompson, Thomas P
01126564 - Thoreson, Catherine Mary
01739187 - Tibbetts, Paul Christopher
01316418 - Tolmich, Tracy Lee
01050795 - Tornillo, Paul John
01874664 - Troyce, Arie
01908214 - Vega, Hugo

01950451 - Ventura, Heidi Denise
01710511 - Vickery, Susana
01760581 - Vitovsky, Virginia Paris
01448053 - Voisen, Chad Thomas
01956284 - Wagner, Mary Raupp
01338684 - Waid, Scott A
01933451 - Walle, Esperanza
01510719 - Walton, Elisabeth
01777771 - Walton, Whip
01492513 - Warner, Michelle L
01422538 - West, Steve Lisle
01258211 - Westfall, Fred James
01380900 - Wettstein, Donna King
01945046 - Wilkins, Jody Marcia
01241188 - Wilson, Jean L
01344075 - Woods, Eric Paul
01851910 - Zanganeh, Shaheen M
01399581 - Zender, Anne Frances
00907243 - Ziminsky, Louise Andrea
01823689 - Ziring, Phyllis

Palm Desert
Windermere Homes & Estates
Office Address:
73-725 El Paseo Drive, Suite 23A
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Office Phone: (760) 585-8868

Ron Arth
(619) 888-9888
rvarth@hotmail.com

Jane Bannister
(760) 578-7377
janebannister@gmail.com

Melodee Berkey CalBRE #00551747
Realtor
(760) 413-4127
mberkey@windermeresocal.com

Evie Bryant
Realtor
(760) 567-2127
eviebryant@windermere.com
www.desertresortcommunities.com

Jack Bryant
Realtor
(760) 832-1701
jackbryant@windermere.com
www.desertresortcommunities.com

Bill Calhoun, CRS, ABR
(760) 832-5587
bcalhoun@windermeresocal.com

Michael W. Charles CalBRE#01231402
(714) 403-3627
michaelcharles@windermere.com

Jacqueline J. Cooper
(760) 408-0548
jacicoop@hotmail.com

Jennifer Criscione
(760) 895-9344
jenn.criscione@gmail.com

Mandy Flood-Bannister
(760) 218-3374
mandyjbannister@gmail.com

Bill Hammersley CalBRE#01836339
Realtor
(760) 641-8127
billhammersley@windermere.com
www.billhammersley.withwre.com

Michele Kaner CalBRE #01405442
Realtor
(760) 408-1015
mkaner1@yahoo.com

Randy Kuehnel
(760) 898-3030
randykuehnel@gmail.com

Andrea Rosenblatt
(213) 713-8801
andreaeyw@gmail.com

Carole Stephen-Smith
(760) 898-4407
bornabrit@gmail.com

Jay Tennen
(818) 624-3994
tennenj@gmail.com

Julie Tringale
(760) 641-5121
julietringale@gmail.com
julietringale.realtor

Andrea Rosenblatt
(213) 713-8801
andreaeyw@gmail.com

Carole Stephen-Smith
(760) 898-4407
bornabrit@gmail.com

Wendy White
(760) 220-7276
wendywhite1521@gmail.com

Tom Wilbanks
CRS, ABR, REALTOR
(760) 832-5580
wilbanks@windermeresocal.com

Windermere Ukiah
Windermere Platinum Realty
Office Address:

444 N State St
Ukiah, CA 95482
Office Phone: (707) 234-3444
Email ukiah@windermere.com

Diane Ryan
Ukiah
(707) 489-1432
diane.ryan@windermere.com

David Ryan
Ukiah
(707) 318-4606
david.ryan@windermere.com

Katie Stout
Ukiah
(707) 235-5800
katiestout@hotmail.com

 

Windermere Offices in Colorado

Fort Collins
Windermere Fort Collins, LLC
400 E. Horsetooth Road Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 460-3033

Mike Bergstrom
Cell/Direct: (970) 305-6126
Email: berg.foco@icloud.com

Cory Calvin
Cell/Direct:(303) 304-1166

Email: corycalvin@windermere.com
Website:cory-calvin.withwre.coml

 

Rondi duPont
Cell/Direct:(970) 401-0123

Email: rdupont@windermere.com
Website:rondidup-ont.com

 

Chris Guillan

Cell/Direct:
(970) 310-9357 Email:
chrisg@windermere.com

 

Cathy Harris
Cell/Direct:(970) 691-0368

Email: cathy@cathyharrisrealtor.com

Paul Hunter
Cell/Direct: (970) 673-7285
Email: phunter@windermere.com
Website: paulnoco.withwre.com

Chris Murdza 
Cell/Direct: (970) 658-0808

Greg Rittner
Cell/Direct: (970) 682-3050
Email: grittner@windermere.com

Siduri Taylor
Cell/Direct: (541) 690-6867
Email: siduri@windermere.com
Website: www.siduritaylor.com

Janet Tharpe
Cell/Direct: (720) 633-1985
Email: janet.tharpe@windermere.com

Eric Thompson
Cell/Direct: (970) 232-4364
Email: eric.thompson@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerestory.com

Windermere Greenwood Village
(Denver-Aurora)

Office Address:

Windermere Real Estate
5600 S Quebec St. #319B
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Phone:(303)930-8800

Email:greenwoodvillage@windermere.com

 

Michael Zak
Broker Owner CR8 ePro
Cell/Oirect:(303)638-8000

Email:michael.zak@windermere.com
Website:windermere.com

 

Crystal Boyer Lockhart, GRI
Cell/Oirect:(303)905-3852
Email:cboyer@windermere.com
Website:windermere.com

 

Meg Rice

Cell/Direct:(720)939-5184

Email:meg.rice@windermere.com

Jackie Schultz
Cell/Direct:(720)448-0836

Email:jackieschultz@windermere.com

 

De Sharp

Cell/Direct:(720) 581-2160

Email:desharp@windermere.com
Website:windermere.com

Services Colorado
Windermere Services Colorado
400 East Horsetooth Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970) 460-3033

Windermere Offices in Hawaii

Windermere Kona-Big Island
Office Address:
Windermere / C and H Properties
75-5919 Walua Road
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740

Phone: (808) 329-2601
Fax: (808) 329-0551
Email: Kona@Windermere.com
Website: www.CHProperties.com

Dayna V. Apilado
Kenneth Apilado
Lisa Barry
Andee P. Bemrose
Lizanne Caravalho
Dyanne Christensen
Jeannie Chung Kawabata
Internet Coordinator
Ceri Copeland
Mike Drutar
Carole A. Fisher
Garrett D. Gresham
Lori A. Henbest
Chadwick Knowles
Kylie Knowles
Maider Knowles
Penny Knowles
Shannon Knowles
Mark J. LeRoy
Susan J. Miedema
Kona Office
Mika Ono
Alisa Pendergast
Tanya T. Power
Kevin B. Shiraki
Kenneth J. Springer
Antonita C. Villa
Julie Wettstein
Linda Whitney
Captain Mike Wiesner
Cindy Wild
June B. Woodson

Windermere Waimea-Big Island
Office Address:
Windermere / C and H Properties
65-1227 A Opelo Road, Suite 1
Kamuela, HI 96743

Phone: (808) 885-6044
Fax: (808) 885-5488
Email: Waimea@Windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereAloha.com

Charito Balaam
John N. Balaam
Kerry Balaam
Harold Clarke
Joshua P. Conklen
Internet Coordinator
Danica E. Failing
Guy R. LaGuire
J. Rex Pippin
Ren Sanford

Windermere Offices in Idaho

Windermere Boise- Access Realty
Office Address:
Windermere/Access Realty
1412 West Idaho, Ste. 120
Boise, ID 83702

Phone: (208) 258-2222
Fax: (208) 258-2230
Email: accessboise@windermere.com

Boise- Access Realty
Shelley Smith Eichmann
Cam Johnson
Lynn Killian
Amy Berryhill & Kristin Myers
Russ Metzger
Kristin Myers
Dave Newman
Josh OldenKamp
Tracy Olson
Alicia Runyan
Chris Watkins
Randy Wolters

Windermere Boise-Richard B. Smith
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Richard B. Smith, Inc.
2417 Bogus Basin Road
Boise, ID 83702

Phone: 208-343-5412
Fax: 208-342-3309
Email: homes@windermereboise.com
Website: www.windermereboise.com

Janine Bastian
David Blair
Cameron Blum
Chrissy Brickner
Bonnie Burry
Laura Cesare
Kenneth Christianson
Lori Doane
Tony Esquivel
Jennifer Fornander
Marijke Geston
Hugh Hendrix
David Hyde
Imelda Kaypaghian
Will Kemper
Joyce Kloepfer
Jeanette Kurtz
Diana Lagunas
Mary Liese
Jennifer Mauk
Mindi McAllaster
Patrick McChristy
Jon McCormick
Alonzo Miller
Stephen Phipps
Heidi Prigge
Jay Pynchon
KC Robinson
Kayla Schlador
Geoffrey Smith
Jason G. Smith
Tracy Thompson
Jon Tomlinson
Stephanie Walters
Nancy Ward

Windermere Caldwell
Office Address:
Windermere/ Access Realty
2900 E. Cleveland Blvd.
Caldwell, ID 83605

Phone: (208) 459-2200
Fax: (208) 453-8564
Email: accessrealty@windermere.com
Website: http://www.IdahoWindermere.com

Duane Barnes
JC Bratkovich
Trula Carrow
Laurie Gibson
Shawnna Huelsenbeck
Meg Ingram
Randy Jensen
Sharon Johnson
Ladwina Lancaster
Cindy OldenKamp
Josh OldenKamp
Cindy Smith
Cindy Smith
Guest User

Windermere Coeur d'Alene
Office Address:
Windermere/Coeur d'Alene Realty, Inc.
1000 Northwest Blvd.
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814

Phone: 208/664-9221
Fax: 208/666-1435
Email: Windermere@cdarealty.com
Website: www.cdarealty.com/

Lisa Biondo
Kim Borsheim
Josh Brunn
Jilann Carlson
Shannon Celentano
Bill Cliff
Dalton Cunningham
Sharon & Dalton Cunningham
Jeannette Davidson
Tom Davis
Mike Dodge
Scott Dodson
Jeff Doty
Rich Dussell
Connie Egerer
Darla Elder
Paulette Fabian
Renae Fehringer
Jim Fox
Jesse Freije
Monica Frohn
Nancy Gagner
Ken Gimbel
John and Stacia Hagerty
Holly Hansen
Karen Hansen
Nancy Henley
Randy Henley
Vicky Houle
Steven Huffaker
Jennifer Jenkins
Coco Jensen
Mark Jensen
Nancy Johnson
Carolyn Joslin
Richard Jurvelin
Jose Keller
Andy Kemp
Misie King
Susan Kirkpatrick
Greg Koch
Josie Krahn
Patricia Krug
Matt Lambert
Alan Lane
Lindsay Lara
Gina Mather
Pat McElroy
Mike McNamara
Bret Minzghor
Mariah Minzghor
Ken Moeller
Ruth Moeller
Paul Murray
Joseph Nichols
Mark Oetken
Randy & Christy Oetken
Joel Olson
Laurie Patterson
Brandee Peacock
Rick Pearman-Gillman
Cindy Perry
Patti Petersen
Summer Pope
Kimberly Rae
Mallory Rains
Loretta Reed
Debbie Rich
Transaction Services
Bob Shamberg
Mindee Smith
Donald R. Smock
Jennifer Smock
Wayne Stephens
Michele Sterley
Katie Stolebarger
Tracey Tindall
Katelin Tulleners
Rebecca Welsh
Mark Whitt
Larry Windhorst
Trevor Windhorst
Roni Young

Windermere Grangeville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/All Star Realty
320 East Main
Grangeville, ID 83530

Phone: (208) 983-8000
Fax: (208) 983-0536
Email: grangeville@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereallstar.com

Marilou Aubertin
Bill Carpenter
Jeanne Prickett

Windermere Hayden Lake
Office Address:
Windermere/Hayden, LLC
867 Prairie Avenue
Hayden, ID 83835

Phone: 208-762-4888
Fax: 208-762-4488
Email: Hayden@windermere.com
Website: http://www.CdaRealty.com

Megan Griffiths
Nancy Hagarty
Karen Hoff
Charli Inman
Debbie Inman
Jamie Inman
Sam Inman
Allyson Knapp
Lindsay McCrudden
Ben Melius
Debbie Myers
Hayden Office
Levi Petersen
Do Not Remove
Chad Salsbury
Richard Schultz
Duffy Smock AB, ABR, GRI

Windermere Lewiston
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/All Star Realty
132 Thain Road, Suite 102
Lewiston, ID 83501

Phone: 208-798-7777
Fax: (208)798-1606
Email: windermere@lewiston.com
Website: www.windermereallstar.com

Marilou Aubertin
Candy Baker
Jennifer Cicrich
John E. Decker
Linda Dial
Ben Harrington
Ken & Valerie Hobart
Valerie & Ken Hobart
Virginia James
Lisa Jenner
Peggy Jones
Russ Martin
Kyle Meredith
Dina Pisani
Jeanne Prickett
Tom Scher
Harty Schmaehl
Sage Stoddard
Glen Strahan
Stacy Wilkinson
Brian Wilson

Windermere Moscow
Office Address:
Windermere Pullman Moscow
114 East 5th Street, Suite B
Moscow, ID 83843

Phone: (208) 882-1510
Fax: (208) 882-0967
Email: moscow@windermere.com
Website: pullmanmoscowhomes.com

Chris Clark
Marina Hawn
Lynn Kramer
Jennifer O'Brien
Jeri Rainer
Mindy Vance

Windermere Nampa
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Nampa-Caldwell
223 Holly St.
Nampa, ID 83686

Phone: 208-468-7848
Fax: 208-468-8688
Email: nampa@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerenampa.com

Heidi Crane
Dave Dykstra
Benjamin Holland
Sherri Maddix
Karen Martin Mickelson
Anthony Miller
Debbie Winther
Tony Winther
Scott Wood

Windermere Post Falls
Office Address:
Windermere/Coeur d' Alene Realty Inc
1616 E. Seltice Way
Post Falls, ID 83854

Phone: 208-777-9900 or 800-883-1356
Fax: 208-777-9901
Email: postfalls@windermere.com
Website: http://cdarealty.com

Rebecca (Becky) Ruark
Colleen Aldrich
Shawn & Colleen Aldrich
Danny Ament
Melissa Bloom
Wendy Burgener-Wallin
Brooke Carey
Rhonda Covelli
Kimberly Crowther
Jamie Dallas
Kirstin Darry
Joseph M. Fabiano
Sara Fackrell
Post Falls
Chris Ferro
Errin Ford
Lyza Ford
Lianne Gallinger
Joan Genter
Danny Griffin
Scott Haen
Susan Hare
Dan R. Johnson
Ryan Keller
Mike Kelly
Justin Keogh
Bela and Monica Kovacs
Pat Krug
Patricia Lozano
Victoria Mallett
Marc Mathes
Ailis McMurray
Jeff Melchert
Brenda Nearpass
Melia Poulsen
Tom & Sharon Powell
Steve Rinker
Alison Roberts
Dean Rogers
Heidi Score
Jeff Scott
Nick Shriner
Stefan Smith
Val Smith
CH Donald Smock
Jennifer Smock
Julie Steinloski
Charlie Taranto
John Thurston
Greg Washington
Phil Waters
Debbie Wixon
Debbie Zak

Windermere Property Management-Boise
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Gibson Property Management Group, LLC
1412 W. Idaho, Suite 120 A
Boise, ID 83702

Phone: (208) 713-8890
Fax: (208) 621-0233
Email: nora@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeregibsonpm.withwre.com

Nora Gibson
Nora M. Gibson

Windermere Sun Valley – Hailey
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Sun Valley LLC
P.O. Box 1270/ 100 N. Main St
Hailey, ID 83333

Phone: (208) 788-1700 OR 800-605-9852
Fax: (208) 788-3756
Email: hailey@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeresunvalley.com

Hailey Admin
Robbie Cowan
Sharon Dohse
Randy Flood
Dan Gorham
Kris Halle
Monica Hebert
Linda Johnston
Anna Lutz Mathieu
Cynthia Miley
Customer Service
Gail Wilson-Norgren

Windermere Sun Valley – Ketchum
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Sun Valley LLC
P.O. Box 2307
Sun Valley, ID 83353

Phone: 208-622-2700
Fax: 208-622-9100
Email: sunvalley@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeresunvalley.com

Jim Carkonen
Wendy Carter
Tiona Christensen
Cheryl Concannon
Brian Faires
Thad Farnham
Shannon Flavin
Nancy Gilbert
Dan Gorham
Sara Gorham
Suzanne Hausner
Tom Kennedy
Lindi Lewallen
Nick Maricich
Scott Mary
George Maurtua
Russ Porter
Alan Reynolds
Rex Robinson
Customer Service
Customer Service
Garrett Smith
Windermere Sun Valley
Barbara Burnell Syrdal
Rachel Wolfe
Joanne Zwingenberg

Windermere Offices in Montana

Windermere Bozeman
Office Address:
Windermere Bozeman
1351 Stoneridge Dr Suite D
Bozeman, MT 59718

Phone: (406) 587-0990
Fax: (406) 587-9332
Email: info@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerebozeman.com

Windermere Bozeman
Windermere Bozeman
Luci Edwards
Scott Krushensky
Tina Regnani
Kate Reid
Richard Reid
Connie Traywick

Windermere Hamilton
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Hamilton
1920 North 1st Street
Hamilton, MT 59840

Phone: (406) 363-3222
Fax: (406) 363-3511
Email: bobp@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereHamilton.MyWindermere.com

John Brauer
Dianne Dunn
Roger Gantz
Hamilton Office
Bob Pauley

Windermere Helena
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate-Helena
62 N. Last Chance Gulch
Helena, MT 59601

Phone: 406-442-1578
Fax: 406-495-1578
Email: helena@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerehelena.com

Josh Ahmann
Rick Ahmann
Mary Ahmann-Hibbard
Jane D
Cassie de Yong
Bethany DeMers
Jared Engels
Flannery Harpole
Windermere Helena
Gerald LaChere
Troy Lutton
Keith McCallum
Jack Mountain
Stacy Nistler
Kevin Schwartz
Debbie Starr
David Torgerson

Windermere Missoula
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Missoula
2800 South Reserve Street
Missoula, MT 59801

Phone: 406-541-6550
Fax: 406-541-6551
Email: missoula@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremissoula.com

Office Administrator
Jason Baker
Jennifer Barnard
Bridget Baxter
Diane Beck
Diane Beck Team
John Brauer
Heather Bybee
Tom Dauenhauer
Collette Deschamps
Rebecca Donnelly
Robinson Group
Doug Harrison
Rosemary Harrison
Emily Hedrick
Devin Khoury
Ryan Klemundt
Sherry Kolenda
Rachel Kramer
Sandee Kuni
Heather Lucas
Kory Mytty
Kelly Mytty Donoghue
JoAnna Nuckols
Amy Peterson
Lorin Peterson
Lorin & Amy Peterson
Kent Pratt
Rachael Redman
Judi Rivers
Clint Roberts
Casey Robinson
Graeme Shaw
Greg Stahl
Leslie Stoll O'Neill
Wahlberg Team
Savannah Tynes
Kristine Vessey
Brint Wahlberg
Judy Wahlberg
Kristina Wahlberg
Becky Weidow
Leslie Wetherbee
Jeremy Williams
Missoula Windermere
Andrea Zielinski

Windermere Offices in Mexico

Windermere Los Cabos  
Office Address:
Windermere Los Cabos 
Plaza Paseo Los Arcos  Suite B-6 Carr.
Transpeninsular  Km 6.5 
Cabo San Lucas, BS 23455  

Phone: (855) 877-2226 
Website: www.WindermereLosCabos.com 

Mark Niemen
Cell/Direct: (624) 118-1415
Email: Mark@isdscabo.com

Martin Posch
Cell/Direct: (624) 147-5857
Email: martinposch@windermere.com
Website: www.MartinPosch.withWRE.com

Jay West
Cell/Direct: (877) 909-2226
Email: JayWest@Windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereCabo.com

Nacho Bancalari
Cell/Direct: (624) 151-5999
Email: nachobancalari@windermere.com
Website: nachobancalari.withwre.com 

James Bandy 
Cell/Direct: (624) 122-2581
Email: jimbandy@windermere.com
Website: www.jimbandy.withwre.com

Jay Bush
Cell/Direct: (624) 141-6831
Email: jaybush@windermere.com

Chris Pena
Cell/Direct: (624) 151-8931
Email: chrispena@windermere.com
Website: www.chrispena.withwre.com

Arnie Reusch 
Cell/Direct: (215) 740-1480
Email: caboarnie@gmail.com

Carl Velleryd
Cell/Direct: (521) 624-1098/234
Email: carlvelleryd@gmail.com

Jay Raymons Vering
Cell/Direct: (624) 191-0325
Email: john.vering@windermere.com

Windermere Offices in Nevada

Windermere Henderson- Anthem Hills
Office Address:
Windermere Anthem Hills LLC
12231 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 150
Henderson, NV 89052

Phone: (702) 212-1900
Fax: (702) 212-1901
Email: anthemhills@windermere.com
Website: anthemhills.mywindermere.com

Teresa Bacon
Bill Bell
Cookie Benson
Jason Burdett
Internet Coordinator
Lorrie Cruz
Pamela Dillon
Kristin Dittman
Mark Dittman
Lyla Dwyer
Phillip Dwyer
Rene Escontrias
Marcy Farris
Francine Fields
Diane Grinn
Linda Hicks
Linda Hicks
Rebecca Hoag-Korth
Shirley Kloberdans
Sharon Knight
Patrick Korth
Dale Leccacorvi
Anna-Marie Marshall
Margaret Nolen
Rosalie OBrien
Dittman Property Mgmt.
Nancy Ragusa
Di Redman
Tami Richardson
Susan Sippel
Samantha Smith
Patricia Spann
Robert Stein
John Stoll
Stan Szczepanski
Jerry Theo
Rick Tran
Don Vigenser
Jean Wicklund
Chris Wolfgram

Windermere Lake Las Vegas
Office Address:
Windermere Prestige Properties
20 Via Bel Canto, Suite 120
Henderson, NV 89011

Office Address:
Windermere Prestige Properties
20 Via Bel Canto, Suite 120
Henderson, NV 89011

Barbara Barnett
Vicky L. Crichton
Joseph Denofrio
Devone Donley
Tammie F Harris
Ilda Long
Sharla Scharpnick
Reba St. Clair
Lake Las Vegas Office Coordinator
Barbara Barnett & Vicky Crichton

Windermere Las Vegas- Henderson
Office Address:
Windermere Prestige Properties
1401 Green Valley Pkwy Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89074

Phone: (702) 432-4600
Fax: (702) 726-5510
Email: LasVegas@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerenevada.com

Katie L. Adams
Gilma Andersen
Nancy Archambault
Escrow Assistant
David Balanay
Joanne Bartha
Stephen Carns
Sandi Castor
Escrow Coordinator
Erin Cross
Gail Dossman Tolliver
Edwin Enrile
Diana Erland
Steven D. Esparza
Deborah Eyth
Nicholas J. Feduska, M.
Tracey Allyn Garfinkel
Larry Giese
Ed Haendel
Beth Heilman
Lynn Holberg
Jenny Hwang
Keli James
Eric Kruger
Ken Kunke
Jun R. Lingan
Cynthia Luna
Keith Lynam
Shyla Magee
Kathleen Marquez
Audrey Masson
Marti R. Matthews
Norma Matthews
Christine McNaught
Michele Melnick
Stephanie Mitchell
Cathy Mollet
Kia Murphy
Sheri Myers
Beth Naef
Michael Osborn
Brian Pascetti
Maria Pebenito
Kim Polk
Prestige Properties
Carlos Pujadas
Fariba Raouf
Kim Ream
Tamara Reynolds
Alan Richman
Dawn Riddle
Pete Robertson
Ruth Roth
O'Nil P. Ruiz
Bill Runyan
Deirdra Saliba
Steven Schultz
Glenn Scoggins
Judi Serlin
Deb Shields
Deb Shields
Deb Shields
Sarah Skinner
Shelly Stewart
Jennifer Stuart
Ryan Tack
Nicole Terry
Alynn Thompson
Irma Torkzadeh
Rocco Tucker
Diane Turner
John Tuvell
Celestina Vergara
Robin Verley
Marjie Walsh
Sherry Washington
Sandy Williams
Dennis Yates
Dennis Yates
Isaac Yates
Robyn Yates
Robyn Yates
Jeanette & John Zimmer
Jeanette & John Zimmer

Windermere Las Vegas- Summerlin
Office Address:
Windermere Excellence
410 South Rampart, Suite 390
Las Vegas, NV 89145

Phone: 702-726-6942
Fax: 702-726-5540
Email: glickassist@windermere.com

Jennifer Bak
John Bassett
Tammy Eden
Karen Feldman
Paul Genick
Assistant Glickman
Cynthia L. Glickman, PhD
Amanda Litt
Julie Palmer
Danielle Thomas

Windermere Services Nevada
Office Address:
Windermere Services Nevada
1401 Green Valley Pkwy Suite 200
Henderson, NV 89074

Phone: (702) 432-4600
Fax: (702) 726-5510
Email: Nvmarketing@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerelasvegas.com

Admin Receptionist
Deb Shields
Deb Shields
Dennis Yates
Robyn Yates

Windermere Offices in Oregon

Windermere Ashland
Office Address:
Windermere Van Vleet & Assoc., Inc.
375 Lithia Way,
Ashland, OR 97520

Phone: 541-482-3786
Fax: 541-482-4273
Email: windermereashland@gmail.com
Website: www.vanvleet.com

Barbara Argento
Brenda Barnhill
Samantha Batzer
Susan Black
Ricoh Copier
Michael Engelstein, CRS
Dustin Hall
Noriko Hansen
Tammy Koehler
Karen Larsen
Ali Lively
Pam Lorange, CRS, Principal Broker
Bruce and Pam Lorange, ePros
Brian P. Murphy
Colleen Pyke
Dee Riley
Paula Rose
Dan Shepherd
Marilyn Stewart, CRS, EcoBroker
Dale Verger
Chelsea Zupan
Leo Zupan

Windermere Astoria
Office Address:
Windermere/Pacific Land Company
175 14th Street, Suite 120
Astoria, OR 97103

Phone: 503/325-5111 855/325-5111
Fax: 503/325-4844
Email: astoria@windermere.com
Website: windermereastoria.com

Pacific Land Company Astoria
Debra Bowe
Kent Easom
LJ Gunderson
Reba Owen
Kathren Rusinovich

Windermere Bend
Office Address:
Windermere/Central Oregon Real Estate
695 Mill View
Bend, OR 97702

Phone: 541-388-0404
Fax: 541-389-7915
Email: bendfrontdesk@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerecentraloregon.com

Eric Andrews
Carol Armstrong
John Baker
Aaron Ballweber
Pam Bell
Keri Blackburn
Sherry Brooks
Jeanette Brunot
Heather Chesbro
Kendall Comey
Jet Cowan
Patty Dempsey
Dave Disney
Mike Everidge
Shera Felde
Jon Frazier
Jml Group
Christin Hunter
Lawnae Hunter
Bill Kammerer
John Kromm
Bea Leach
Tony Levison
Secily Luse
Michelle Martinez
Dave McKae
Mary Meloy
Peter Menefee
Jack Miller
Jake Moorhead
Loretta Moorhead
Crystal Normandy
Central Oregon Administrator
Andrea Phelps
Susan Pitarro
Tona Restine
Cleme Rinehart
The Rinehart Dempsey Phelps
Jeanette Ringeisen
Gail Rogers
Don Romano
Clair Sagiv
Lindsay Saxon
Jillian Smith
Bonnie Staley
Debbie Tallman
Veronica Theriot
Steve Walterscheid
Tom Weinmann
Michelle White
Russ White
Mike Wilson
Michelle Witt

Windermere Branch Support- Stellar
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
733 NW 20th Avenue
Portland, OR 97209

Phone: 503-412-1600
Fax: 503-220-1124
Email:
Website: www.windermereportland.com

Commissions Accounting
BrianAndJoan Allen
Joan Tate Allen
Bob Broker
Washington Broker
Richard Caplan
Doug Carey
Brianne Dosier
CCRGI Fax
Gail Fisher
Cali Gottuso
Clark Negen
Erica Ogle
Maggie Scott
Admin Services Support
Windermere Surveys
Travis Talbot, MBA, PHR

Windermere Bridgeport
Office Address:
Windermere Bridgeport Realty Group
16760 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road Suite #103
Portland, OR 97224

Phone: 503.639.7914
Fax: 503.639.5202
Email: bridgeport@windermere.com
Website: windermerebridgeport.com

Bill Anthony
Michaeline Baratta
Windermere Bridgeport
Ed Brockman
Sue Caicedo
Jesse Craig
Lorraine DeDonato
Suzanne Elstad
Anthony Ernst
Beth Gelfand
Christa Glasgow
Katie Hale
John Kraxberger
Kim Lee Kress
Gary May
Jan Panfilio
Nancy Pihl
Brian Purnell
Brian Purnell
Marla Rumpf
Bob Schlicting
David Shumway
Sharon Storey
Anthony Stroud
Alison Toal
Vivian Tornero
Morris Westlund
Katie Williams
Patrick Williams
Randi Zimel

Windermere Cannon Beach
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
255 N Hemlock, P.O. Box 186
Cannon Beach, OR 97110

Phone: 800-676-1176
Fax: 503-436-1029
Email: canbeach@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereoregoncoast.com

Marlene Acker
Lynn Brigham
Tina Chapman
Steven Crane
Kimberlee Kaul
Karen Meili
Kate Merrell
Stefanie Wallace
Jackie Weber

Windermere Charbonneau
Office Address:
Windermere Bridgeport Realty Group
31960 SW Charbonneau Dr., Ste. 105
Wilsonville, OR 97070

Phone: 503.694.1011
Fax: 503.694.1021
Email: bridgeport@windermere.com
Website: windermerecharbonneau.com

Roger Arndt
John Baines
Windermere Charbonneau
Amy Costello
Donna Fox
Laura Greggs
Annie Johnson
Michael Johnson
Steve Mallicoat
Karina Rubin
Marla Rumpf
John Santos
Bob Schlicting

Windermere Clatskanie
Office Address:
Windermere-St. Helens Real Estate, Inc.
155 W Columbia River Hwy. PO Box 128
Clatskanie, OR 97016

Phone: 503-728-2134
Fax: 503-728-2135
Email: Colleen@clatskanie.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Branch Admin.
Richard Larsen
Merry Melonas
Colleen Moore
Kathleen Strandberg

Windermere Commercial- Lane County
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lane County
1165 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401

Phone: 541-465-8197
Fax: 541-762-0423
Email: lanecounty@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereCNW.com

Tech Admin
Ward Beck
Mike Favret
Shandra Ford
Blake Hastings
Bob Larson
Paul Peschiera
Matt R. Powell
Justin Schmick
Bob Shepard
Rick Sorric
Jim Welsh
Elliott Wood

Windermere Commercial- Oregon City
Office Address:
Windermere Community Commercial Realty
619 Madison St., Suite #108
Oregon City, OR 97045

Phone: 503-319-4267
Fax: 503-249-1726
Email: philipknowlton@windermere.com

Craig Gilbert
Philip Knowlton
Graham Peterson

Windermere Commercial- Portland
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
825 NE Multnomah St #120
Portland, OR 97232

Phone: (503) 284-7755
Fax: (503) 230-9651
Email: lloydtower@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerecommercial.com

Portland Commercial - Lloyd Tower
Ron Howard
Sue Perkel

Windermere Commercial- Portland Metro
Office Address:
Windermere/Community Commercial Realty
2105 NE 39th Ave., Suite 200
Portland, OR 97212

Phone: 503-249-1706
Fax: 503-249-1726
Email: pdxcommercial@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerecommercial.com

Ricoh Aficio
Todd Bouchard
Internet Coordinator
Brian Dalrymple
Liza Fong
Darryn Foor
Craig Gilbert
Deborah Huffman
Scott Krueger
Kathy Le
Graham Peterson
Lauren Sheehan
Vinny Small

Windermere Portland- Moreland
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar 1610 SE Bybee Blvd. Portland, OR 97202

Office: (503) 233-7777
Email: moreland@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerep-ortland.com

Emily Bartolme
Cell/Direct:(503) 997-0579
Email: emilyb@windermere.com

Becky Belding
Cell/Direct:(503) 380-5641
Email: becky@beckybelding.com
Website:www.beckybelding.coml

Elisha Biando
Cell/Direct:(503) 233-7777
Email: Moreland@windermere.com
Website:www.windermereportland.com

Patty Brockman
Cell/Direct:(503) 348-4766
Email: pattyb@windermere.com
Website:pattybrockman.com

Joe Findling
Cell/Direct:(503) 757-6447
Email: Joe@JoeOpensDoors.com
Website :JoeOpensDoors.com

Renita Gerard
Cell/Direct:(503) 799-9869
Email: rgerard@windermere.com
Website:renitagerard.withwre.com

Ann Gibbons
Cell/Direct:(503) 497-2982
Email: anngibbons@windermere.com
Website:anngibbons.withwre.com

Ben Gibson Cell/Direct:(503) 497-2954
Email: benjgibson@windermere.com
Website:bengibson.withwre.coml

Bill Grange
Cell/Direct:(503) 890-2928
Email: bgrange@windermere.com
Website :billgrange.com

Gary E. Hammond
Cell/Direct:(503) 893-0329
Email: garyhammond@windermere.com
Website:www.garyehammond.com

Sue Higgins
Cell/Direct:(503) 807-2511
Email: suehiggins@windermere.com
Website:suehigginsrealestate.com

Candace Kramer
Cell/Direct:(503) 804-9628
Email: candace@candacekramer.com
Website :candacekramer.com

Kathryn Kreimer
Cell/Direct:(503) 890-4649
Email: kathrynkreimer@windermere.com
Website:kkreimer.withwre.coml

Katie Martin
Cell/Direct:(503) 497-2958
Email: katiem@windermere.com

Jeff McBride
Cell/Direct:(503) 481-5579
Email: jeffmcbride@windermere.com
Website :jeffmcbride.withwre.com

Oana McKillop
Cell/Direct:(503) 348-1808
Email: danamckillop@windermere.com
Website:danamckillop.withwre.com

Tony W. Morse
Cell/Direct:(503) 939-9672
Email: tmorse@windermere.com

Megan Murphy
Cell/Direct:(503) 358-0130
Email: meganm@windermere.com
Website:www.meganmurp-hy.org

Michelle Nunez
Cell/Direct:(503) 233-7777
Email: mnunez@windermere.com

Deann Pettit
Cell/Direct:(503) 412-5932
Email: deannpettit@windermere.com
Website:www.deannpettit.com

Peggy Reaume
Cell/Direct:(503) 497-5265
Email: peggyreaume@windermere.com
Website :www.peggyreaume.com/

Joan Rogers
Cell/Direct:(503) 318-4016
Email: joanrogers@windermere.com
Website :www.joanrogershomes.com

Corliss Rogers
Cell/Direct:(503) 502-7629
Email: rogersrc@teleport.com
Website :www.eastmoreland.com

Ron Rogers
Cell/Direct:(503) 260-4175
Email: ronrogers@windermere.com
Website :www.ronrogershomes.com

Julianna Rowe
Cell/Direct:(503) 969-8321
Email: juliannarowe@yahoo.com
Website:juliannarowe.com

Steve Russell
Cell/Direct:(503) 497-5235
Email: steverussell@windermere.com
Website :windermeremoreland.com

Reuben Schug
Cell/Direct:(503) 754-1930
Email: reubenschug@windermere.com
Website:reubenschug.withwre.coml

Linda Skeele
Cell/Direct:(503) 504-5811
Email: Iskeele@windermere.com
Website :www.lindaskeele.com

Robin Springer
Cell/Direct:(503) 351-8531
Email: rspringer@windermere.com
Website:robinspringer.withwre.com

Joylene Swanberg
Cell/Direct:(503) 233-7777
Email: jswanberg@windermere.com
Whitney Wade Cell/Direct:(503) 497-2928
Email: whitneywade@windermere.com

Daniette West
Cell/Direct:(503) 414-4924
Email: dwest@windermere.com
Website :withwre.com/dwest

Shelle Winkler
Cell/Direct:(503) 679-1983
Email: shellew@windermere.com
Website :www.winklerproperties.com

Windermere Commercial- Redmond
Office Address:
Windermere/Central Oregon Real Estate
1020 SW Indian Ave., Suite 103
Redmond, OR 97756

Phone: 541-548-2772
Fax: 541-923-6416
Email: wrdm@windermere.com

Bruce Barrett
Internet Coordinator
Pete Rencher

Windermere Coos Bay
Office Address:
Windermere/ North Point, Inc.
100 Central
Coos Bay, OR 97420

Phone: (541) 269-1601
Fax: (541) 269-1703
Email: northpt@north-pt.com
Website: http://coosbaywindermere.com/

Sadena Abell
Amy Aguirre
Joe Aguirre
Sally Arbus
Randy Basinger
Brad Berg
James Berg
Sandra Cardwell
Nancy Clarke
Internet Coordinator
Ron Culley
Robin Magruder
Ed Meyer
Andy Nasburg
Lou Price
Rick Tine
Sheryl Via

Windermere Corvallis
Office Address:
Windermere Willamette Valley
2725 NW Walnut Blvd.
Corvallis, OR 97330

Phone: 541-754-6101
Fax: 541-754-7075
Email: corvallis@windermere.com
Website: corvallis.withwre.com/

Mickey Bernhardt
Kelsey M. Brooks
Anthony Carnivale
Tricia Chorak
Jen Durand
Angelika Gampert
Linda Marie Gampert
Gampert Group
Kathleen Hutchinson
Anna Korenev
Diana Liktor
Cindy McNutt
Stefanie Noonan
Main Office
Steve Redman
Kelsey RMLS
Bill Stansell
Rhonda Stansell
Seth Waddell
Patty Wilkinson
Hong Wolfe

Windermere Dallas
Office Address:
Windermere Western View Properties
484 NE Bovard Ave
Dallas, OR 97338

Phone: 1-800-554-2399/503-623-2333
Fax: 503-623-5628
Email: wvpd@windermere.com
Website: wvponline.com

Amber Archibald
Amy Bertolini
Jodi Boylan
David Brinker
Tim Davis
Barbara Ediger
Linda Eriksen
Jana Fogg & Debbie Howe
Donna Graham
Debbie Howe
Cheri Jacobsen
Emma Kline
Nicole Noland
Shelley Olson
Nancie Rogers
Windermere Team Advantage
Bill Woodrum
Chad Woods
Jill Wyatt
Yolanda Zuger

Windermere Eagle Point
Office Address:
Windermere Rogue Valley Real Estate, LLC
10558 Highway 62, Suite B2
Eagle Point, OR 97524

Phone: (541) 826-4181/1-888-859-3019
Fax: (541) 826-4106
Email: roguevalleyrealestate@windermere.com
Website: http://www.windermereroguevalleyrealestate.com

Cord Allison
Tanya Balfour
Tiffani Crandall
Admin Eagle Point
Ann Johnson
Ann Johnson
Eric Johnson
Jeff Johnson
Michelle Lewis
Wanda Tumbleson
Deanna Wilkerson

Windermere Eugene
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lane County
1600 Oak Street
Eugene, OR 97401

Phone: 541-484-2022
Fax: 541-465-8169
Email: lanecounty@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Transaction Address
Patricia Atkins
Barb Barnard
David Baslaw
Staff Baslaw
Jacqueline Benham
Beth Blackwell
Gary Branson
Kevin J. Brown
Ginny Burkey
Jewon Carp
Jen Castile
Maria Chebrova
Debora Coelho Gordon
Kelly Cooley
Kristena Cox
Gina Dhom
Barry Domnich
Janine Douglas
Marcia Edwards
Lane County Email
Magazine Email
Tina Farley
Aurora Fiorintina
Gary Fisk
Sarah Forsyth
Sherry Galloway
Linda Garber
Karen Gazley
Deanna Gillett
Mellissa Goodson
Andrea Gramzow
John Gray
Rachel Griffin
Register Guard
Steve Hammerquist
Sue Hardy
Jean Heneghan
Shawn Hittenberger
John Hoops
Julie Huff
Bob Hutchings
Indya Hutchings
Jennifer Jardine
Randy Jeremiah
Kurt Katsura
Patty Keene
Roy Keene
James Kim
Thomas Knight
Bruce Lamont
Jessica Lay
Fran Loesch
Chris Lupton
Sharon Malcolm
Lori Mallory
Kathy Maple
Ken Martinson
Bill Medford
Deanna Miller
Melissa Moch
Teresa Moshofsky
Jenny Oberst
Springfield Office
Eugene Office Email
Lou Panni
Jennifer Pettit
Jeanie Planck
Annie Posen
Matt R. Powell
Tanya Powell
Isaac Rhoads
Darren Ricketts
Paula Rini
Justin Schmick
Ken Schmidt
Jerry Schwecke
Nadine Scott
Jessica Sidman
Stephanie Songchild
Rick Sorric
Katie St Clair
Ed St Clair, Jr
Greg Steiner
Sondra Steiner
Bobby Stevens
Loren Stubbert
Rebecca Swing: Swing-on-Home
Darren and Kate Team
Dcg Team
Marcia Edwards Team
Katie Tibbitts
Ron Tinsley
Linda Tucker
Jeanette Underwood
Dralyn Van Ness
Rocky Wagers
Lorette Waggoner
Eden Warne
Karen Watson
Scott Weech
Barbara West
Dylan West
Victoria Whitman
Katie Lewis Wilson
Elliott Wood
Don York
Kate Young

Windermere Eugene North
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lane County
3011 North Delta Suite 103
Eugene, OR 97408

Office: (541) 465-81 03
Email: lanecounty.@windermere.com

Tami Alleman
Cell/Direct:(541) 520-3213
Email: tamialleman@windermere.com
Website:tamialleman.withwre.com

Ward Beck, Commercial Broker
Cell/Direct:(541) 915-4544
Email: wbeckjr@msn.com
Website :wardbeck.withwre.com

Leslie Beck
Cell/Direct:(541) 953-2035
Email: lesliebeck@windermere.com
Website:lesliebeck.withwre.com

Cynthia Bevans
Cell/Direct:(541) 513-6383
Email: cynthiabevans@windermere.com
Website :cynthiabevans.withwre.com

Delena Carrington
Cell/Direct:(541) 517-4129
Email: delena@windermere.com
Website: www.delena.withwre.com

Julia Carver
Cell/Direct:(541) 520-2086
Email: juliacarver@windermere.com
Website: www.juliacarverhomes.com

Rick Chesser
Cell/Direct:(541) 513-1060
Email: rickc@windermere.com
Website:rickchesser.withwre.com

Rani Conley
Cell/Direct:(541) 255-9669
Email: rani@windermere.com

Timothy Duncan
Cell/Direct:(541) 968-8469
Email: timothyduncan@windermere.com
Website:timothyduncan.withwre.com

Betty Lou Duncan
Cell/Direct:(541) 915-0146
Email: bettylou@bettylouduncan.com
Website :www.betty.louduncan.com

Leah Hyland Garges
Cell/Direct:(541) 729-2656
Email: leahhyland@windermere.com
Website:leahhyland.my.windermere.com

Daniel Jezek
Cell/Direct:(541) 225-7021
Email: danielj@windermere.com
Website:danielj.withwre.com

Marilyn Bird Johnson
Cell/Direct:(541) 465-8102/521-8856
Email: marilynjohnson@windermere.com
Website:marilynbirdjohnson.withwre.com

Burt Johnson
Cell/Direct:(541) 520-7019
Email: burtjohnson@windermere.com
Website:burtjohnson.withwre.com

Rick Manion
Cell/Direct:(541) 554-6966
Email: rickmanion@windermere.com

Beckie Page
Cell/Direct:(541) 337-5285
Email: beckie@windermere.com
Website :www.beckiep-age.com

Marissa Pearson
Cell/Direct:(541) 465-8103
Email: marissap@windermere.com

Brooks Tull
Cell/Direct:(541) 968-6639
Email: btull@windermere.com
Website:BrooksTull.withwre.com

Diana Twombley
Cell/Direct:(541) 731-1414
Email: discoverdiana@windermere.com
Website :www.DiscoverDiana.com

Windermere Florence
Office Address:
Windermere/Florence Real Estate
3757 Highway 101, Suite A
Florence, OR 97439

Phone: (541) 997-5926
Fax: (541) 997-5992
Email: dale@florencere.com
Website: www.florencere.com

Steve Earnshaw
Dale Saari
Terrie Saari

Windermere Gearhart
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
P.O. Box 2729, 588 Pacific Way
Gearhart, OR 97138

Phone: (503) 738-8522
Fax: (503) 738-8247
Email: gearhart@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereoregoncoast.com

Pam Ackley
Bonnie Belden-Doney - North Coast Rental
Kristen Benton
Pam Birmingham
Lynn Brigham
Melissa Eddy
Office Gearhart
Miranda Johnson
Kimberlee Kaul
Rosalie Dimmick Larsen
Barbara Maltman
Tim Regan
Rinda Shea
Doris Strumme
Jackie Svensen
Stefanie Wallace
Craig Weston
Dana Weston

Windermere Grants Pass
Office Address:
Windermere/Grants Pass
980 SW 6th St., Suite 14
Grants Pass, OR 97526

Phone: 541-479-8686
Fax: 541-479-1114
Email: grantspass@windermere.com
Website: windermeregrantspass.com

Grants Pass Admin
Mel Atkins
Suzanne Dippner
Mary Hart
Michelle Jencks-Brown
Mark Johnson
Juliet Long
Paul Niehaus
Dick Parsons
Martina Sutton
Gerald Weskirchen

Windermere Hillsboro
Office Address:
Windermere West LLC
1341 NE Orenco Station Parkway
Hillsboro, OR 97124

Phone: (503) 648-1169
Fax: (503) 640-8019
Email: tawnyab@windermere.com

Mel Adams
Kimberly Ashton Schider
Tawnya Bacchetti
Tanya Beeler
Shanon Bickford
Gina Boehm
Lisa Bradburn
Kent Campbell
Jim Collison
Front Copier
Resource Copier
Matt Crile
John Eskew
Kerry Esson
Adrienne Feehan
Sheree Garner
Dennis Gellhouse
John Goldhammer
Christina Griffith
Loyce Hutchinson
BJ Jeddeloh
Carla Jehan
Breda Kennedy
Dirk Knudsen
Windy Krieger
Kirra Krussman
Jeff McClain
Scott McGrew
Tawny Morris
Jenny Ortega
Guest Pass
Adrienne Randall
Cindy Scott
Beverly Silbernagel
Keith A. Sjodin P.C.
Conner Skurja
Wendy Thompson
Windermere West
Brad Young

Windermere Hood River
Office Address:
Windermere Glenn Taylor Real Estate
504 Cascade
Hood River, OR 97031

Phone: 541-386-3444
Fax: 541-386-3997
Email: hr@glenntaylor.com
Website: www.windermerehoodriver.com

Doug Arnell
Kim Chadney
Windermere Gorge Commercial
Gail Crosby
Trish Dixon
Tim Donahue P.C.
Michael Frost P.C.
Peter Hill
Jen Neblock Hood River
Stephanie Huntington
Chelsea Laswell
Brian Lauterbach
Bob Level
John Lovell
Mark Mason
Ruby Mason
Suzanne Maurer
Carl McNew
Dawn Louise McSweyn, GRI
Karl Mikkelson
Steve Morgan
Mike Rockwell
Angela Rouse
Kim Salvesen-Pauly
Paul Sokol
Ginger Swanson
Andrea Wood
Lindamay Woosley
Heather Wright

Windermere Jacksonville
Office Address:
Windermere Van Vleet Jacksonville
505 North 5th Street
Jacksonville, OR 97530

Phone: (541) 899-2000
Fax: (541) 899-4040
Email: vva@vanvleet.com
Website: www.vanvleet.com

Sally Bell
Wade Branscum
Frank D'Antonio
Christian Hamilton
Jill Hamilton
Bob Hilton
Don Hoskin
Kathy Hoskin
Kyra Lane
Don Livingood
James Meyers
Jacksonville Office
John Owens
David Pfrimmer
Nancy Saum Hough
Judy Scott
James Spencer

Windermere Klamath Falls
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate - Klamath Falls
519 Main Street
Klamath Falls, OR 97601

Phone: 541-885-4400
Fax: 541- 884-4155
Email: klamath@windermere.com
Website: www.Windermere.com

Brandy Bocchi
Jody Carter
Windermere Klamath Falls, Oregon
Tracy Ledgerwood
Barb Meng
Jeanette Owens
Shawna Rick
Kristy Weider
Linda Weider
Ryan Weider
Team Weider
Allison York

Windermere Lake Oswego
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
220 A Avenue, Suite 200
Lake Oswego, OR 97034

Phone: 503-636-5000
Fax: 503-636-0908
Email: lkoswego@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereportland.com

Jeanne Able
Carey Blem
Caitlin Bowman
Brian Butler P.C.
Maria Campbell
Debbie Childs
Julie DeBorde
Karen Durrett
Mignon Ervin
Carissa Ferro
Brianna Francis
Casey Franklin
William Futrell
David Greenberg
Tangelina Grimes
Alexis Halmy
Carol Hughes
Jesse Imus
Dennis Kelly
Sally Knauss
Susan Knight - RMLS
Susan Knight - WVMLS
Admin. Lake Oswego
Katherine Lawr
Christi Ries Lawrence
Sara Lewis
Linda Livermore
John Luhta
Andrea MacMurchy
Bill MacMurchy
Priscilla McClaughry
Deirdre McDonnell
Karen McLaughlin
Linda Mendenhall
Jessica Mendonca
Kerri Miller
Trevor Nelson
Trista Nelson
Jennifer Noble
Norma O'Toole
Judi Palmer
Amy Radonich-Grauel
Claudette Reeves
Diane Richardson
Fran Rodman
Ray Ross
Valarie Ross
Chris Schetky
Janette Scheuerlein-
Looney
Daniel Scott
Hayley Scott
Bill Seroyer
Sandi Sheets
Katie Spurlock
Susan Gibson Stier
Carol D. Strader
Nancy Todd
Emogene Waggoner
Valerie Whelan
Felicha Wolf-Fields
Kendall Woodworth

Windermere Lake Oswego – West
Office Address:
Windermere Realty Group
3689 Carman Drive, Suite 100
Lake Oswego, OR 97035

Phone: (503) 675-8264
Fax: (503) 675-8268
Email: lakeoswegowest@windermere.com
Website: www.windermererealtygroup.com

Angela Ackerson
Jim Adler
Judy P. Adler
Randall Adler
Julius Aquino
Katie Arthur
Meaghan Baker
Christopher Cain
Robin Christian
Mahsa Darabi
John Decker
Lonnie Dicus
Lorraine Douglas-Bailey
Jose Escobar
Judy Famili
Peter Fletcher
Sunny Freeman
Richard Gonzalez
Jon Gustafson
Roy Dean Hovey
Susan Johnston-Wright
Eric King
Jennifer King
Elise Kirkpatrick
Steven Kulp
Mike Lavios
Sue Lawrence
Lori Loen
Floyd McCallum
Marcy Patton
Alan Rackerby
Raelynn P. Rackerby
Libby Randles
Joan Rilance
Mendi Sakamoto
Joseph Shook
Sonya Sperring
Susan Stohl
Dan Tomuta
Patti Waddell
Christy Walter
Maryann Ward
Megan Ward
Clark Wilkinson
Carol Wojciechowski
Sandy Woods

Windermere Lincoln City/ Salishan
Office Address:
Windermere/Distinctive Coastal Properties
7755 Hwy 101 N, Shops at Salishan
Gleneden Beach, OR 97388

Phone: 800-497-8242
Fax: 541-764-2650
Email: karlak@windermere.com
Website: www.coasthomeliving.com

Dawn Barker
Larry Garrison
Joyce Grant
Karla Kuhlenbeck, CRS
Judy Pluard
Windermere, DCP Principal Broker
Anita Quilici
Gail Stonebreaker
Roberta Tryon

Windermere McMinnville
Office Address:
Windermere Pacific Crest Realty
835 NW Adams Street
McMinnville, OR 97128

Phone: 503-474-1234
Fax: 503-474-1221
Email: pacificcrest@onlinemac.com
Website: www.windermerepcr.com

Kirk Bales
Internet Coordinator
Devri Doty
Warren Dunn
Ronald Gelbrich
Jessica Graves
Beth Jacobsen
Mikkel Jacobsen
Judie Teal
Melissa Wiedeman
Gene Zinda
Todd Zinda

Windermere Medford
Office Address:
Windermere/Van Vleet and Associates, Inc.
1117 E Jackson St
Medford, OR 97504

Phone: 541/779-6520
Fax: 541/779-2268
Email: vva@vanvleet.com
Website: www.vanvleet.com

Cathy Bauer
Michael Bauer
Barbara Brown
Internet Coordinator
Barbara Donneaud
Lana Grosenbach
Larry Hall
Ron Harvey
Laura A. Horton
David Kurtz
Tecky LaFeve
Mark Lindsay
Judy Livingood
Cheryl Malone
Bob Methvin
Judy Methvin
Karen Mezzetta
Judy Owens
Steve Parmelee
Kathy Poland
Marcia Ramsay-Coots
Chuck Robertson
Brittany Sackett
Sue Saunders
Jim Scott
Janis Sierra
Melissa Simpson
Melissa Simpson
Gary Stamps
Cerise Stephens
Dick Tibbets
Ron Unis
Mary Vaughan
Wendy Vaughan
Dan Westbrook
Mike Witten
Mark Worsham
Tani Wouters
Chelsea Zupan
John Zupan

Windermere Milton-Freewater
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Milton-Freewater
85301 Highway 11
Milton-Freewater, OR 97862

Phone: (541) 938-3155
Fax: (541) 529-2717
Email: miltonfreewater@windermere.com

Debbie Clark
Internet Coordinator
Tom Stokes
Doug Versteeg
Dana Yarwood

Windermere Monmouth
Office Address:
Windermere Western View Properties
297 N. Pacific Hwy.
Monmouth, OR 97361

Phone: 503-838-1141/800-657-8010
Fax: 503-838-2334
Email: wvp@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermerePolkCounty.com

Debbie Allred
Larry Dalton
Marian Fitts
Bruce Friedrichsen
Colleen Gardner
Dennis King
Susan King
Chris Larsen
Property Management
Sandra Paoli
Homestead Property Management
Chandra Reynolds
Lisa Scheirman
Gwen Steele
Corey Turnbull
Catherine Underwood-Bush

Windermere Newport
Office Address:
Windermere West Coast Properties
567 North Coast Highway
Newport, OR 97365

Phone: 541-265-5455
Fax: 541-265-5737
Email: win@newportnet.com
Website: www.winwcp.com

Diana Abbott
Dean Failor
Sandra George
Debra Keller
CeCe Kelly
Sonja Lovas
Steve Lovas
Irene Parsons
Vickie Phillips
Carole Reddick
Marilyn Silacci
Doretta Smith
Michael H. Smith
Cheryl Swan
Deanna Tacchini

Windermere Pacific City
Office Address:
Windermere West LLC
34950 Brooten Rd Suite A-1
Pacific City, OR 97135

Phone: (503) 483-1133
Fax: (503) 483-1134
Email: susanamort@windermere.com
Website: http://www.windermerepacificcity.com

Susan Amort
Windermere Pacific City
Jacie Voegeli

Windermere Portland Heights
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
2424 SW Vista Avenue
Portland, OR 97201

Phone: (503) 227-5500
Fax: (503) 227-4174
Email: pdxhts@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereportland.com

Teri Beatty
Libby Murphy Benz
Sherrol Butler
Jan Carlson
Dee Cheney
Victoria Crumpacker
Dede DeJager
Susan Georgeson
Susie Hollingsworth
Linda Johnson
Cindy Kaul
Whitney Klonsky
Melissa Maag
Sharon Murphy
Admin. Portland HTS
Carolyn Pullen
Janae Pyle
Benjamin Rice
Colleen Ritt
Lorraine Rose
Emily Seelig
Lynn Thompson
Ruth Van Hoomissen
Margie Wood

Windermere Portland NE - 39th
Office Address:
Windermere/Community Realty
2105 NE 39th Ave., Suite 220
Portland, OR 97212

Phone: (503) 249-1706
Fax: (503) 249-1726
Email: community@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerecommunity.com

Jennifer Barr
Todd Bouchard
Kelsey Brazeau
Bob Brown
Sam Crawford
Robin Denburg
Nasser Farhoud
Jerusalem Farmer
Craig Gilbert
Gary Haven
Holly Hummel
Heidi Kincaid
Philip Knowlton
Richard Levy
Jennifer Mabry
Jennifer Mabry
Troy Martinson
Rose Mary Ojeda
Windermere Community Realty
Kesa Rooney
Lauren Sheehan
Edward Shiang
Kimberly Spurlock
REO Team
REO Team - Washington
David Triol

Windermere Portland- Lloyd Tower NE
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
825 NE Multnomah St., Ste. 120
Portland, OR 97232

Phone: 503-284-7755
Fax: 503-220-1498
Email: lloydtower@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereportland.com

Dana Austin Griggs, PC
Alden Bagnall
Matt Bahr
Sally Baker
Cindy Banzer
Joyce Beasley
Lori Bennett
Sarann Benson
Robyn Bentley
Jeff Berrier
Carl Brenden PC
Susan Cassidy
Leslie Centner
Cynthia Chase
Dee Cheney
Beth Colla
David Colley
Catherine Cunan
Mardi Davis
Kevin Dean, PC
Michael Dooney
Michael Downing
Carrie Escobar
Daniel Fagan
Kelly Fitzmaurice
Jackie Gamble
William Gilliland
Richard Glass
Carisa Gottuso
Patrick Gourley
Gary Griggs
Billy Grippo
Billy Grippo
Gina Gunderson
Matt Guy
Michael Hampshire
Ron Howard
Susie Hunt Moran
Nancy Husband
Allison Johnson
Christopher Johnson
Jodi Jones
Dane Kealoha
Andrew King
Sal Koeller
Rita Larimore
Lenore LaTour
Lyudmila Leissler
Erin Livengood
Admin Lloyd Tower
Deborah Martin
Wendy Martin
Michael McBarron
Michelle McCabe
Sally McGee
Douglas Meyer
Matthew Moran
Team Moran
Jim Morrelli
Joyce Morrelli
Tony W. Morse
Edward Ozeruga
Mila Ozeruga
Mike Perry
Michael Pratt
Ruth Price
Stacey W. Puppo
Mike Richardson
Steven Richeson
Seth Russell
Kelly Seifer-Fitzmaurice
Leah Seligman
Ross Seligman
Loral Sheldan
Jean Silver
Diane Sorensen
Teresa St. Martin
Lisa Stevens
Stacy Stokes
Jan Stranski
James Surgeon
Dave Sutton
Aimee Virnig
Denny Virnig
Jason Webb
Nancy Wheeler
Cathleen Woodruff, P. C.

Windermere Portland- North
Office Address:
Windermere Peninsula Realty Group
6110 N. Lombard Street
Portland, OR 97203

Phone: (503) 286-5826
Fax: (503) 283-6300
Email: richard.voss@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereprg.com

Chris Bentley
Katarina Braaten
Chrisi Cover
Pat Earp
Renee Espinosa
Stephanie Frost
Stanley Hoff
Carl Johnson
Portia LeBlue
Julie Marek
Diane McGann
Dick Merck
David Monacelli
Scott Pillow
Windermere Portland North
Rena Rabe
Jennifer Richardson
Tessa Saunders
Ben Usher
Richard Voss
Dick Wisher

Windermere Portland- NW Johnson
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
733 NW 20th Ave.
Portland, OR 97209

Phone: 503-220-1144
Fax: 503- 226-6227
Email: nwjohnsn@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereportland.com

Brian Allen
Brian Joan Allen
Scott Anthony
Nihad Aweidah
Burdean Bartlem
Krystin Bassist
Aphrodite Battalia
Erin Bergstrom
Jim Corbett
Marlene Corvi
Sean Coster
Tamra Dimmick
Jon Du Clos
Allan Dushan
Blake Ellis
Marilyn Frost
Roger Gantz
Rene Gillette
Suzanne Goddyn
Leslie Hammond
Kelly Harness
Julie Headley
Priscilla Ann Holst
Dave Hrabal
Kim Kelleher
Kim Kromer
Dennis Laird
Macey Laurick
Jake Lewis
James Loos
Aladdin Marashly
Reid Martin
Drew McCulloch
Madison McDowell
Carolyn Prendergast
McKinney
Susan Merrifield
Beverly & Doug Moser
Lynne Murphy
Cyndy Muter
Kadee Norstedt
Kishra Ott
Jeanne Paul
Sue Perkel
Cameron Perkins
Cary Perkins
Rebecca Pilcher-Cleland
Will Rader
Betsy Rickles
Ricardo Romagosa
Madeleine Rose
Katie Ross
Muffie Scanlan
Maria Shershow
Patti Shmilenko
Charity Smith
Kim Smith
MJ Steen
Paula Strange
Karen Stromme
Rene Susak
Angela Swigert
Kelly Team
Sara Lewis Team
Ann Thompson
Jennifer Thompson
Nelie Vance
Dan Volkmer
Molly Wilson
Kester Wise
Anne Yoo
Neelu Yusef
Craig Zimber

Windermere Portland- Raleigh Hills
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
6443 SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy Ste 100
Portland, OR 97221

Phone: 503-297-1033
Fax: 503-220-1131
Email: raleigh@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereportland.com

Assistant Branch Administrator
Sohee Anderson LLC,
Mikal Apenes
Lynn Bell
Patrick Burson
Shanti Callister
Katherine Carella
Rick Christensen
Daphne Cooluris
Katelyn Dale
Curt Dannen
Monique Devine
Clarke Donelson
Andrea Edelson
Rubena Faruqui
Shelli Gowdy
John Gregory
Lynne Grigsby
Sarah Halton
Kim Hayworth
Martin Helleson
Raleigh Hills
Erin Kavaney
Beth Proctor Kellan
Teresa Kirsch
Greg Lawler
Rhonda Laycoe
Cathy Jo Lindquist
Heather Longfield
Vicky Lynn
Kathryn Madison
Louise Magun
Gail Mann
Lauren Marrone
Susan Marthens
Carolyn Moore
Alex Page
Mary Petrjanos
David Policar
Marie Elena Potter
Nancy Resnick
Karen Ritter
Molly Robertson
Tom Robertson
Donna Rueff
Elaine Scheeland
Brenda Schwindt
Janet Strader
Roberta Tawell
Susan Turner
Laurie Whittemore, LLC
Trudie Wilhelm
Deanna Wilson, LLC
Debra Wostmann
Elaine Zehntbauer

Windermere Portland- Sunset Corridor
Office Address:
Windermere Northwest Real Estate
9755 SW Barnes Road Suite 255
Portland, OR 97225

Phone: 503-221-7380
Fax: 503-221-7393
Email: nwre@windermere.com
Website: http://northwestrealestate.withwre.com/

Francis Adzima
Whitney Berrier
Neil Boel
Meike Bradley
Brad Golik
Judy Grambow
Mary Johnson
Kristine McGehee
Diane McKean
Diana McQueen
Bradley Mulliner
Tracy Mulliner
Margaret Myers
Windermere NWRE
Stacy Robnett
Emmet Stormo

Windermere Prineville
Office Address:
Windermere Swifterra
150 NW 4th Street
Prineville, OR 97754

Phone: (541) 447-7502
Fax: 541-447-7502
Email: vikkib@windermere.com
Website: www.realestateprineville.com

Prineville Admin.
Jean Breese
Vikki Breese-Iverson
Mike Hoover
Ryan Hoover
Dee Leininger
Heather O'Daniel

Windermere Property Management- Portland
Office Address:
Windermere Voss Property Management & Associates
6110 N. Lombard St.
Portland, OR 97203

Phone: (503) 546-7902
Fax: (503) 283-6300
Email: chris.bentley@windermere.com
Website: vosspropertymanagement.com

Chris Bentley
Office Coordinator
Chrisi Cover
Julie Marek
Rena Rabe

Windermere Property Management- Portland NE
Office Address:
Windermere Community Management
2105 NE 39th Ave., Suite 200
Portland, OR 97212

Phone: (503) 249-1706
Fax: (503) 249-1726
Email: cgilbert@windermere.com
Website: www.PDXCommercial.com

Craig Gilbert
Deborah Huffman
Vinny Small

Windermere Property Management- Portland West
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management & Investment
1500 Bethany Blvd., Suite 200
Beaverton, OR 97006

Phone: (503) 221-7380
Fax: (503) 221-7393
Email: aaronleehall@windermere.com
Website: windermere-wpmi.com

Office Coordinator
Aaron Hall

Windermere Redmond, OR
Office Address:
Windermere/Central Oregon Real Estate
1020 SW Indian Ave., Suite 100
Redmond, OR 97756

Phone: 541-923-4663
Fax: 541-923-6416
Email: wrdm@windermere.com

Bob Ahern
Dee Baker, GRI
Rachel Bare
Diana Barker
Bob Bleile
Janelle Christensen
Audrey Cook
Joy Durham
Laura Gibons
Mike Gordon
Shannon Hall
Lisa Hart
Jane Hase
Leanne Johnson
Barry Jordan
Barbara Myers
Kathy Neal
Admin. Redmond
Lori Schneringer
Nessa Segoviano
Tara Tankersley
Cheryl Tanler
Angie Tucker

Windermere Relocation-Oregon
Office Address:
Windermere Relocation, LLC
21900 Willamette Drive, Suite 202
West Linn, OR 97068

Phone: (866) 273-7356
Fax: (971) 230-7790
Email: janeta@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Janet Allen
Stephanie Boles
Internet Coordinator

Windermere Rogue River
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Southern Oregon
211 East Main Street
Rogue River, OR 97537

Office: (541) 582-8100
Email: susanandmarian@windermere.com

Office Coordinator
Cell/Direct:(541) 582-2000
Email: southernoregon@windermere.com

Susan Jaeger
Cell/Direct:(541) 582-8100
Email: susanandmarian@windermere.com
Website :www.southernoregonrealty_.com

Heather Mistretta
Cell/Direct:(541) 660-4317
Email: hmistretta@windermere.com

Marian Szewc
Cell/Direct:(541) 778-3400
Email: marianandsusan@windermere.com

Karen Thornton
Cell/Direct:(541) 660-7264
Email: kat@windermere.com

Windermere Salem
Office Address:
Windermere Pacific West Properties, Inc.
4285 Commercial St. SE Suite 100
Salem, OR 97302

Phone: 503-391-1350
Fax: 503-391-9960
Email: salem@windermere.com
Website: www.salemwindermere.com

Carolyn Alexander
Ashleigh Armenakis
Aimee Baxter
David Bradley
Cathy Bramhall
Shyra Castronovo
Torry Chapman
Lowell Dean
Michael Emerson
Jagon Ferder
Dawn Ferrell Cox
Rich Ford
Paula Fordham
Ryan Fordham
Sarah Freitag
Ronda Grefenson
HUD Homes
Vivian Hubbard
Jo Ann Leadingham
Senior Living
Shari Lowery
Michael Mahoney
Onna McColly
Pam McColly
Shelli McKenzie
Sherry Mendez
Katherine Mercer
Larry Miles
Angela Miranda
Don Paterson
John Reis
Windermere Salem
Chris & Gerry Stewart
Kelly Swift
Maggy Welker
Francie West
Leona Wyatt

Windermere Sandy
Office Address:
Windermere/Sandy Real Estate
38720 Proctor Blvd. Suite 101
Sandy, OR 97055

Phone: 503-668-4131
Fax: 503-668-9212
Email: therese@windermere.com
Website: sandyorproperties.com

Carl Exner
Alan Fleischman
Therese Fleischman
Therese Fleischman
Valerie Gillum
Katy Hallgren
Barbara Haugk
Sonya Jackson
Jack Knautz
Sandra Kurtz
Emily Parker
Vicki Turra
Michelle Way

Windermere Scappoose
Office Address:
Windermere-St. Helens Real Estate, Inc.
51913 Columbia River Hwy.
Scappoose, OR 97056

Phone: 503/543-6343
Fax: 503/543-6345
Email: hafemanm@comcast.net
Website: www.windermere.com

Karen Golson
Mike Hafeman
Pam Rensch

Windermere Seal Rock
Office Address:
Windermere WCP Real Estate Gallery
5693 NW Pacific Coast Highway, PO Box 24
Seal Rock, OR 97376

Phone: 541-563-3862, 877-563-3862
Fax: 541-563-3863
Email: coastalrealestate@windermere.com

Cobi D'Eau Claire
Ron D'Eau Claire
Dean Failor
Stella Ross
Marilyn Silacci
Michael H. Smith
Rachel Smith
Chris Watkins
Joe Wilson

Windermere Services - Oregon & SW Washington
Office Address:
Windermere Services Oregon, Inc.
9755 SW Barnes Road Suite 255
Portland, OR 97225

Phone: 503-220-1145
Fax: 503-220-5797
Email: wscoregon@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

John Broker
Brian Carlson
Melissa Freels
Tracy Mulliner
Services Oregon
Windermere Services Oregon
Oregon Premier
Todd Steinberg
Amy Tucker

Windermere Shady Cove
Office Address:
Windermere Trails End Real Estate, LLC
PO Box 1004/21675 Highway 62
Shady Cove, OR 97539

Phone: (541) 878-2249/1-888-859-3023
Fax: (541) 878-2699
Email: trailsendsc@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeretrailsend.com

Laura Barber
Debbie Drolette
Mike Malepsy
Jinny Pardee
Garry Petrich
Amanda Richardson
Windermere Shady Cove
Laurie Silveira

Windermere St. Helens
Office Address:
Windermere/St. Helens Real Estate, Inc.
519 S Columbia River Hwy.
St. Helens, OR 97051

Phone: 503-397-2131
Fax: 503-397-2138
Email: hafemang@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

George Hafeman Jr.
Michelle Langdon
Cheryl Nilsen
StHelens Office
Jim and Jayne Sawyer
Pat & Susan Wright

Windermere The Dalles
Office Address:
Windermere Glenn Taylor Real Estate
122 E 2nd St
The Dalles, OR 97058

Phone: 541-298-4451
Fax: 541-298-2896
Email: thedalles@windermere.com
Website: www.thedallesforsale.com

Dee Ashley
Scott Booth
Molly Donnell
Vickie Ellett
Charlie Foote
Carrie Guthrie
Brian Lauterbach
Ruby Mason
Kim Salvesen-Pauly
Connie Thomasian
Connie Thomasian in WA
The Dalles Windermere Real Estate
Michael Woodside
Lindamay Woosley

Windermere Vida
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lane County
45632 McKenzie Hwy
Vida, OR 97488

Phone: (541) 484-2022
Fax: (541) 465-8169
Email: lanecounty@windermere.com

Office Coordinator
John Gray
Matt R. Powell
Tanya Powell
Nadine Scott
Linda Tucker
Elliott Wood

Windermere West Linn
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
21900 Willamette Dr. Suite 202
West Linn, OR 97068

Phone: 503-557-0707
Fax: 503-557-1152
Email: westlinn@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereportland.com

Linda & Ken Baysinger
Amy Bell
Tonia Bishop
Patty Black
Theresa Crough
Wynne DeLozier
Sandy Fogle
Michael R. Graeper
Dennis Kelly
Deena Kraft
Ryan Robinson
Sarah Rose
Gail Rupp
Sheena Rupp
Irina Sikorsky
Admin. West Linn

Windermere Offices in Utah

Windermere Coalville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate-Utah
12 South Main Street
Coalville, UT 84017

Phone: 435-336-0500
Fax: (435) 645-9797
Email: Coalville@windermere.com
Website: www.WinUtah.com

Coalville Admin
Walter Brock
Dick Butler
Internet Coordinator
Patty Horie
Grady Kohler
Don Sargent

Windermere Park City
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate-Utah
1881 Prospector Ave., Suite 200
Park City, UT 84060

Phone: (435) 645-9090
Fax: (435) 645-9797
Email: ParkCity@windermere.com
Website: www.WinUtah.com

Wayne Bulkley
Robert C. Donaldson
Bonnie Higham
Grady Kohler
JP Larkin
David Medina
Mitzy Medina
Adam Opalek
Nicolle Solden
Office Staff
Bob Stobaugh

Windermere Park City- Kimball Junction
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate-Utah
900 Bitner Road
Park City, UT 84098

Phone: 435-645-9090
Fax: 435-645-9797
Email: parkcity@windermere.com
Website: www.winutah.com

Office Administrator
Grady Kohler

Windermere Salt Lake City- Sugar House
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate-Utah
1240 East 2100 South, Suite 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Phone: 801-485-3151
Fax: 801-485-3152
Email: slc@windermere.com
Website: www.winutah.com

Lana Ames
Lori Anderson
Michael Budge
Ryan Carlson
Matt Sneyd & Cody
Chamberlain
Peter Clark
Sandra Clark
Cori Clay
Craig Cornforth
Dawn Dalby
Derick Dodge
Ron Erkson
Ryan Evans
Mark Gilmore
Lezlee Gorey
Brad Hansen
Kevin Hart
Eddie and Sandra Hartman
Jonah Hornsby
Marvin Jensen
Grady Kohler
Christina LaCombe
Kirk Laser
Jon Little
Adam Maack
Krista Maack
Cherie Major
Christian McMullin
Matt Morscher
Tyler Parrish
John Patterson
Mark Quaintance
Patrick Quinn
Chad Rawlins
Kelly Singleton
Cathy Sneyd
Matt Sneyd
Joe Stanczyk
Andrew Stone
Bryan Taylor
Wasatch Team
Becca Tew
Ben Thorn
Janet Tudor
Robert Tudor
Windermere Utah
Amy Walkowski
Vanessa Wand Corbin
Lisa Woodbury
Lori Hendry & Lisa Woodbury

Windermere Salt Lake City- Union Park
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate – Utah
6955 South Union Park Center, Suite 500
Cottonwood Heights, UT 84047

Phone: 801-449-9400
Fax: 801-449-9401
Email: UnionPark@windermere.com

Dione Anderson
Brett Bennett
Annie Bertoch Macdonald
Jeff Blodgett
Michael Borzoni
Jared Bryson
Randi Burnham
James Burroughs
Mike Chance
Roxanne Craig
Debbie Dahmen
Jon & Jeanette Davis
Lisa Dimond
Darlene Dipo
Jamie Duncan Plott
Holly Elliott
Jay & Connie Elliott
Michael Fenton
Farron Foren
Robyn Foulger
Matt Hansen
Brandon Heaney
Todd Henderson
John Hiller
Kent Ingram
Shirley Jacobson
Zach Jones
Lisa Jungemann
Melissa Keller
Grady Kohler
Saon Kong Siv
Tina Lines
Trish Martinez
Mindy Mason
Sylvia Metos
Staci Mihalopoulos
Shawn Moore
Teresa Moore
Daniel Olson
Shauna Pizza
James Reed
Tracy Reed
Liz Rennie
Connie Roller
Shane Roxburgh
Cheryl Staley
Scott Steadman
Trisha Tracy
George Tratiak
Windermere Union Park
Hunter Virden
Margie Waltz
Cindy White
Jamie White
Reggie White

Windermere Offices in Washington

Windermere Aberdeen-Grays Harbor
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Aberdeen
101 South Broadway
Aberdeen, WA 98520

Phone: (360) 533-6464
Fax: (360) 533-0375
Email: graysharbor@windermere.com
Website: windermeregraysharbor.com

Joy Beard-Eggert
Lynn Biery
Bill Bonney
Bill Bonney-Commercial
David Dagnen
David Dagnen-Commercial
Ronnie Espedal III
Teresa Furstenwerth
Gary Geddes
Travis Jelovich
Travis Jelovich-Commercial
Teri Moody
Michelle Morrison
Mike O'Connor
Mike O'Connor-Commercial
Aberdeen Office
Patricia Oleachea
Joyce Peterson
Louise Stein

Windermere Alderwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/HKW, Inc.
18811 28th Ave W, Suite J
Lynnwood, WA 98036

Phone: 425-776-9580
Fax: 425-672-1382
Email: alderwood@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerealderwood.com

Natalie Akins
Dawn Amato
Jim & Martine Barney
Martine Barney
Nic Bode
Nic Bode
Nicole Bonadies
Kathy Burnett
Bill Callahan
Kay Capanyola
Nora Chess
James Claussen
James Claussen
Kristal Cluff
Wendy Condo
Gene Cramer
Rick Cuevas
Shannon Damon
Linda Emerson
Deborah Falk
Dianna Fieldstead
Ron Fischer
Bruce Fulton
Genevieve Gillman
Leigh Buchan Harvey
Thad Hoover
Barb Hunsinger
Lindsay Jackson
Lynne Jacobsen
Jeff Jermulowske
Peter Keating
Amber Kegley
Wendy Kondo
Glenda Krull
Bernadette Q. Lanzon
Catherine Lord
Gary Luckenbach
Scott Marques
Mike McKinney
Molly Mendenhall
Joe Mustach
Costas Nicoloudakis
Nick Nicoloudakis
Ron Nugent
Pamela J. Nyland
Tabatha Orr
Jennifer Pederson
Jennifer Pederson
Danan Powell
Windermere Real Estate/HKW, Inc.
Cassy Reichelt
Joelle Rekdahl
Jeannette Requa
Ken Roberts
Renee Sayatovic
Customer Service
Ken Short
Teresa Sifferman
Jane Stratton
Adolfo (AJ) Tejeda
Daniel J. Tomasek
Lou Urrutia
Carmen Vasquez
Terry Vehrs
Terry Vehrs

Ebrima M Wadda
Layle Willey

Windermere Allyn/Hood Canal South
Office Address:
Windermere Peninsula Properties
P.O. Box 200/ East 18400 Hwy 3
Allyn, WA 98524

Phone: 800-228-9523
Fax: 360-275-7477
Email: allyn@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermerePeninsulaProperties.com

Lori Anderson
Marilyn Anderson
Rick Anderson
Richard Bell
Peter Cahan
Robert Cook
Transaction Coordinator
Bob Flett
Cheri Gale
Dinah Griffey
Stacy Hoskins
Diana L. Miller
Sarah Mundell
C. Richard Potter
Beth Riebli
Kristian Schonberg
Garry R. Wilson

Windermere Anacortes
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Anacortes Properties
3018 Commercial Avenue
Anacortes, WA 98221

Phone: 360-293-8008 or 800-327-5291
Fax: 360-293-4049
Email: anacortes@windermere.com
Website: http://anacortesrealestate.com

Anacortes Fax
Anacortes Office
Anacortes Properties
Connie Client 2014
Customer Service
Office Account
Office Email
Property Management
Cynthia Aanestad
Caroline Baumann
Rick Bennett
Heather Bos
Suzanne Butler
Rebecca Chamberlain
Colleen Craig
Gina Davis
Lynn Diak
Jack Dixon
Buzz Ely
Cheryl Frazier
Kristi Gabrielse
Joan Handelmann
Kimarie Henning
Margi Houghton
Sarah Jones
Debbie Macy
Linda Macy
Amie Mani
Samantha Masaoka
Catherine Mers
Judy Moore
Brinna Mossman
Paul Necco
Jessica Notaro
Tracy Peterson-Foy
John Prosser
Bill Robillard
Dreabon Robillard
Kathryn Rogers
Colleen Sargent
Nate Scott
Jackie Stone
Paul Weisz
Troy Williams
Kim Wilson
Michael Woolworth
Leigh Zwicker

Windermere Arlington
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Arlington
210 E. Burke Avenue
Arlington, WA 98223

Phone: 360-435-0700
Fax: 360-435-3105
Email: arlington@windermere.com
Website: wahome.net

Sonya Blacker
Coree Bliven
Gene Bryson
Theresa Bryson
Shery Christianson
Frances Clarke
Scott Clarke
Sandie Cooper
Elly Cyr
Hardy & Katrina Davidson
Katrina Davidson
Liz Davis
Dennis Dickson
Pam Eskridge
Don Flores
Trevor Gaskin
Jim Henderson
Michele Hudon
Lonnie Hudson
Suzi Knibbe
Team Knibbe
Tim Knibbe
Laura Kuhl
Sarah Lamaire
Al Lehman
Jennifer Leigh
Paul Migrala
Arlington Office
Robert Penny
Phyllis Rothwell
Suzanne Schempp
Tara Sharp
Tina Smith
Linda Syria
Sally Tritt-Collins
Bill Weeda
Patty Weeda
Vivian Wells
Ryan White
Carina Willett
Arlington Windermere

Windermere Auburn- Lakeland Hills
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lake Tapps Inc
1402 Lake Tapps Pkwy East F103
Auburn, WA 98092

Phone: 253-939-7442
Fax: 253-939-7443
Email: lakelandhills@windermere.com
Website: lakelandhills.net

Jane Alexander
Konrad Blank
Melody Carlson
Nancy Colson
Anne Crews-McCown
Johnna Fernandez
Kyle Fox
William Harris
Candy Helm
Monica Hope
Heather Jahns
Tracy Lynch
Tracy Lynch
Lorian Maddox
Trenton Mathews
Debra Meehan
Arron Nowak
Frank Nowak
Claire Ostrowski
Email Pipeline
Jim Wagner
Sheryl Workman

Windermere Bainbridge Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/BI, Inc.
840 Madison Ave North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Phone: 206-842-5626
Fax: 206-842-5860
Email: bainbridge@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerebainbridge.com/

Betsy Atkinson
Tim Bailey
Sid Ball
Amber Buck
Susan Murie Burris
Shawn D. Lovell
Lorraine Davee
Shannon Dierickx
Ty Evans
Lorna Jean Giger
Carleen Gosney
Beverly Green
Susan Grosten
Keith Hauschulz
Bill Hunt
Wendy Indvik
Alexandra Jackson
Jan Johnson
Stefanie Kimzey
Terry Klein
Tom Klein
Jim Laws
Ron Mariotti
Pattie Marmon
Marilyn McLauchlan
Julie Miller
Andy Moore
Debbie Nitsche
David P. Parker
Jennifer Pells
Joanie Ransom
Ana Richards
Joe Richards
Patti Shannon
Kristen Shipstad
Vesna Somers
Ellin Spenser
Diane Sugden
Carl Sussman
Sarah Sydor
Jackie Syvertsen
Hermie Valdez
Mark Wilson
Bainbridge Windermere
Bainbridge Windermere

Windermere Belfair
Office Address:
Windermere Peninsula Properties
30 NE Romance Hill Rd. #102
Belfair, WA 98528

Phone: 360-275-5002
Fax: 360-277-5006
Email: belfair@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermerePeninsulaProperties.com

Diana Miller Admin / Belfair
Richard Bell
Jackie Bush-Turner
Transaction Coordinator
Brian McLellan
Diana Miller
Mike Mostyn
Jessica L. Spaulding
Valerie Spaulding
Thomas Welch

Windermere Bellevue
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
700 112th Ave NE, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004

Phone: 425-455-5300
Fax: 425-455-0725
Email: djackson@windermere.com
Website: www.bellevue.windermere.com

Rachel Adler
Tiffany Beatty
Mimi Bemis
Sam Biddle
Faline S. Blyth
Marie Bolster
Angie Bondurant-Taylor
Pernilla Bradley
Dick Brown
Jim Cameron
Brandi Chambers
Betty Chandler
Internet Coordinator
Johanna Cox
Mary Ann Currie
Luke Dunckley
Karen Durham
Bellevue Email
Mary Beth Emert
Shelly Evans
Faye Farhang - Saidali
Bellevue Fax
Bellevue Files
Bill Fisher
Gigi Forbes
Robin Gianattasio
Linda Ginsberg
LeeAnn Guidotti
Tony Guidotti
The Guidotti Group
Robert Guinn
Carmen Halstrom
Jeannie Herr
Gail R. Herstein
Becky Hiller
David Hogan
Francie House
Stephanie Hunziker
Shaun Icayan
D'Ann Jackson
Malleh Jagne
Josh Johnson
Jeff Jurgensen
Tony Kasunic
Sheila Kenkman
Ken Kurata
Jennifer Lamberte
Cherie Lang
Heidi Lee
Kenny Lee
Beth Marier
Jessica Markham
Cynthia Medlock
Dorothy Meyerdierks
Lily Meza
Jennifer Michaels
Bobbi Miller
Julia Nasca
Sandy Nicholls
Brian Nienaber
Heather Olson
Rob Ottosen
Lisa Pennington
Karrie Ratzburg
Scott Richards
Scott Richards
Sandra Roberts
Lisa Sabin
Karen Santa
Jody Schwartz
Karen C. Sehrer
Oline Shaw
Denni Shefrin
Cindy Silverstein
Becky Smith
David Smith
Patti Smith
R. Steve Smith
Aaron Soderlund
Tiarra Sorte
Kelly Sublett
Sudi Tabatabai
Matt Whitehouse

Windermere Bellevue Commons
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Bellevue Commons, Inc.
1200 112th Ave. NE, Suite B100
Bellevue, WA 98004

Phone: 425-462-8000
Fax: 425-450-2600
Email: bellcom@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere-bellevue.com

WBC Accounting
Amy Adams
Cortney Adams
Gene Adams
Mylo Adams
Team Adams
Barbara Armes
Scott Badger
Nicole Barclay
Windermere Bellcom
Mariana Berrino
Debra Bostic
Schon Branum
Camille Brash
Bret Butler
Lisa Butler
Sunny, Greg, Bret & Lisa Butler & Butler
Paige Caffey
Sheila Bryan MLO-175890, NMLS-175890 Caliber Home Loans
NMLS35653
Bellevue Commons
Windermere Bellevue Commons
Graphics Coordinator
Internet Coordinator
Mara Cox
Marcus Crane
Juana Cundari
Taji DeGross
AJ Deol
John Diener
Ryan Dosch
Alex Dunatov
Referral Email
Tony Ferrelli
Clinton Fink
Sean Goddard
Michael Goertzen
Mona Guillot
Kari Haas
Karen Hallgrimson
Rick Hampton
Rene Hardy
Trina Hare
Matt Harris
Bria Heiser
Lee Hong
Erin Mitchell Hoppe
Rick Juma
Janet Keller
Kreg Kendall
Jennifer Kirk
Kyle Knight
Alice Kwong
Joel LaChasse
Lynn Lattanzio
Jeanette Lawrence
Mary Lee
Mary Lee & Jeff Shaffer
Tim Lenseigne
Geraldine Levet
Vera Lillig
Michael J. Link
Dave Lowery
Dave & Tammie Lowery
Dave and Tammie Lowery
Tammie Lowery
Nicole Mangina
Yolanda Marshall
Patricia Mason
Matt Mattingly
Sue Mattingly
Ruth Mayo
Tara McCaulley
Marcie Moore
Dillon Moubarki
Robert Munn
Kristin Nelsen
Happening Office
Recruit Office
Matt Oliver
Carol Parker
Jeanette Partington
Jennifer Payment
Cecilia Pelascini
Dick Pelascini
Matthew Pelascini
Mark Pellegrino
Denise Perkins
Cecilia Pleasant
Kenny Pleasant
Jennifer Raby
WBC Receptionist
Lenore Reisdorf
Alexis Roh
Christopher Roh
Joey C. Scott
Andrew Sellers
Jeff Shaffer & Mary Lee
Kami Shaw
Melanie Shore
Christina Sirbu
Marilena Sirbu
Soli Snyder
Joy Stewart
Kimberlee Stewart
Nancy Strickland
Butler & Butler - Sunny, Greg, Bret & Lisa
Ineza Surowiecki
Sandi Tampa
Jason Telles
Sara Vowels
Brad West
Mark Worthington
Duke Young
Bryan Zemp

Windermere Bellevue South
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
14405 SE 36th Street, Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98006

Phone: 425-643-5500
Fax: 425-562-9525
Email: bsstaff@windermere.com
Website: www.bellevue-south.windermere.com

Margo Allan
Karen Balkin
Joan Bayley
Susan Beals
Christine Boden
Marilyn Borkowski
Anthony E Butz
Bess Carter
Tanya Collins
Jason Cook
David Croppi
Patrick Crowthers
Lorene Dagg
Ellie Davis
Todd M Davis
Delaney Delgado
Nancy M. Diaz
Nancy M. & Oscar J. Diaz
Oscar J. Diaz
Bellevue South Fax
Bellevue South Files
Bellevue South Firm address
Lisa Foreman
Sam Forselius
Leighsa Francis
Rick Franz
Rick Franz
Coco Fulton
Matt Gallanar
Averie Garman
Whitney Garner
Susan Gerend
Renuka Getchell
Kathy Graves
David Grimes
Pike and Grimes
Mike Hamm
Leslie Hancock
Ruth Harle
Christine Hemnes
Stephen Hender
KiamaLise Herres
Jeff Ingram
Magdalena Kalowska
Jessica Kilburn
Hyun Sook (Helen) Kim
Julie N. Knudtsen
Stephanie Kristen
John Kritsonis
Steven Kroptavich
Carna Lapping
David Larson
Lori Larson
Linda Leland
Karl Lindor
Kole Lindor
Neil Lindquist
Jennifer Manning
Ted Mansfield
Rose Marie
David Martin
Mary Love Mattox
Ed Mencke
Jed Murphey
Cindy Murphey-Kent
Blake Nelson
Chris Nelson
Cris Nelson
Kelsey Oakland
Jerry Olson
Doris Ong
James Owen
David Park
Annalisa Parlee
Jenn Penn
LaVerne Pike
Roberta Pitkin
Jackie Ramirez
Francis Crowthers Realty
Austin Rillos
Brenda Rosellini
Trevor Russell
Heidi Ryan
Trudy Sayler
Bellevue South
Tyler Staples
Alta Strayhan
URA Success
Kristen Team
Newport Hills Team
Alex Valentine
Kirk Vaux
Lisa Viereck
Natalie L Ward
Tom Wasil CRS
Donna Wolter
Debbie Worthey
Shanon Yop

Windermere Bellevue West
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
11100 Main Street, Suite 200
Bellevue, WA 98004

Phone: 425-455-9800
Fax: 425-454-8620
Email: bellwest@windermere.com
Website: www.bellevue-west.windermere.com

Greg Abbott
Marsha Abbott
Julie Arnevick
Sara Athari
Liz Azose
Julie Baker
Kitty Ballard
Cheryl A. Belouskas
Thomas Boguch
Ashley Brown
Curtis Brown
J. Michael Burke
Sheri Butler
Julie Byrnes
Bill Cahill
Bethany Carlson
Lonnie Cartmell
Jean C. Chase
Donna Cowles
Grace Currier
Hao Dang
Maria Danieli
Mary De Friel
Vikram Deol
David Eastern
Richard Eastern
Hadley Elston
Steve Elston
Steve and Sunny Elston
Sunny Elston
Steven Erickson
Bellevue West Fax
Sharalyn Ferrel
Bellevue West Files
David Foster
Tere Foster
Susan Gebhardt
Randy Ginn
Martin Goldberg
Melissa Goodnight
Joseph Gradilla
Deol Group
Allison Hall
Michelle Hanrahan
Matthew J Harding
Shelia Harding
Katie Harwood
Kim Harwood
Mallory Harwood
Roger Harwood
Steve Harwood
Teri Herrera
Nicole Himelspach
Eileen Hoxit
Darcy Johnson
Susan T. Jones
Tivona Keilman
Cindy Kelly
Eleanor Kent
Kristen Kirkham
Debbie Lin
Debbie T Lin
Jessica Lum
Angie Manca
Ric Mangialardi
Tony Marrese
Melanie McCarthy
BeiBei McKown
Wayne Means
Wendy Medlock
Mike Mincy
Tarek Moghrabi
Navy Mom
Steve Nagy
Ryan Newman
Tram Nguyen
Allen Nicholson
Bill Pallis
Mike Pavone
Jennie Pegouskie
Christy Penner
Kathleen Powell
Larry Powell
Ross Purintun
Justin Robbins
Kirsten Robertson
Mark Rockwell
Carolyn Schwarz
Julie Scozzafave
Julie Baker Shavic Jones
Christina Siwek
Moya Skillman
Mark Smith
Jan Snook
BW Staff
Matt Stapleton
Briony Stow
Mary Sunde
Stephen Tainter
Jan Tannheimer
Judy Taylor
Chris Valentino
Mary Van
Samantha Victor
Misodzi Wagoner
Rip Warendorf
Don Weintraub
Ashley Weiss
Robert Wenzl
Bell West
Bellevue West
Erin Wheadon
Art Whittlesey
Scott Whittlesey
Cassandra Wilson
Taylor Wosnig

Windermere Bellingham- Bakerview
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whatcom, Inc.
515 W Bakerview Rd.
Bellingham, WA 98226

Phone: 360-734-7500
Fax: 360-676-4694
Email: kmiller@windermere.com
Website: windermere.com

Sharon Allen
Daniel Arroyo
Jolene Baijot
Josh Baijot
Gregg Baker
Jeff Baker
Andrew Barnes
Kristen Behrends
Joy Brown
Lisa Bruner
Carrie Butler
Brittany Cavanaugh
Tim Cornwell
Maria Dahl
Gary Davidson
Shari Draper
Ron Dubrow
Dawn Durand
Cheri Eskeberg
Marla Finkelstein
Jim Fleishman
Travis Fox
Adam Foy
Kevin Geraghty
Bliss Goldstein
Dan Goldstein
Tinsel Grunhurd
Tracie Gulit
Ken Gustafson
Jessica Hanon
Jaclyn Harkson
Megan Harried
Bill Henshaw
Sue Hilton
Lynda Hinton
Leslie Hobkirk
Jeff Hopwood
David Hovde
Brad Howell
Jeff Johnson
Kirby Jones
Stephanie Joy
Susan Kaemingk
Jim Kaemingk Jr.
Chet Kenoyer
Gina Kenoyer
Jess Kenoyer
Nate Kenoyer
Michael Kingsley
Mike Kooy
Wayne Kroon
Tom Langley
Claydene Lederer
Robert Libolt
Jason Loeb
Rob Markich
Elizabeth Mason
Renata Mason
Steve Mason
Brent McMillan
Gary Medearis
Kristin Miller
Sandra Mulhern
Karen Natale
Brian Neal
Justin Nelson
Cerise Noah
Ethan Potts
Lorrie Reaves
Jay Reilly
Charlie Rinker
Mary Kay Robinson
Warren Rosenthal
Drew Rosser
Lori Rosser
Kari Skinner
Aimee Slesk
Jon Soine
Lyle Sorenson
Danielle Starkovich
Alex Stredicke
Troy Strong
Ken Swanson
Kurt Swanson
Neal Swanson
Becki Taylor
Rob and Nate Team
John Templeton
Kim Thompson
Faith Ulate
Joan Vander Giessen
Rick Vander Giessen
Jennifer Vander Meulen
Michael Voth
Shannon Wallace
Dan Washburn
Rob Washburn
Sharon Washburn
Robert Weston
Administrator Whatcom
Doug Wight
JoAnne Wyatt

Windermere Bellingham- Fairhaven
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whatcom, Inc.
1200 Old Fairhaven Parkway
Bellingham, WA 98225

Phone: 360-671-5000
Fax: 360-594-4211
Email: fairhaven@windermere.com

Kurt Acton
Lesli Beasley
Karen May Caemmerer
Carol Cattle
KC Coonc
Internet Coordinator
Paul English
Michelle Harrington
Danielle Haviland
Mike Hinkle
Galen Hirss
Kelly Jeffrey
Jackie Johnston
Ryan Martin
Nanette McDowell
John Mitzel
Doug Nesbit
Heather Othmer
Tracy Peterson-Nienaber
Damian Pro
Michael P. Reams
Lois Reynolds
Caroline Rosellini
Karen Sandeen
Lisa Schenk
Dawn Sexton
Fred Sexton
Kendra Smetana
Denise Spreitzer
Chris Thorndike-Kent
Chris and Kristi Thorndike-Kent
Kristi Thorndike-Kent

Windermere Bingen
Office Address:
Windermere Glenn Taylor Real Estate
106 W Steuben/ PO Box 773
Bingen, WA 98605

Phone: 509/493-4666
Fax: 509/493-4953
Email: bingen@windermere.com
Website: www.whitesalmonforsale.com/

Sara Abell
D.C. Arnell
Kim Barnes
Ernie Birney
Trish Dixon
Tim Donahue
Angie Greenwood
Stephanie Huntington
John Lovell
Mark Mason
Suzanne Maurer
Carl McNew
Steve Morgan
Mike Rockwell
Angela Rouse
Kim Salvesen-Pauly
Sara Sanderson
Heidi Struck
Ginger Swanson
Connie Thomasian
Ellena A. Wimp
Lindamay Woosley

Windermere Birch Bay- Blaine
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whatcom, Inc.
8105 Birch Bay Square Street
Blaine, WA 98230

Phone: (360) 371-5100
Fax: (360) 366-3219
Email: wendyelrod@windermere.com

Gerry Allen
Ingrid Andaluz
birch bay
Nicky Brettoner
Billy Brown
Pat Brown
Patricia Brown
Suzanne Dougan
Wendy Elrod
Leigh Freeman
Dennis Hill
Wynden Holman
Paul Holtzheimer
Lorraine Hoving
Carolyn Jackson
Pat Jerns
Mike Kent
Linda Kiens
Cole Markusen
Brenda Mills
Raymond Pelletti
Lucy Saldana
Sheila Say
Carlos Serrano
Brian Southwick
Lisa Sprague
Kathy Stauffer
Dana Swearinger
Randy Weg

Windermere Bonney Lake- Lake Tapps
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lake Tapps, Inc.
18008 State Route 410 East, Suite A
Bonney Lake, WA 98391

Phone: 253-883-0400
Fax: 253-883-0401
Email: Laketapps@windermere.com
Website: www.laketapps-homes.com

Tim Berg
Erika Binder
Jennifer Blue
Janine Brunson
Sandra Black Channell
Tiffinie Clark-Tollen
Krisy Clayton
Stu Clifford
Internet Coordinator
Tina Dattilo
Jim Eagle
Judy Freed
Ken Freed
Tyler Freed
Ryan Gilberts
Michael Goral
Jacquie Hacken
Ann Hilario
Steven Hobson
Amy Kennedy
Ray Koltermann
Deanna Kumar
Kjell Lindberg
Meagan Mitchell
Robbie Pampe
BLcontracts Pipeline
Debra Purcell
Janette Reedy
Alex Thomas
Tom Tollen
Mercedes Wetmore
Jeff Williams

Windermere Branch Support- East
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
14405 SE 36th St., Ste. 301
Bellevue, WA 98006

Phone: 425-643-5500
Fax: 425-278-0000
Email: ebs@windermere.com
Website: eastbranchsupport.withwre.com

East Admin
Kim Baldwin
Trina Chutich
Eastside Classes
Internet Coordinator
Catherine Deasy
Jane Deasy
Jill Deasy
Joe Deasy
Matt Deasy
Transactions East
Shannon Graf
News letter
Jason Lightfoot
BS Print
Windermere Real Estate
East Side
Snohomish Statistics
Windermere East Statistics
WRE Statistics
East Support
East Branch Support
Customer Survey
Beverly Tindall
Marika Tindall
Deanne Wilson

Windermere Branch Support- Northwest
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
5440 Sand Point Way NE, Suite 101
Seattle, WA 98102

Phone: 206-527-3801
Fax: 206-709-9644
Email: nwbscfrontdesk@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereseattle.com

Nwbsc Accounting
Nwbsc Commissions
Nwbsc Frontdesk
Kari Hedman
April Kieburtz
Steven Kieburtz
Bianca Madison
Chris Zweigle

Windermere Burien
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/South Inc.
401 S.W. 152nd St.
Seattle, WA 98166

Phone: 206-244-5900
Fax: 206-241-6837
Email: burien@windermere.com
Website: http://burien.windermere.com/

Bruce Bright
Dave Bush
Teresa Bush
Kathy Casini
Linda Conn
Emerson DeOliveira
Marco DeOliveira
Keith Dewey
Tiffany Dinh
Ayumi Doll
Carolyn Edmonds
Jan Fairchild
Marilyn Ferris
Mike Fosberg
Rob Frishholz
Terry Greutman
Al Halverson
Bradley Hawthorne
Sylvia Hawthorne
Anne Healey
Robbie Howell
Veronique Hval
Cyndi Jenkins
Dustin Keeth
Gary Keeth
Matt Klewin
Patti Menti
Rich Menti
Rick Menti
Sonja Morella
Sonja Morella
James Nelsen
Julie Nelson
Burien Office
Barb Poysky
Scott Price
Mike Ruhl
Joseph Schoepfer
Thelma Stefnik
Janel Stoneback
Gary Vanderhoff

Windermere Camano Country Club
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/CIR
1283 Elger Bay Rd
Camano Island, WA 98282

Phone: 360-387-3411, 800-659-1686
Fax: 360-387-2336
Email: camano@windermere.com
Website: www.WRECountryClub.com

Sharon Foster
Marla Heagle
Ramona Lussier
Jan Mather
Beth A. Newton
Jeanne Schei
Tina Stoner
Anne Taylor
Karri Taylor
Timmerman Team
Keri Tedrow
Don Timmerman
Karri Von Moos
Ron Wells
Joan Wilson

Windermere Camano Island Terry's Corner
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/CIR
818 N. Sunrise Blvd.
Camano Island, WA 98282

Phone: 360-387-4663,888-643-8646
Fax: 360-387-4249
Email: camanois@windermere.com
Website: www.camanorealestate.com

Jim Ayers
Jeni Bottin
Windermere Real Estate / Camano Island Realty
Scott Crawford
David Dannenberg
John (J.P.) DeBoer
Linda Dunn
Jerry Evans
Linda Evans
Greg Gilday
Marla Heagle
Tamara Matthews
Lauren McClure
Nancy McClure
Doug Nemo
Mike Nestor
Dianna Pence
Liz Pratt
Jon Soth
Jill Vail
Mark Williams

Windermere Camas
Office Address:
Windermere/Crest Realty Co.
401 NE 3rd Ave
Camas, WA 98607

Phone: 360-834-3344
Fax: 360-834-9443
Email: camas@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerecamas.com

Rhonda Ackman
Dan and Kathy Huntington
Jeff Baker
Nicole Brewer
Internet Coordinator
Roger Daniels
Jennifer Deml
Nicole Dreyer
Laura Duncan
Nancy Duncan
Donna Fox
Jon Girod
Greg Goforth
Kathy Hadley
Dan Huntington
Josh Johnson
Olga Kozlov
Stephanie Leek
Melody Markee
David McDonald
Gary Nigro
Matt Ransom
Bob Raymond
Scott Reeburgh
Brandon Roberts
Courtney Roberts
Camas Scanner
Pam Seekins
Teazzua Seekins
Bonnie Seela
Will Slater
Amy Stoller
Collin Stoller
Linda Stoller
Steve Stoller
Kathy Zimmer

Windermere Cathlamet
Office Address:
Windermere Cathlamet
102 Main Street, #200
Cathlamet, WA 98612

Phone: 360-795-0552
Fax: 360-795-0558
Email: emailus@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Kevin Campbell
Internet Coordinator
Victoria Sturm
William Wilkins

Windermere Centralia
Office Address:
Windermere/Centralia
411 West Main Street
Centralia, WA 98531

Phone: 360-736-3300
Fax: 360-736-3679
Email: centralia@windermere.com
Website: www.LewisCountyRealEstate.com

Chris Bonagofski
Paula Burrows
Dawn Butcher
Christa Edminster
Bryan Finch
Betty Gaudreau
Maruta Hiegel
Don Lorette
Laree Neeley
Laree Neeley
Len Noble
Dusty Ross
Tara Sawyer
Hal Sprouse
Max Vogt
Melissa Wallace
Kelvin Wallin

Windermere Chewelah
Office Address:
Windermere Chewelah LLC
N. 113th Park St. / P.O. Box 1429
Chewelah, WA 99109

Phone: 509/935-6124
Fax: 509/935-6101
Email: windermeress@theofficenet.com
Website: www.chewelahwindermere.com

Sally Beane
Internet Coordinator
Edith Dashiell
Cheryl K. George
Sheryl Hoxie
Kerry Karsh
David Pohto
Steve Schalock
Dana Woodard

Windermere Cle Elum
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Cle Elum
807 W First Street
Cle Elum, WA 98922

Phone: 800-635-1883
Fax: 509-674-5214
Email: cleelum@windermere.com
Website: windermerecleelum.com

Laura Carlson
Lee Cooper
Cindy Firl
Jill Gunderson
Becky Gunnells
Rod Jovanovich
Caroline Kurtz
Gary Kurtz
CleElum Manager@
Kathy Mosolf
Jon Newton
Colette Rarden
Teresa Scott
Customer Service
Eliza Stephenson
Dee Tucker-Gotch
Derek Vaughan
Kitty Wallace
Jan Wanechek

Windermere Colville
Office Address:
Windermere Colville
790 South Main
Colville, WA 99114

Phone: 509-684-1012
Fax: 509-684-1238
Email: admin@windermerecolville.com
Website: www.windermerecolville.com

Windermere Colville
Jody Emra
Chris Frostad
Paul Gourlie
Debbie House
Ken House
Katie Huff
Ron LaVigne
Ron Matney
Kimberly Merritt
Tammy Ringer

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

Phone: 425-355-0707
Fax: 425-355-9512
Email: office@wcnw.biz
Website: www.wcnw.biz

Brad Albertsen
Virginia Kiesel
Ronald Thompson
Jerry Tucker
Becky Wright
Scott Young

Windermere Commercial- Lake Stevens
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Investment Management
9327 4th Street NE, Suite 5
Lake Stevens, WA 98258

Phone: (425) 377-8065
Fax: (425) 377-8066
Email: invest@windermere.com
Website: www.wreimi.com

Kyle Kurisu
Maintenance Requests
Monica Roybal
Cathy Thompson
Cathy Thompson
Del Thompson

Windermere Deer Park
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Deer Park
519 South Fir/ P.O. Box 1517
Deer Park, WA 99006

Phone: 509-276-1703
Fax: 509-276-1697
Email: deerpark@windermere.com

Dennis Alwine
Internet Coordinator
Tom Robertson

Windermere Edmonds
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/GH LLC
210 5th Ave. S., Suite 102
Edmonds, WA 98020

Phone: 425-672-1118
Fax: 425-776-8122
Email: edmonds@windermere.com
Website: windermereedmonds.com

Cary Adams
Jan Allan
Mel Barber
Laurie Barrow
John Bischoff
Turid Bouchoukian
Joelle Boyce
Crystal Chea
Adam Cobb
Adam Cobb
Adam Cobb
Adam E. Cobb
Edmonds Compliance
Internet Coordinator
Tom Crowe
Katherine Epstein
Chip Erickson
Patricia Erickson
Lauren Falk
Jane Fought
Bunny and Orlo Fuller
Orlo and Bunny Fuller
Lise Gardner
Pam Gilbert
Shelley Hagstrom
Robyn Hammond
Katie Hanchinamani
Le Ann Helleren
Paul Henry
Debra Herman
Greg Hoff
Ryan Hoff
Amanda Hovde
Kristine Hovde
Marilyn Irwin
David Jansen
Evan Johnson
Tom Johnson
Michael Kealy
Lynn Kern
Rick Landreth
Katie Lyon
Jill Massa
Buz McKinley
Chris Melton
Susan Moore
John Mueller
Cheri Neil
Michael Nicon
Rene Nielsen
Arlene Nornes
Keven O'Kinsella
Olga O'Kinsella
Judy OMalley
Cindi Oneal
Anna Polonsky
Craig Purfeerst
Christie Quigley
John Reich
Emoke Rock
Ruth Rongerude
Rob Schmaus
George J. Smith
Roy Smith
Judee Sola
Ida Solomon
Gary Stratton
Carolyn Strong
David Sunde
Kim Tornow
Megan Walla
Kim Walters
Dave Watkins
Ed Wendling
Jim Wilkinson
Lyn Winter
Nancie J. Wood

Windermere Education
Office Address:
The Windermere Education Center
17711 Ballinger Way NE
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

Phone: 206-526-7612
Fax: No fax
Email: education@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereu.com

Beverly Bothel
Dan Givens
Jonna Hood
Brittany Lockwood
Nick Maki
Windermere Professional Development
Angelica Whitley

Windermere Ellensburg
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Ellensburg
808 S. Main
Ellensburg, WA 98926

Phone: 509-925-5577
Fax: 509-925-9006
Email: ellensburg@windermere.com
Website: www.ellensburgproperty.com

Erich Cross
Windermere Real Estate/ Ellensburg
John Gardner
Lara Huppert
Lynn Jenison
Cara Marrs
Rusti McClure
Jennifer Savage
Rory Savage
Office Staff
Art Stoltman
Cindi Stoltman
Julie Virden
Sandy Walker

 

 

 

 

CLICK BLUE TEXT LINKS TO

REPORTS & COURT CASES AS OF:

 

 

 

Stipulated Protective Order Governing Use and Dissemination of Confidential Documents and Materials Between Parties BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., a California corporation, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., a California corporation, WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; and, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, a Washington corporation.

DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE STIPULATED ORDER HERE

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., a California corporation, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., a California corporation, WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation,

 

Plaintiffs,

 

v.

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1-10.

 

Defendants.

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

 

Case No. 5:l5-cv-0192l-R-KK

Hon. Manual L. Real

 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING USE AND

DISSEMINATION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS

 

Complaint filed: September 17, 2015

First Amended Complaint filed: November 16, 2015

First Amended Counterclaim filed: October 14, 2015

 

Pre-Trial Conference: September 19, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.

Trial: October 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

 

            IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties to Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., et al. v. Windermere Real Estate Services Company, et. al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.5: l5-cv- 01921- R-KK, by and through their respective counsel of record, that in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents which may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights, the Parties stipulate as follows:

 

            1. In this Protective Order, the words set forth below shall have the following meanings:

 

            a. "Proceeding" means the above-captioned action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Case No.5: 15- cv-0192l-R-KK.

 

            b. "Court" means the Hon. Manual L. Real, or any other judge or magistrate judge to which this Proceeding may be assigned, including Court staff participating in such proceedings.

 

            c. "Confidential" information or items shall mean (1) trade secret information as defined in California Civil Code section 3426.1, or other confidential research, development, pricing, or membership information, or (2) any information subject to the right to privacy of any individual or entity under state or federal law, and (3) designated as such by any Producing Party in good faith as containing such information using the procedures provided for herein. The term "Confidential" shall also apply to copies, extracts, and complete or partial summaries prepared from such writings or information designated as "Confidential," as well as to any writing, document or information which quotes, paraphrases or otherwise discloses information designated as "Confidential." The designation of any writing, document or information as "Confidential" pursuant to the terms of this Order shall constitute the verification that the designation is in good faith and consistent with the terms of this Order and applicable federal law. Nothing herein precludes such information from being designated as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" if appropriate.

 

            d. "Confidential Materials" means any Documents, Testimony or information as defined below designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes only" pursuant to the provisions of this Protective Order.

 

            e. "Designating Party" means the Party that designates Materials as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential- Attorneys' Eyes only."

 

            f. "Disclose" or "Disclosed" or "Disclosure" means to reveal, divulge, give, or make available Materials, or any part thereof, or any information contained therein.

 

            g. "Documents" means (i) any "Writing," "Original," and "Duplicate" as those terms are defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence, which have been produced in discovery in this Proceeding by any person, and (ii) any copies, reproductions, or summaries of all or any part of the foregoing.

 

            h. "Information" means the content of Documents or Testimony.

 

            i. "Testimony" means all depositions, declarations or other testimony taken or used in this Proceeding.

 

            j. "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" means extremely sensitive "Confidential" information or items (as defined above), that a Designating Party believes in good faith (a) disclosure of which to another party or non-party would create a very substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means; (b) is required to be kept confidential to protect the privacy interests of an individual; or (c) is subject to an express obligation of confidentiality owed by the Designating Party to a third party. Such material may include but is not limited to: documents containing extremely sensitive trade secrets, research and competitive intelligence, or other documents referring to, reflecting, and/or incorporating the foregoing; as well as financial information including but not limited to accounting records, revenues, costs, profits, confidential pricing, and overhead; information relating to a party's suppliers, licensees, licensors, distributors or present or prospective customers including but not limited to names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses not otherwise publicly available; business strategy including but not limited to future business plans; information of an extremely high degree of current commercial sensitivity that may provide a competitive advantage to competitors if disclosed. The term "trade secret" shall be defined according to the definition in California Civil Code § 3426.1.

 

            2. The entry of this Protective Order does not alter, waive, modify, or abridge any right, privilege or protection otherwise available to any Party with respect to the discovery of matters, including but not limited to any Party's right to assert the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or other privileges, or any Party's right to contest any such assertion.

 

            3. Any Documents, Testimony or Information to be designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" must be clearly so designated before the Document, Testimony or Information is Disclosed or produced. The "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation should not obscure or interfere with the legibility of the designated Information.

 

            a. For Documents (apart from transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), the Designating Party must affix the legend "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" on each page of any Document containing such designated Confidential Material.

 

            b. For Testimony given in depositions the Designating Party may either:

 

            i. identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, all "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" Testimony, by specifying all portions of the Testimony that qualify as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential- Attorneys' Eyes Only"; or

 

            ii. designate the entirety of the Testimony at the deposition as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" (before the deposition is concluded) with the need to identify more specific portions of the Testimony as to which protection is sought within 30 days following receipt of the deposition transcript, or such other time as may be mutually agreed between the Parties in writing or ordered by the Court. In circumstances where portions of the deposition Testimony are designated for protection, the transcript pages containing "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" Information may (but need not) be separately bound by the court reporter, who must affix to the top of each page so designated the legend "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only," as instructed by the Designating Party.

 

            c. For Information produced in some form other than Documents, and for any other tangible items, including, without limitation, compact discs or DVDs, the Designating Party must affix in a prominent place on the exterior of the container or containers in which the Information or item is stored the legend "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential- Attorneys' Eyes Only." If only portions of the Information or item warrant protection, the Designating Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" portions.

 

            4. The inadvertent production by any of the undersigned Parties or non-Parties to the Proceedings of any Document, Testimony or Information during discovery in this Proceeding without a "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation, shall be without prejudice to any claim that such item is "Confidential" and such Party shall not be held to have waived any rights by such inadvertent production. In the event that any Document, Testimony or Information that is subject to a "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation is inadvertently produced without such designation, the Party that inadvertently produced the document shall give written notice of such inadvertent production within twenty (20) days of discovery of the inadvertent production, together with a further copy of the subject Document, Testimony or Information designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" (the "Inadvertent Production Notice"). Upon receipt of such Inadvertent Production Notice, the Party that received the inadvertently produced Document, Testimony or Information shall promptly destroy the inadvertently produced Document, Testimony or Information and all copies thereof, or, at the expense of the producing Party, return such together with all copies of such Document, Testimony or Information to counsel for the producing Party and shall retain only the "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" designated Materials. Should the receiving Party choose to destroy such inadvertently produced Document, Testimony or Information, the receiving Party shall notify the producing Party in writing of such destruction within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice of the inadvertent production. This provision is not intended to apply to any inadvertent production of any Information protected by attorneyclient or work product privileges to which the standard rules regarding the inadvertent production of such attorney-client or work product Materials shall apply. In the event that this provision conflicts with any applicable law regarding waiver of confidentiality through the inadvertent production of Documents, Testimony or Information, such law shall govern. The receiving Party reserves all rights to claim that the Inadvertent Production Notice is not proper based on the circumstances.

 

            5. In the event that counsel for a Party receiving Documents, Testimony or Information in discovery designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" objects to such designation with respect to any or all of such items, said counsel shall advise counsel for the Designating Party, in writing, of such objections, the specific Documents, Testimony or Information to which each objection pertains, and the specific reasons and support for such objections (the "Designation Objections"). Counsel for the Objecting Parties shall have thirty (30) days from service of the written Designation Objections, or such other time as may be mutually agreed between the Parties in writing or ordered by the Court, to either (a) agree in writing to de- designate Documents, Testimony or Information pursuant to any or all of the Designation Objections and/or (b) file a motion with the Court seeking to uphold any or all designations on Documents, Testimony or Information addressed by the Designation Objections (the "Designation Motion"). Nothing herein is intended to shift the burden of upholding a Confidential Designation from the Designating Party. A meet and confer exchange must occur prior to filing a Designation Motion. Pending a resolution of the Designation Motion by the Court, any and all existing designations on the Documents, Testimony or Information at issue in such Motion shall remain in place. The Designating Party shall have the burden on any Designation Motion of establishing the applicability of its "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" designation. In the event that the Designation Objections are neither timely agreed to nor timely addressed in the Designation Motion, then such Documents, Testimony or Information shall remain as designated until resolution of the Designation Objection applicable to such material has been made pursuant to paragraph 8 below and for good cause showing.

 

            6. Access to and/or Disclosure of Confidential Materials designated as "Confidential" shall be permitted only to the following persons:

 

            a. the Court and all of its personnel;

 

            b. (1) Attorneys of record in the Proceedings and their affiliated attorneys, paralegals, clerical and secretarial staff employed by such attorneys who are actively involved in the Proceedings and are not employees of any Party. (2) In-house counsel to the undersigned Parties the clerical and secretarial staff employed by such counsel;

 

            c. those officers, directors, partners, members, employees and agents of all non-designating Parties that counsel for such Parties deems necessary to aid counsel in the prosecution and defense of this Proceeding;

 

            d. court reporters in this Proceeding (whether at depositions, hearings, or any other proceeding) and their staff, professional jury or trial consultants, and Professional Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this litigation and who have signed the "CERTIFICATION RE CONFIDENTIAL DISCOVERY MATERIALS" (Exhibit A);

 

            e. any deposition, trial or hearing witness in the Proceeding who previously has had access to the Confidential Materials, or who is currently or was previously an officer, director, partner, member, employee or agent of an entity that has had access to the Confidential Materials;

 

            f. any deposition or non-trial hearing witness in the Proceeding who previously did not have access to the Confidential Materials;

 

            g. mock jury participants;

 

            h. outside experts or expert consultants consulted by the undersigned Parties or their counsel in connection with the Proceeding, whether or not retained to testify at any oral hearing; and

 

            i. any other person that the Designating Party agrees to in writing. Prior to the Disclosure of Confidential Materials to any person or persons under paragraphs 6(b-i), counsel for the Party making the Disclosure shall first deliver a copy of this Protective Order to such person, shall explain its terms to such person, shall explain to such person that he or she shall be bound to follow the terms of this Protective Order and shall either confirm such terms on the record under penalty of perjury or secure the signature of such person on the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. It shall be the obligation of counsel, upon learning of any breach or threatened breach of this Protective Order by anyone or any entity, to promptly notify counsel for the Designating Party of such breach or threatened breach.

 

            In the event a person is required to execute Exhibit A, counsel for the Party that provided the Confidential Materials to such person shall retain the original of such Exhibits. Such Exhibits shall not be discoverable except upon a showing of good cause and the potential for irreparable harm.

 

            6.1 Access to and/or Disclosure of Confidential Materials designated as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" may only be shown to those designated in Section 6 subsections (a, b(1), b(2), d, e, f, g, h, and i).

 

            7. Confidential Materials shall be used by the persons receiving them only for the purposes of preparing for, conducting, participating in the conduct of, and/or prosecuting and/or defending the Proceeding, and not for any business or other purpose whatsoever.

 

            Any Party to the Proceeding (or other person subject to the terms of this Protective Order) may ask the Court, after appropriate notice to the other Parties to the Proceeding, to modify or grant relief from any provision of this Protective Order.

 

            8. Entering into, agreeing to, and/or complying with the terms of this Protective Order shall not:

 

            a. operate as an admission by any person that any particular Document, Testimony or Information marked "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" contains or reflects non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law; or

 

            b. prejudice in any way the right of any Party (or any other person subject to the terms of this Protective Order):

 

            i. to seek a determination by the Court of whether any particular Confidential Material should be subject to protection as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the terms of this Protective Order; or

 

            ii. to seek relief from the Court on appropriate notice to all other Parties to the Proceeding from any provision(s) of this Protective Order, either generally or as to any particular Document, Material or Information.

 

            9. Any Party to the Proceeding who has not executed this Protective Order as of the time it is presented to the Court for signature may thereafter become a Party to this Protective Order by its counsel's signing and dating a copy thereof and filing the same with the Court, and serving copies of such signed and dated copy upon the other Parties to this Protective Order.

 

            10. Any Information that may be produced by a non-Party witness in discovery in the Proceeding pursuant to subpoena or otherwise may be designated by such non-Party as "Confidential" under the terms of this Protective Order, and any such designation by a non-Party shall have the same force and effect, and create the same duties and obligations, as if made by one of the undersigned Parties hereto. Any such designation shall also function as a consent by such producing Party to the authority of the Court in the Proceeding to resolve and conclusively determine any motion or other application made by any person or Party with respect to such designation, or any other matter otherwise arising under this Protective Order.

 

            11. If any person or Party subject to this Protective Order who has custody of any Confidential Materials receives a subpoena, request for production of documents or other process ("Subpoena") from any government or other person or entity demanding production of Confidential Materials, the recipient of the Subpoena shall promptly give notice of the same by electronic mail transmission, followed by either express mail or overnight delivery to counsel of record for the Designating Party, and shall furnish such counsel with a copy of the Subpoena. Upon receipt of this notice, the Designating Party may, in its sole discretion and at its own cost, move to quash or limit the Subpoena, otherwise oppose production of the Confidential Materials, and/or seek to obtain confidential treatment of such Confidential Materials from the subpoenaing person or entity to the fullest extent available under law. Likewise, the recipient of the Subpoena can elect to quash the Subpoena or otherwise oppose production of Confidential Materials without a challenge by any Party that the recipient lacks standing to assert the Confidentiality designation. The recipient of the Subpoena may not produce any Documents, Testimony or Information pursuant to the Subpoena prior to the date specified for production on the Subpoena. Moreover, provided the Designating Party has taken some form of legal action designed to quash or limit the Subpoena, the recipient of the Subpoena agrees to await the outcome of such proceedings prior to producing any Confidential Materials. Conversely, if the Designating Party has not taken any such action, the existence of this Order does not require the recipient of the Subpoena to act in violation of the obligations imposed by the Subpoena.

 

            12. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed to preclude either Party from asserting in good faith that certain Confidential Materials require additional protection. The Parties shall meet and confer to agree upon the terms of such additional protection.

 

            13. If, after execution of this Protective Order, any Confidential Materials submitted by a Designating Party under the terms of this Protective Order is Disclosed by a non-Designating Party to any person other than in the manner authorized by this Protective Order, the non-Designating Party responsible for the Disclosure shall bring all pertinent facts relating to the Disclosure of such Confidential Materials to the immediate attention of the Designating Party.

 

            14. This Protective Order is entered into without prejudice to the right of any Party to knowingly waive the applicability of this Protective Order to any Confidential Materials designated by that Party. If the Designating Party uses Confidential Materials in a non-Confidential manner or in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this Order, then the Designating Party shall advise the other Party that the designation no longer applies.

 

            15. Any Party seeking to file with the Court any Confidential Materials, or Information derived from Confidential Materials must file that information under seal. In doing so, the Parties shall follow and abide by applicable law, applicable Local Rules, and the chambers' rules, with respect to filing documents under seal. Once a Party has complied with such rules with respect to filing documents under seal, the Party shall file or lodge Confidential Materials in a sealed envelope, or other appropriate sealed container, on which shall be written the title and case number of this action, an indication of the nature of the contents of such sealed envelope or other container, and a statement in substantially the following form:

 

            "CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER"

 

            Such envelope or container shall not be opened without order of the Court except by officers of the Court or the attorneys of record who, after reviewing the contents, shall return them to the clerk in a sealed envelope or container. A party filing a document under seal shall publicly file a copy of the document with the confidential material redacted. The complete redacted document, along with a written statement or notice indicating in general terms what has been redacted, shall be furnished to the outside counsel of record for all other Parties and electronically filed with the Court.

 

            16. This Order shall only govern the procedures for use of Confidential Materials prior to trial. The Parties shall meet and confer regarding the procedures for use of Confidential Materials at trial and shall move the Court for entry of an appropriate order prior to the time of trial.

 

            17. Nothing in this Protective Order shall affect the admissibility into evidence of Confidential Materials, or abridge the rights of any person to seek judicial review or to pursue other appropriate judicial action with respect to any ruling made by the Court concerning the issue of the status of Confidential information that is the subject of this Order.

 

            18. This Protective Order shall continue to be binding after the conclusion of this Proceeding and all subsequent proceedings arising from this Proceeding, except that a Party may seek the written permission of the Designating Party or may move the Court for relief from the provisions of this Protective Order. To the extent permitted by law, the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce, modify, or reconsider this Protective Order, even after the Proceeding is terminated.

 

            19. Upon written request made within thirty (30) days after the settlement or other termination of the Proceeding, the undersigned Parties shall have thirty (30) days to either (a) promptly return to counsel for each Designating Party all Confidential Materials and all copies thereof (except that counsel for each Party may maintain in its files, in continuing compliance with the terms of this Protective Order, all work product, and one copy of each pleading filed with the Court and one copy of each deposition together with the exhibits marked at the deposition), (b) agree with counsel for the Designating Party upon appropriate methods and certification of destruction or other disposition of such Confidential Materials, or (c) as to any Documents, Testimony or other Information not addressed by sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), file a motion seeking a Court order regarding proper preservation of such Materials. To the extent permitted by law the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to review and rule upon the motion referred to in subparagraph (c) herein.

 

            20. After this Protective Order has been signed by counsel for all Parties, it shall be presented to the Court for entry.

 

            21. In the event that the Court modifies this Protective Order, or in the event that the Court enters a different Protective Order, the Parties agree to be bound by this Protective Order until such time as the Court may enter such a different Order. It is the Parties' intent to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order pending its entry so as to allow for immediate production of Confidential Materials under the terms herein. This Protective Order may be executed in counterparts.

 

            22. The Court may modify the Protective Order in the interests of justice or for public policy reasons.

 

            IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED: February 17, 2016                         ______________________

                                                                        HON. MANUEL L. REAL

                                                                        United States District Court Judge

 

 

The parties hereby consent to the entry of this Order:

 

                                                            MULCAHYLLP

                                                           

                                                            By: /s/ Kevin A. Adams

                                                            James M. Mulcahy

                                                            Kevin A. Adams

                                                            Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants

                                                            Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc.,

                                                            Bennion & Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc.,

                                                            Windermere Services Southern California,

                                                            Inc., and Counter-Defendants

                                                            Robert L. Bennion and Joseph R. Deville

 

                                                            PEREZ WILSON VAUGHN & FEASBY

 

                                                            By: /s/ John D. Vaughn

                                                            John D. Vaughn

                                                            Jeffrey A. Feasby

                                                            Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant

                                                            Windermere Real Estate Services Company

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

CERTIFICATION RE CONFIDENTIAL DISCOVERY MATERIALS

 

            I hereby acknowledge that I, ___________________________ [NAME], _______________________________ [POSITION AND EMPLOYER], am about to receive Confidential Materials supplied in connection with the Proceeding, United States District Court for the Central District of California Case No.5: l5-cv-0192l-R-KK. I certify that I understand that the Confidential Materials are provided to me subject to the terms and restrictions of the Protective Order entered in this Proceeding. I have been given a copy of the Protective Order; I have read it, and I agree to be bound by its terms.

 

            I understand that Confidential Materials, as defined in the Protective Order, including any notes or other records that may be made regarding any such materials, shall not be Disclosed to anyone except as expressly permitted by the Protective Order. I will not copy or use, any Confidential Materials obtained pursuant to this Protective Order, except as provided therein or otherwise ordered by the Court in the Proceeding.

 

            I further understand that I am to retain all copies of all Confidential Materials provided to me in the Proceeding in a secure manner, and that all copies of such Materials are to remain in my personal custody until termination of my participation in this Proceeding, whereupon the copies of such Materials will be returned or destroyed upon the instruction of the counsel who provided me with such Materials.

 

            I further understand that I may be held in contempt if I breach the terms of this Protective Order entered by the Court. I understand that if I am held in contempt, I may be subject to monetary penalties and/or incarceration.

 

            I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this ______ day of _____ , 20___, at ____________.

 

 

DATED: _____________________                               By: _______________________

                                                                                   

                                                                                                            Signature

 

                                                                                                Title: ___________________________

                                                                       

                                                                                                Address:

 

                                                                                                City, State, Zip:

 

                                                                                                Telephone Number:

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Windermere Homes & Estates Opens its Twelfth Southern California Office in Temecula

San Diego’s fourth largest residential real estate brokerage expands into Riverside County

 

San Diego – Feb. 29, 2016 – Windermere Homes & Estates (WHE) announces the opening of its newest office in Temecula, Calif., located at 27393 Ynez Road, Suite 261, near the area’s popular wine region. WHE now has 12 real estate offices throughout Southern California with plans to open a thirteenth office in the Plaza at Aviara next month.

 

Founded by Brian Gooding and Rich Johnson, WHE has opened nine offices in San Diego County in just two years, and has expanded into the Riverside and San Bernardino Counties in the past five months with new offices in Coachella Valley, Calif., Big Bear, Calif., and now Temecula, Calif. The company is the fourth largest residential real estate brokerage in San Diego based on sales volume and has more than 400 agents.

 

“Temecula is an incredible real estate market with its proximity to gorgeous vineyards, wine tasting rooms, and livable neighborhoods,” said Windermere Homes & Estates Co-owner Rich Johnson. “With some of Temecula’s best agents on our team, we’re looking forward to representing the Windermere brand in this exciting market.”

 

Gooding and Johnson have a long history in sales and management with Windermere, leading them to open their own franchise partnership in July 2013. After just two and a half years, they reached $1.2 billion in annual sales, based on data from Broker Metrics.

 

President of Windermere Real Estate, OB Jacobi, says Gooding and Johnson have incredible real estate business instincts, and Temecula is a Southern California market that is very desirable.

 

“Rich and Brian know Southern California real estate. They continue to grow offices and attract new agents because they put relationships first,” says Jacobi. “That, combined with countless hours of hard work, has helped them significantly grow Windermere Homes & Estates over the past two and a half years. Our continued partnership is going to have a positive impact in the Temecula area.”

 

Windermere Homes & Estates plans to add more agents. For more information, please contact Brian Gooding at briangooding@windermere.com or 760-585-8868, or Rich Johnson at richjohnson@windermere.com or 760-585-886

DOWNLOAD WINDERMERE’S PRESS RELEASE HERE

 

 

 

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 by Muscular Dystrophy Sufferer 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...”

Shifting liability via Answer? Windermere agents become “independent contractors” and not Windermere employees when their franchise owner brokers get sued...

The Answer of Windermere Real Estate Bainbridge Island, Inc., Diane and John Doe Sugden, and Jan and John Doe Johnson, and Affirmative Defenses Thereto: “2.5 Admit with one correction; Ms. Sugden and Ms. Johnson are independent contractors affiliated and licensed with Windermere BI.”

(Download the complete Answer here.)

CASE UPDATE, 07-29-2015; Notice for Assignment of Trial Date: 05-17-2016

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:

 

 

 

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.

 

For immediate release

Les Ryan Realty Partners with Windermere Real Estate in Coachella Valley

Second-generation real estate professional becomes newest Windermere franchise owner in the desert area with new office - Windermere Desert Living

Coachella Valley, Calif. – March 31, 2016 – Les Ryan Realty, formally a Century 21 franchise based out of Cloverdale, Calif., is joining Windermere Real Estate’s growing team in Coachella Valley and will now be known as Windermere Desert Living. With a special focus on the La Quinta area, the franchisee will be opening its first Windermere office this month at 51350 Desert Club Drive, La Quinta, Calif.

The addition of Windermere Desert Living will further expand Windermere’s presence throughout Coachella Valley, following the recent openings of Windermere offices in Palm Desert by Windermere Homes & Estates in October 2015, as well as Windermere Real Estate?Leaskou Partners in November 2015.

The new Windermere Desert Living team is led by Les Ryan (left), a second-generation real estate agent whose parents worked in the real estate industry beginning in the 1970s with offices throughout Northern California before retiring. His brother, David Ryan, is also a Windermere franchisee owner in Ukiah, Calif.

“I’ve been working in the real estate business for what seems like my whole life, so I know a successful real estate company must have a strong brand, be actively involved in the community, and care deeply about its agents,” said Les Ryan, owner and founder of Windermere Desert Living. “Windermere holds all those qualities and more – it makes sense for my team to join Windermere and further enhance the company’s presence in the desert area.”

Ryan’s team of nine agents specialize in residential real estate in the La Quinta area, as well as vacation rentals. Two agents on his team also work in the Yucca Valley area.

Ryan has developed a great appreciation for the diverse beauty of Coachella Valley and all it has to offer to both residents and visitors. He says he was immediately drawn to Coachella Valley because of the many qualities it offers potential homebuyers and renters. Residents and guests enjoy beautiful weather year-round, quiet neighborhoods and endless options for nearby activities including music festivals, golf courses, polo tournaments and more. Additionally, it is centrally located between major cities such as San Diego, Los Angeles and Las Vegas – only a 2- to 3-hour drive to each. 

“Les is a consummate real estate professional who values a strong brand name and honorable company values,” said President of Windermere Real Estate OB Jacobi. “He and his team offer an incomparable understanding of the La Quinta market for both residential home sales and vacation rentals. With this new partnership, we continue to increase the Windermere footprint and real estate expertise throughout Coachella Valley.”

For more information about Windermere Desert Living, contact Les Ryan at (760) 610-6782 or visit http://windermeredesertliving.com/.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

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.

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

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.

 

 

"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.”

 

 

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, still producing commissions for Windermere Real Estate/CIR Owner, Marla Heagle, and for franchiser 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.

 

Highmark Homes, Windermere Auburn-Lakeland Hills, Bonney Lake, Lake Tapps Review:

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, FOR PIERCE COUNTY—CASE NO. 14-2-08793-0

(Download the Complaint here)

Windermere Auburn-Lakeland Hills, Bonney Lake, Lake Tapps Owner Tom Tollen, and Tollen's Highmark Homes, Sued by 29 Valley Haven Project Development Home Owners for Breach of Washington Condominium Act, Breach of Contract, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, and Violation of RCW 18.86 / Negligence, in Complaint Alleging:

“45. Defendant Highmark breached one or more the above-described implied warranties, and the resulting construction deficiencies are adversely affecting the Individual Plaintiffs' homes. Water is able to penetrate into their homes exterior and interior building surfaces and framing components and cause property damage. The useful safe-life of their homes has also been shortened by the resulting property damage and other structural deficiencies in their construction.

52. Defendant Highmark failed to exercise good faith by failing to ensure the homes, prior to their sale, meet minimum construction standards.

69. As Agent on behalf of both certain of the buyers and the seller, his company Defendant Highmark, Defendant Tom Tollen had a duty to disclose all material facts to Plaintiffs, had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill, including to dealing honestly and in good faith with Plaintiffs pertaining to their purchase of Valley Haven homes constructed by Defendant Highmark.

70. As Broker, Defendant Tom Tollen had a duty to present all written communications from Defendant Highmark Homes in a timely manner, regardless of whether the property is subject to an existing contract for sale or the buyer is already a party to an existing contract to purchase.

71. As Broker, Defendant Tom Tollen had a duty to disclose all existing material facts known and not readily apparent or ascertainable."

A KING5.com investigation by Jesse Jones posted on 11/12/2013 in part states: "Tracy and Michelle were fighting separate battles. Michelle’s lender wanted to balk on her financing. Tracy was told she now needed flood insurance. How could this happen? In the sellers disclosure statement, Highmark Homes answered “don’t know” to all environmental questions including flooding, fill dirt and wetlands. The City of Fife said that’s not the case.

“We did discuss it with the developer and the builder on the property. The records, the FEMA maps, are record and we actually conduct predevelopment meetings,” said Blount.

Highmark did ask FEMA for a map revision in March, months after Michelle and Tracy made their offers. In an email, FEMA told me the request was denied because Highmark did not follow the required process which left Michelle and Tracy on the hook."

An Affirmative Defense from the Highmark Answer: "...Any damages were cause by an unforseen act of nature that caused, prevented, or precluded the activities defined in RCW 4.16.300 from meeting the applicable bilding codes, regulations ot ordinances in effect at the commencement of construction." (Download the complete Highmark Homes, Tom Tollen Answer 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 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:

DEALING WITH 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

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

THE WINDERMERE RELOCATION RAPE CASE

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

 

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

The incredibly violent and insidious psychological ramifications of rape, connected through an “abusive work environment” serves as an unfortunate—yet credible—subtext for the way in which Windermere Real Estate treats employees and defrauded, damaged customers alike. Windermere’s application of aggressive, wasteful and mendacious litigation to stall and ruin innocent consumers serves as the coercive metaphor of corporate power and arrogance: Windermere has no genuine concern for the damage it has done to families or society, It cares only about how to manipulate the law and the courts to avoid any legal responsibility—and about how to deflect bad PR with disingenuous promotion like "Building Communities" and "The Windermere Foundation."

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

All citizens who abhor such treatment of women in the workplace should recall Maureen Little v. Windermere Relocation when choosing real estate services. WindermereWatch visitors will also want to read the United States District Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit's Order and Amended Opinion from the Little case.

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

 

... "When Little told Glew of the rape, which, according to Glew, was the first he had heard of it, Glew's "immediate response was that he did not want to hear anything about it."  He told Little that she would have to respond to his attorneys. Glew then informed her that he was restructuring her salary from $3,000 monthly to $2,000 monthly plus $250 per closed transaction. The pay reduction was effective immediately and non-negotiable. Bellisario, who was present at that portion of the meeting, appeared "surprised and upset" to Little" ... (COURT'S QUOTE HERE)

... Little found the pay cut unacceptable, and Glew told her to go home for two days to think it over "because he did not want any `clouds in the office.' " When Little still found the pay cut unacceptable two days later, Glew told her it would be best if she moved on and that she should clean out her desk.

... In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career[ ]." (COURT'S QUOTE HERE)

 

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COURT'S ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION HERE

 

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAUREEN LITTLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 99-35668

v.

WINDERMERE RELOCATION, INC., a  Washington corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court  for the Western District of Washington  Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted  March 6, 2001--Seattle, Washington

Opinion Filed September 12, 2001
Amended January 23, 2002

Before: Harry Pregerson, Sidney R. Thomas and
Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Thomas

D.C. No. CV-98-01184-RSL
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

COUNSEL

Marilee Erickson and Danielle A. Hess, Reed McClure, Seattle, Washington, for the appellant. Patrick N. Rothwell, Abbott, Davis, Rothwell, Mullin &  Earle, P.C., Seattle Washington, for the appellee.

ORDER

The opinion filed on September 12, 2001, is hereby amended. With the amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for  rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for  rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

OPINION

THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

Maureen Little ("Little") appeals from an order granting summary judgment on her claims of hostile work environment  and retaliation in violation of Title VII, and wrongful dis- charge in violation of Washington state law. Because genuine issues of material fact exist on these claims, we reverse the  judgment of the district court. We affirm the dismissal of her state law claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,  as we must in evaluating the propriety of a grant of summary  judgment, see Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir.  1991), the events leading up to this lawsuit occurred as follows:

Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services, Inc. ("Windermere") as a Corporate Services Manager, a position that required her "to develop an ongoing business relationship and relocation contacts with corporations in order to obtain corporate clients needing relocation services for their employees." Until she was terminated, she received only positive feedback from her supervisors. Windermere's records  confirm that during the relevant period, Little had the best  transaction closure record of all corporate managers by a large  margin.

Unlike the other managers, Little's employment contract provided that Little would receive $2,000 monthly, plus a $1,000 monthly override and $250 per closed sale. The over-ride was based on the assumption that Little would close four  transactions per month, with a provision for rollover when she  did not make target. According to Windermere President Gayle Glew, the other managers had not received the $1,000 override.

One of Windermere's clients was the Starbucks Corporation. Some time in 1997, Little performed some relocation services for Starbucks Human Resources Director, Dan Guerrero, on a contract basis, and she learned from him that Starbucks was dissatisfied with its primary relocation provider. Glew told Little that he would "do whatever it takes to get this account" and that Little should "do the best job she could." Thus, Little believed that, as part of her job, she was to build a business relationship with Guerrero to try to get the Starbucks account, and she had at least two business lunches with Guerrero toward this end.

On October 14, Little accepted Guerrero's invitation to discuss the account at a restaurant. After eating dinner with Guerrero and having a couple of drinks, Little suddenly became ill and passed out. She awoke to find herself being raped by Guerrero in his car. She fought him off and jumped out of the car, but again she became violently ill. Guerrero put her back in the car and took her to his apartment, where he raped her again. Little fell asleep, and when she awoke he was raping her again. Afterward, he showered and drove her to her car.

Little was reluctant to tell anyone at Windermere about the rape because, in her own words, "I knew how important the Starbucks account was to Mr. Glew. Mr. Glew would ask me on a consistent basis the status of the account and I was afraid that if I told him about the rape, he would see me as an impediment to obtaining the Starbucks account." This belief was reinforced when, a few days after the rape, Little reported the rape to Chris Delay, Director of Relocation Services (apparently not one of Little's supervisors), and Delay advised her not to tell anyone in management. Little believed  that Delay feared "what might happen to [Little] if [she] did tell."

On October 23, about nine days after the rape, Little reported it to Peggy Scott, the Vice President of Operations, who was designated in Windermere's Harassment Policy as a complaint-receiving manager. Little described Scott's response:

She came out around the desk and I could tell she was upset and she just gave me a hug and said she wished there was something she could do. She didn't understand what I was going through. She asked me  if I was in therapy. Then she proceeded to tell me she wouldn't say anything to [Glew] unless I proceeded to seek legal action [against Dan Guerrero].

Scott told Little that "[s]he thought it would be best that [Little] try to put it behind [her] and to keep working in therapy," and that she should discontinue working on the Starbucks account. She did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint or any follow-up interview with Little. Scott testified in her deposition that, because the rape occurred outside the "working environment," she believed that it fell outside the scope of Windermere's Harassment Policy.

Despite Little's supposed removal from the Starbucks account, Glew continued to ask her about the status of the Starbucks account during the next six weeks. "[As of December 2,] Gayle was asking me questions about Starbucks . . . a couple of times every month to see what the status was." Concerned by Glew's questions, Little told her immediate supervisor, Linda Bellisario, the Vice President of Sales and Marketing, on December 2, 1997, about the rape. Little had been reluctant to tell Bellisario because she "felt that [Bellisario] would immediately go to Gayle and Gayle would terminate my position. . . . I knew how much this account meant to him. He said he would do whatever it took to get this account." Bellisario told Little to inform Glew of the incident.

When Little told Glew of the rape, which, according to Glew, was the first he had heard of it, Glew's "immediate response was that he did not want to hear anything about it."  He told Little that she would have to respond to his attorneys. Glew then informed her that he was restructuring her salary from $3,000 monthly to $2,000 monthly plus $250 per closed transaction. The pay reduction was effective immediately and non-negotiable. Bellisario, who was present at that portion of the meeting, appeared "surprised and upset" to Little.

She told me [later] that she had no idea Mr. Glew was going to cut my salary. It did not appear he had talked with her about my pay structure prior to his making his decision . . . . [She] was crying and she was upset, she said she had no idea that Gayle was going to talk about this at all. And she had no idea he was going to reduce my pay. And that she didn't want me to leave and she didn't know what to do. And she was pretty upset about the whole thing.

Little found the pay cut unacceptable, and Glew told her to go home for two days to think it over "because he did not want any `clouds in the office.' " When Little still found the pay cut unacceptable two days later, Glew told her it would be best if she moved on and that she should clean out her desk.

Little brought suit against Windermere, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), and the Revised Code of Washington § 49.60; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Windermere on all four claims. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo . Ellison, 924 F.2d at 873.

II

Little alleges that Windermere's response to the rape created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Rev. C. Wash. § 49.60.180(3). Because Washington sex discrimination law parallels that of Title VII, see Payne v. Children's Home Society of Washington, Inc., 892 P.2d 1102, 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995), it is appropriate to consider Little's state and federal discrimination claims together.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, in employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-66 (1986).

When evaluating a claim of sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment, we must determine two things: whether the plaintiff has established that she or he was subjected to a hostile work environment, and whether the  employer is liable for the harassment that caused the environment. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-89 (1998); Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc. , 256 F.3d 864, 871-75 (9th Cir. 2001). Both present mixed questions of law and fact that we review de novo. See Id.  at 871, 875.

A

To establish that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, a plaintiff must prove that "1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, 2) this conduct was unwelcome, and 3) this conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment." Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted). There is no doubt that Little was subjected to unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature; the dispute here centers around the third element: whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive or hostile work environment. The district court did not make any findings on the severity or pervasiveness of the conduct, but rather found that liability could not be imputed to Windermere, and granted summary judgment on that basis. However, Little does not seek relief based on imputed liability for the rape. Rather, her claim is about whether Windermere's reaction to the rape created a hostile work environment.

Under the third element, to determine whether an environment is sufficiently hostile or abusive to violate Title VII,  we look "at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an  employee's work performance." Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, _______ U.S. _______, 121 S. Ct. 1508, 1510 (2001) (internal  quotation marks and citations omitted); see Nichols, 256 F.3d at 872. Moreover, "the work environment must both subjectively and objectively be perceived as abusive," Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527 (citation omitted), and the objective portion of the claim is evaluated from the reasonable woman's perspective. Ellison, 924 F.2d at 879-80.

Little has tendered sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment on her hostile work environment claim. Guerrero's rape of Little was "severe." Under the circumstances, it would have made a reasonable woman feel that her work environment had been altered: The nature of Little's employment extended the work environment beyond the physical confines of the corporate office. Having out-of-office meetings with potential clients was a required part of the job. The rape occurred at a business meeting with a business client.  However, more significantly, Windermere's subsequent actions reinforced rather than remediated the harassment. Although she had no further contact with Guerrero, Little was  not effectively removed from responsibility for the account. She was informed that reporting the rape would probably result in an adverse employment action, even to the point of jeopardizing her career. When she reported the rape to the President, he immediately decreased her compensation and referred her to corporate lawyers. Windermere disputes the significance of many of these events. However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Little, Windermere's failure to take immediate and effective corrective action allowed the effects of the rape to permeate Little's work environment and alter it irrevocably. Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the "conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment" for Little. Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527.

The tendered evidence stands in contrast to the circumstances of Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2000). In Brooks, we held that a"single incident" of harassment that was not "severe" and that was followed by immediate corrective action by the employer was not sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to create a hostile work environment. Id. at 925-26. Here, in contrast to the single instance of fondling in Brooks, Little was victimized by three violent rapes. In Brooks, the harassing employee was fired; here, not only was there no remediation, the harassment was arguably reinforced by Little's employer.

A single "incident" of harassment -- and we assume arguendo that three rapes in the course of one evening constitutes a "single" incident -- can support a claim of hostile  work environment because the "frequency of the discriminatory conduct" is only one factor in the analysis. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (noting that "no single factor is required"). Conduct is actionable if it is either "sufficiently severe or pervasive." Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Supreme Court recently noted that an isolated incident can amount to a "discriminatory change[ ] in the `terms and conditions of employment' " when the incident is "extremely serious." Breeden, _______ U.S. _______, 121 S. Ct. at 1510 (citation omitted). Other circuits have come to a similar conclusion. See, e.g., Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that "even a single incident of sexual assault sufficiently alters the conditions of the victim's employment and clearly creates an abusive work environment for purposes of Title VII liability"); Guess v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 913 F.2d 463, 464 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that a single incident where supervisor picked up plaintiff and forced her face against his crotch impliedly considered to create hostile environment); cf. DiCenso v. Cisneros, 96 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir. 1996) ("[Although this single incident was insufficient, we do not] hold that a single incident of harassment never will support an actionable
claim.").

Rape is unquestionably among the most severe forms of sexual harassment. Being raped by a business associate, while on the job, irrevocably alters the conditions of the victim's work environment. It imports a profoundly serious level of abuse into a situation that, by law, must remain free of discrimination based on sex. Being raped is, at minimum, an act of discrimination based on sex. See Brock v. United States, 64 F.3d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Just as every murder is also a battery, every rape committed in the employment setting is also discrimination based on the employee's sex."). Thus, the employer's reaction to a single serious episode may form the basis for a hostile work environment claim.

In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career[ ]." See Harris, 510 U.S. at 22.


B

Having determined that Little has presented a triable issue of whether she was subjected to a hostile work environment, we must decide whether Windermere can be liable for the harassment. See Nichols, 256 F.3d at 875; see also Meritor, 477 U.S. at 70-72 (noting that a Title VII plaintiff must also provide a basis for holding her employer liable for the harassment). "The relevant standards and burdens pertaining to employer liability vary with the circumstances." Nichols, 256 F.3d at 875.

In this circuit, employers are liable for harassing conduct by non-employees "where the employer either ratifies or acquiesces in the harassment by not taking immediate and/or corrective actions when it knew or should have known of the conduct." Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 107 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062, 1073 (10th Cir. 1998) (adopting Folkerson standard). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines endorse this approach: "An employer may also be responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." 29 C.F.R.§ 1604.11(e) (emphasis added). Thus, if Windermere ratified Guerrero's rape of Little by failing to take immediate and effective corrective action, it is liable for the harassment.

Windermere's precise remedial obligations are defined by Ellison v. Brady:

[T]he reasonableness of an employer's remedy will depend on its ability to stop harassment by the person who engaged in harassment. In evaluating the adequacy of the remedy, the court may also take into account the remedy's ability to persuade potential  harassers to refrain from unlawful conduct.

924 F.2d at 882 (footnote omitted). In addition,"[i]f 1) no remedy is undertaken, or 2) the remedy attempted is ineffectual, liability will attach." Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1528-29.

As discussed above, Windermere's response to the rape was equivocal at best. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Little, she was informed that she should "do anything" to get the account; she was advised by a co-worker not to report the incident to top management because it would damage her career; when she reported the rape to her supervisor, she was not effectively removed from the account; and,  when she finally reported the incident to the President, she was demoted and terminated. There is no evidence that Windermere took steps to prevent contact between Little and Guerrero, such as effectively removing Little from the account or informing Starbucks that it must replace the contact it used with Windermere. Because of Windermere's failure to take appropriate remedial measures, Little has raised sufficient genuine issues of material fact as to whether Windermere ratified or acquiesced in the harassing conduct, and we reverse the district court's contrary conclusion.

C

In sum, Little has raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Windermere's actions (or inactions) subsequent to Guerrero's rape of Little subjected Little to a hostile work environment. Windermere will be liable for the hostile work environment created at Windermere after Guerrero's rape if a jury finds that it ratified or acquiesced in the rape by failing to take immediate corrective action once it knew or should have known of the rape. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this claim.

III

Little also alleges that Glew reduced her pay and terminated her in retaliation for reporting the rape in violation of Title VII and the Revised Code of Washington § 49.60.210. Because Washington courts look to interpretations of federal law when analyzing retaliation claims, we again consider Little's state and federal claims together. See Graves v. Dept. of Game, 887 P.2d 424, 428 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on this claim.

To establish a prima facie retaliation claim under the opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), Title VII, Little must show 1) her involvement in a protected activity, 2) an adverse employment action taken against her, and 3) a causal link between the two. See Brooks, 229 F.3d at 928. Title VII provides, in relevant part, that "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter. " 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). It is unnecessary that the employment practice actually be unlawful; opposition thereto is protected when it is "based on a `reasonable belief ' that the employer has engaged in an unlawful employment practice." Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original, citation omitted).

A prima facie case may be based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. "Once a prima facie case has been made, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who must offer evidence that the adverse action was taken for other than impermissibly discriminatory reasons." Id.  The plaintiff can rebut this by producing "specific, substantial evidence of pretext." Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996). Pretext, too, may be shown by circumstantial evidence, see Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospitals, Inc., 726 F.2d 1346, 1354 (9th Cir. 1984), but it must consist of "more than a mere refutation of the employer's legitimate reason and [a mere assertion] that the discriminatory reason be the cause of the firing," Wallis, 26 F.3d at 890 (citation omitted).

Little established a prima facie case. The district court correctly found that Little could have reasonably believed that, in reporting the rape to Scott, she was opposing an unlawful employment practice. See Moyo, 40 F.3d at 985. Given Lit tle's belief that her relationship with Guerrero was strictly business, and that she met with him because it was part of her job as a Windermere employee, her belief that Windermere was required to take action in response to his assault of her was eminently reasonable. See, e.g., Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1528-29 (holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment).

Second, Glew's reduction of her guaranteed monthly base salary from $3,000 (including the override) to $2,000 constituted an "adverse employment action." An "adverse employment action" is "any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in a protected activity." Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8, "Retaliation, " ¶ 8008 (1998)). This definition includes actions "materially affect[ing] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges" of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000). A cut in base pay is clearly such an adverse action, despite, as the district court  noted, Little's "hopes and expectations [of her sales and bonuses] for coming months or years." See Ray, 217 F.3d at 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that "adverse employment action" is defined broadly); see, e.g., Hashimoto, 118 F.3d at 676 (holding that the dissemination of a negative job reference constitutes an "adverse employment action"). And, of course, termination of employment is an adverse employment action; Little has presented triable issues of fact that she was, indeed, fired.

Third, Little has presented evidence that the adverse employment action occurred within minutes of her reporting the rape to Glew. This close timing provides circumstantial evidence of retaliation that is sufficient to create a prima facie case of retaliation. See Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 507 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that causation can be inferred from timing alone); see, e.g., Miller v. Fairchild Indus., 885 F.2d 498, 505 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that a prima facie case of causation was established when discharges occurred forty-two and fifty-nine days after EEOC hearings); Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that sufficient evidence existed where adverse actions occurred less than three months after complaint filed, two weeks after charge first investigated, and less than two months after investigation ended).

As required in a retaliation case, Windermere has properly rebutted Little's prima facie case with evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory motive for altering Little's pay structure. Glew testified and declared that he had grown increasingly dissatisfied with and concerned by Little's failure to make four closings per month, as contemplated in her employment agreement. Scott and Glew both testified that they met in November to discuss Little's lower-than-expected performance. Glew declared that, after considering the options, he decided to restructure Little's compensation to conform to the base that had been previously given. His decision to terminate her was consistent with his decision to restructure her pay. This evidence establishes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the pay cut.

However, Little has tendered sufficient evidence, in addition to the proximity of events, to rebut this alleged reason. Little testified that, until the pay cut and termination, she had received only positive feedback, and that she never knew of the four-deal-per-month requirement; although her employment contract states so explicitly, she may have received verbal assurances that she believed were superceding. Little averred that it took time to establish business relationships, making it difficult to close four deals per month in her first year as a Corporate Services Manager, and that her supervisors knew that. Further, the data showing Little's superior performance, in addition to Little's belief that her work was more than satisfactory, cast doubt on Glew's decision to cut the pay of the most successful corporate caller Windermere apparently had yet employed, and particularly to make the cut non-negotiable. Little's description of Bellisario's surprise and concern at the pay cut supports this interpretation -- as Little's direct supervisor, Little believed that Bellisario would have been involved in that decision. These facts, together with the proximity in timing, suffice to create a question of fact regarding Windermere's motive in cutting Little's pay and ultimately terminating her employment. "[A] prima facie case is insufficient to preclude summary judgment, a plaintiff need produce `very little evidence of discriminatory motive to raise a genuine issue of fact' as to pretext." Strother v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 79 F.3d 859, 870 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate on this claim.

IV

In addition to her federal discrimination claims, Little has alleged that Windermere wrongfully discharged her in violation of Washington law. Under this Washington tort claim, Little must establish four elements: 1) the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element); 2)"that discouraging the conduct in which [she] engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element)"; 3) that her public-policy-linked conduct was a substantial factor in (i.e. the cause of) Windermere's decision to discharge her (the causation element)"; and 4) that employers generally do not have an "over-riding justification" for wanting to use the activity as a factor affecting the decision to discharge (the absence of justification element). Ellis v. City of Seattle, 13 P.3d 1065, 1070 (Wash. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 913 P.2d 377 ( Wash. 1996) (en banc)); see also Lins v. Children's Discovery Centers of America, Inc., 976 P.2d 168, 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the elements of the claim, as well as whether Little resigned or was discharged.

First, Little has established the clarity element required by Washington Law Against Discrimination, Revised Code of Washington § 49.60. In analyzing this element, "courts should inquire whether the employer's conduct contravenes the letter or purpose of a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision or scheme." Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081, 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

In general, it can be said that public policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively . . . . Although there is no precise line of demarcation dividing matters that are the subject of public policies from matters purely personal, a survey of cases in other States involving retaliatory discharges shows that a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen's social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be allowed.

Dicomes v. State, 782 P.2d 1002, 1006 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 1989) (en banc) (citation omitted). Little argued that Windermere discharged her because she made a complaint about sexual harassment. The Washington Supreme Court held recently that Revised Code of Washington sections 49.12.200 and 49.60.010 embody a clearly articulated public policy condemning sex discrimination in employment. See Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash. 2d 58, 69, 993 P.2d 901, 907 (2000) (en banc) (holding that discharging an employee because she was on maternity leave would violate that policy). Relatedly, discharging an employee because of his opposition to a practice in violation of a public policy forms a cause of action for wrongful discharge. See Ellis, 13 P.3d at 1070. Thus, Little has articulated a clear public policy -- against sex discrimination in employment -- that Windermere's action may have
contravened.

Little tendered sufficient evidence concerning the second element, namely, that she was "engaged in particular conduct" that "directly relate[d] to the public policy, or [that] was necessary for the effective enforcement of the public policy." Gardner, 913 P.2d at 377 (emphasis in original). In Ellis, after noting that a retaliation claim exists under § 49.60.210, the court found that "the jeopardy prong . . may be established if an employee has an objectively reasonable belief the law may be violated in the absence of his or her action. " 13 P.3d at 1071. As discussed previously, Little has established a reasonable belief that Guerrero had sexually harassed her and that her reporting to Windermere could prevent further harassment. She has therefore established the jeopardy prong of Gardner. Accord Ellis, 13 P.3d at 1071 (firing fireman "for raising questions about the legality of what he was told to do jeopardizes the public policy of following the fire code").

Little has raised a genuine issue of fact as to the third element, namely, whether Windermere's termination of her employment was in retaliation for her report of the rape -- that is, whether her report was a "substantial factor" in Windermere's decision to terminate her.

Finally, Windermere has offered -- and cannot offer -- any general overriding justification for using an employee's report of sexual harassment as a reason to discharge that employee. Cf. Lins, 976 P.2d at 173 (stating that employers have no "overriding justification" for wanting to consider employee's refusal to perform an unlawful order). In fact, Windermere's sexual harassment policy encourages employees to report such behavior and provides a mechanism by which Windermere can correct such behavior.

In sum, Little has established the first two elements of her wrongful discharge claim, and she has raised questions of fact regarding the second two elements. Thus, summary judgment was not appropriate on this claim.

V

The district court correctly entered summary judgment against Little on her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in violation of Washington state tort law. To establish this cause of action, Little "must show (1) that her employer's negligent acts injured her, (2) the acts were not a workplace dispute or employee discipline, (3) the injury is not covered by the Industrial Insurance Act, and (4) the dominant feature of the negligence claim was the emotional injury." Snyder v. Med. Srv. Corp. of Eastern Wash., 988 P.2d 1023, 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Like all negligence claims, a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim requires duty, breach, proximate cause, and injury. Hunsley v. Giard, 553 P.2d 1096, 1102 (Wash. 1976). Little also must show objective symptoms of emotional distress. See Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 577 P.2d 580, 582 (Wash. 1978) (citing Hunsley, 553 P.2d at 1103).

However, Washington courts "[do] not recognize a claim against an employer for negligent infliction of emotional distress . . . `when the only factual basis for emotional distress [is] the discrimination claim.' " Robel v. Roundup Corp., 10 P.3d 1104, 1113 (Wash. 2000) (quoting Chea v. Men's Wearhouse, Inc., 932 P.2d 1261 (Wash. 1997)). Here, Little's only factual basis is that "Windermere failed to investigate Ms. Little's complaint, then cut her pay and terminated her employment." This argument formed an integral part of her discrimination claim and the emotional injury she alleges is compensable in her discrimination action. This cause of action is therefore not cognizable under Washington law and the entry of summary judgment was appropriate.

VI

In sum, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for trial Little's claims of hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and Washington's Law Against Discrimination and her claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. We affirm the dismissal of her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in violation of Washington state tort law.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs.

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE OPINION HERE

 

 

National Real Estate Fraud Center Windermere Real Estate Case History: Windermere Freeland Agents Saul and Gabelein’s Abuse of a Vulnerable Adult

john jacobi

(Above L to R) 1: Utterly shameless liar and bully John W. Jacobi, Windermere founder and chairman who promotes "We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," but in reality—despite being presented hard evidence of dishonest, unethical Windermere misconduct—forces damaged and defrauded Windermere victims through years of ruinous, bankrupting litigation. When victims do indeed speak out, Jacobi falsely sues them for trade libel and defamation, tries to coerce the defendant into a "dark clause" settlement agreement through fear and intimidation, continues to prosecute the bogus action for years at enormous cost to the parties, then runs away and voluntarily dismisses his own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41, just prior to trial when the honest, innocent victim persists in refusing to sign away their speech rights. 2: Windermere general counsel, Paul S. Drayna, who spearheads illegal efforts to strip damaged Windermere clients of their speech rights. 3: Attorney John Demco of Windermere's Demco Law Firm, which prosecutes Windermere's anti-speech cases and unabashedly defends the most outrageous Windermere Realtor misconduct—no matter what it is. Demco is also a multi-franchise Windermere owner who defended his one-time mother-and-daughter Windermere Freeland/Whidbey agents, Samantha Saul and Linda Gabelein, about whom the court stated "...the Sauls and Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma."

(Above L to R) 4: Windermere-Demco Law Firm's lying lawyer, Matthew F. Davis—click here for review of Mr. Davis—who lies to courts and legal opponents alike in an all-out effort to win at any cost. In one particular case of note, Davis served a Windermere victim a lawsuit for libel and defamation, then emailed the victim not to hire an attorney! 5: L 'Nayim Shuman Austin, past Demco Law Firm attorney, ENDICOTT v. SAUL. 6&7: Samantha Saul and Linda Gabelein. 8: Barbara Mearing, current Windermere Freeland employee who got a $7500 commission from the sale of Emma's land: "Ms. Mearing testified that she was aware that the $150,000 sale price was low, but ‘not horribly low’. She also testified that the assessor’s values are not “spot on” and that sometime property sells for less or more than the assessed value. She said that it is always hard to estimate value but that she respected the fact that the seller gets to choose the price that he or she wants." The court later stated,"The court gives Ms. Mearing's testimony little weight."

DOWNLOAD THE COURT OF APPEALS PUBLISHED OPINION HERE.

 

ENDICOTT v. SAUL

Ronald ENDICOTT and Donald Endicott, Respondents, v. Robert and Samantha SAUL, husband and wife, and Linda and Vernon Gabelein, husband and wife, Appellants. Emma Endicott, Appellant, v. Ronald Endicott and Donald Endicott, Respondents.

Nos. 58435-9-I, 58531-2-I.

February 04, 2008

John W. Demco,, Demco Law Firm PS, Matthew F. Davis, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, H. Clarke Harvey, Attorney at Law, Clinton, WA, for Appellants. Carolyn Cliff, Attorney at Law, Langley, WA, for Respondents. Michael Mert Waller, Zylstra Beeksma & Waller PLLC, Oak Harbor, WA, for Guardian Ad Item Clarke Harvey, Attorney at Law,Clinton, WA, for Other Parties.

 

¶ 1 Emma Endicott (Emma), Samantha and Robert Saul (the Sauls), and Linda and Vernon Gabelein (the Gabeleins) challenge the trial court's decision to establish a limited guardianship for Emma under the Guardianship Act, chapter 11.88 RCW, and to issue a protective order under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act (AVA), chapter 74.34 RCW. After a ten-day bench trial that took place over the course of three months, the trial court concluded clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that Emma was at significant risk of personal and financial harm and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that Emma is a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exploited and unduly influenced Emma to sell her Whidbey Island view property to them for significantly below fair market value, we affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 Emma Endicott is an 80-year-old woman who has lived almost her entire life on Whidbey Island and was married to Orvel “Shorty” Endicott for 43 years. Emma has two sons from an earlier marriage, John Earl (Earl) Fisher and Robert (Bob) Fisher. Shorty and Emma had twin sons, Ronald (Ron) Endicott and Donald (Don) Endicott. Ron and Don lived with Emma and Shorty for most of their lives. Emma's son Earl lives with his family in Seattle. Bob and his spouse Sandy live nearby in the house built by Emma's father.

¶ 3 Emma and Shorty lived in a small neighborhood on Whidbey Island that has scenic views of Mutiny Bay. In 1947, Shorty inherited 24 acres of view property overlooking Mutiny Bay. In 1976, Emma inherited five acres and a one-third interest in her parents' house that is located in the same general area.

¶ 4 During their 43-year marriage, Shorty managed and controlled all the finances and Emma and Shorty lived an extremely frugal life. Emma has never had a checking account or a credit card. Emma also never obtained a driver's license and, until shortly before the trial in this case, did not have a telephone.

¶ 5 Shorty died in 1998, leaving Emma the family home, the 24 acres of view and waterfront property, $114,000 in savings, and $556 per month from his pension benefits. Emma took over managing the finances and the property. After Shorty died, friends described Emma as devastated, lonely, and lost.

¶ 6 Initially, Emma relied on Ron and Don. But increasingly, Emma came to rely on Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul. Linda is married to Vernon Gabelein. Emma's brother is married to Vernon Gabelein's sister. Linda has two daughters from a previous marriage, Samantha Saul and Dina Thompson. Samantha is married to Robert Saul, who grew up on Whidbey Island with Ron and Don. Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul own homes in the same neighborhood as Emma and are both real estate agents with Windermere Real Estate (Windermere). Emma testified that Linda is like a daughter to her and that she worships Linda. Emma was also very close to Samantha. In June 2003, Emma executed a durable power of attorney, giving Samantha the authority to make all decisions on her behalf.

¶ 7 It is undisputed that Emma wants to live on her own in her house on Whidbey Island for the rest of her life. When Shorty died, Emma's childhood friend, Frank Robinson, offered to purchase a 445-foot beachfront portion of her property for $660,000. A long-time neighbor, Ray Lotto, later offered to buy most of Emma's property for $1.5 million and give Emma a life estate in her residence. Instead, in three separate real estate transactions, Emma sold the majority of her property to Dina Thompson and her spouse, to the Sauls, and to the Gabeleins. After the three real estate transactions with the Gabelein family members, Emma was left with 13.77 acres, but over a third of it was swamp and marshland.

¶ 8 In September 2001, Emma decided to sell the five acres she inherited from her parents after Earl and Bob Fisher were unable to agree on how to pay expenses for the property.1 After unsuccessfully attempting to sell the property by putting up a for sale sign, Emma asked Samantha, who had recently acquired her real estate license, to list the property for sale.

¶ 9 The assessed value for the five-acre parcel was $82,326. Samantha originally listed the property for sale at $69,500. After two months, Samantha lowered the price to $64,500. When Dina Thompson and her spouse offered to buy the property for $52,000, Samantha acted as a dual agent for her sister and her brother-in-law and Emma. Emma relied on Samantha's advice and accepted the offer of $52,000. The court rejected Samantha's testimony that she did not suggest a price to her sister as not credible. Emma received $45,000 from the sale. Bob and Sandy Fisher were extremely upset that Emma sold the five acres and as a result were estranged from Emma for a number of years.

¶ 10 In February 2002, Emma sold another five acres of waterfront view property to Samantha and Robert Saul for $80,000. The 2001 assessed value of the property was $195,524. Samantha initially denied that she suggested the sales price of $80,000. But at trial Samantha admitted that she did. After purchasing the five acres, the Sauls invested $40,000 to $100,000 in improvements. When the Sauls applied for a home construction loan in July 2004, according to a bank appraisal, the five acre view property was valued at $400,000.

¶ 11 After the Sauls bought the property from Emma, Roy Lotto told Samantha he was willing to pay $1.5 million for the rest of Emma's property and would give Emma a life estate in her residence. Lotto said Samantha told him that she would be able to get the property for him. But in June 2004, Emma signed a purchase and sale agreement with Linda and Vernon Gabelein to sell five acres of prime view property next to the five acres Emma sold to the Sauls for $150,000. There is no dispute that the property was worth $324,000. The “Vacant Land Purchase and Sales Agreement” states that a five-acre parcel will “be created by Buyer paid short plat” with “all other expenses paid by Buyer” and a net purchase price of $150,000. The Addendum states that the “Seller may be selling the property substantially below market value as the property has not been exposed on the open market.” The Addendum also states that because the buyer is a Windermere real estate agent, the agreement was “conditioned on review and approval by Sellers [sic] attorney.” Because Emma's attorney was representing the Gabeleins in another real estate matter, Linda Gabelein arranged for Emma to meet with another attorney about the agreement. Emma's meeting with the attorney lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes.

¶ 12 In September 2004, Emma and the Gabeleins signed another addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement that allowed the Gabeleins to assign their interest in the property to the Sauls and obtain a boundary line adjustment. It is undisputed that the purpose of the boundary line adjustment was to avoid the public notice requirement for a short plat and prevent Ron and Don from learning about the sale before it closed. According to an unchallenged finding, the Sauls and the Gabeleins acted with “deliberate secrecy” throughout this real estate transaction. Before signing the Addendum, Emma met with the same attorney again for about 20 to 30 minutes. Following the boundary line adjustment, Emma was left with a parcel of approximately nine acres, more than half of which is swamp and marshland. The sale closed on May 16, 2005. There is no dispute that, at closing, the property was worth $427,000.

¶ 13 During the evening of June 14, 2005, Emma fell down. Ron drove to Bob Fisher's house to call 911. When the paramedics arrived, Emma refused to go to the hospital. On the morning of June 16, Don found Emma on the floor and halfway under her bed. Ron and Don drove Emma to the hospital. Don said his mother's eyes were glazed, she was confused, and she did not know where she was. When they arrived at the hospital, the hospital personnel determined Emma was not competent to refuse hospitalization. The court concluded it was not likely that Ron and Don would have called 911 if Emma had not fallen, as they claimed. The trial court also concluded that Emma's memory was suspect and “she is suggestible to the memories of others, especially as to what happened the night before she went in to the hospital in June 2005.”

¶ 14 At some point, Samantha notified the hospital that she had the power of attorney for Emma. Samantha also told the hospital social worker that Emma said Ron and Don hit her and that was why she was in the hospital. Samantha was present when the social worker interviewed Emma. Emma told the social worker that she did not remember why she was in the hospital, but that Ron and Don yelled at her a lot, that they were controlling, and they would not let her watch television. That same day, Emma filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order against Ron and Don. The court entered a temporary restraining order requiring Ron and Don to move out of the house.2 When Emma was released from the hospital, she went to live with Bob and Sandy Fisher. Emma lived with the Fishers until December.

¶ 15 On July 11, 2005, Ron and Don filed a petition to establish a guardianship for Emma and for her estate, to obtain a protective order for Emma as a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and to rescind the May 2005 real estate transaction with the Sauls and the Gabeleins. Ron and Don alleged that Emma was incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exerted undue influence over Emma, and that the Sauls and Gabeleins financially exploited her.

¶ 16 Prior to trial, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins filed a motion to bifurcate the request to rescind the May 2005 real estate transaction. The Sauls and the Gabeleins also filed a motion to exclude evidence relating to alleged undue influence concerning the 2005 real estate transaction. The court granted the motion to bifurcate the request to rescind the 2005 real estate transaction, but denied the motion to exclude testimony about undue influence related to the transaction.

¶ 17 A ten-day bench trial began in December 2005 and concluded in March 2006. During the course of the trial, the court heard testimony from 36 witnesses and admitted more than 75 exhibits. At the conclusion of the trial, the court issued a 55-page written opinion consisting of 94 separate findings of fact and 26 conclusions of law. The court concluded that Emma was incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that Samantha and Linda had a confidential and fiduciary relationship with Emma, that Emma was a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and that the Sauls and Gabeleins unduly influenced and financially exploited Emma. The court appointed Emma's son Earl as a limited guardian with the “goal of allowing Emma to live in her house for as long as possible” 3 and entered a protective order under the AVA prohibiting the Sauls and the Gabeleins from transferring or encumbering the property Emma sold in May 2005.

ANALYSIS

¶ 18 On appeal, Emma, Samantha and Robert Saul, and Linda and Vernon Gabelein challenge the trial court's determination that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend the trial court erred in shifting the burden to Samantha and Linda to prove lack of undue influence and finding Emma was a vulnerable adult
under the AVA.

Standard of Review

¶ 19 We review the trial court's decision following a bench trial to determine whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether those findings support the conclusions of law. Dorsey v. King County, 51 Wash.App. 664, 668-69, 754 P.2d 1255 (1988). Substantial evidence is the quantum of evidence sufficient to persuade a rational fairminded person the premise is true. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wash.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). In determining the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court need only consider evidence favorable to the prevailing party. Bland v. Mentor, 63 Wash.2d 150, 155, 385 P.2d 727 (1963). In evaluating the persuasiveness of the evidence, and the credibility of witnesses, we must defer to the trier of fact. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wash.2d 93, 108, 864 P.2d 937 (1994). “[C]redibility determinations are solely for the trier of fact [and] cannot be reviewed on appeal.” Morse v. Antonellis, 149 Wash.2d 572, 574, 70 P.3d 125 (2003). Unchallenged findings of fact are also verities on appeal. In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wash.2d 1, 8, 93 P.3d 147 (2004); RAP 10.3(g). We review questions of law de novo. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wash.2d 873, 879-880, 73 P.3d 369 (2003).

¶ 20 The clear, cogent and convincing burden of proof contains two components: (1) the amount of evidence necessary to submit the question to the trier of fact or the burden of production, which is met by substantial evidence; and (2) the burden of persuasion. As to the burden of persuasion, the trier of fact, not the appellate court, must be persuaded that the fact in issue is “highly probable.” Colonial Imports, Inc. v. Carlton Northwest, Inc., 121 Wash.2d 726, 734-735, 853 P.2d 913 (1993).

¶ 21 In determining whether the evidence meets the “clear, cogent and convincing” standard of persuasion, the trial court must make credibility determinations and weigh and evaluate the evidence.

Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727.

What constitutes clear, cogent, and convincing proof necessarily depends upon the character and extent of the evidence considered, viewed in connection with the surrounding facts and circumstances. Whether the evidence in a given case meets the standard of persuasion, designated as clear, cogent, and convincing, necessarily requires a process of weighing, comparing, testing, and evaluating-a function best performed by the trier of the fact, who usually has the advantage of actually hearing and seeing the parties and the witnesses, and whose right and duty it is to observe their attitude and demeanor. Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727.

¶ 22 Thus, the appellate court's role is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact. Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727. It is for the trial court, and not this reviewing court, to determine whether the evidence in a given case meets the standard of persuasion designated as “clear, cogent and convincing.” Id.

Limited Guardianship

¶ 23 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins challenge the trial court's conclusion that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate. The standard of proof in a guardianship proceeding is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. RCW 11.88.045(3). In determining incapacity as to the person, the court must determine whether the individual is at significant risk of personal harm “based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for nutrition, health, housing, or physical safety.” RCW 11.88.010(1)(a). In determining incapacity as to the estate, the court must decide if there is a significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability “to adequately manage property or financial affairs.” RCW 11.88.010(1)(b). The guardianship statute authorizes the superior court to appoint a guardian for an incapacitated person.

¶ 24 RCW 11.88.010 provides in pertinent part:

(1) The superior court of each county shall have power to appoint guardians for the persons and/or estates of incapacitated persons, and guardians for the estates of nonresidents of the state who have property in the county needing care and attention.

(a) For purposes of this chapter, a person may be deemed incapacitated as to person when the superior court determines the individual has a significant risk of personal harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for nutrition, health, housing, or physical safety.

(b) For purposes of this chapter, a person may be deemed incapacitated as to the person's estate when the superior court determines the individual is at significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately manage property or financial affairs.

¶ 25 Under RCW 11.88.010(1)(c), the determination of incapacity “is a legal not a medical decision, based upon a demonstration of management insufficiencies over time in the area of person or estate. Age, eccentricity, poverty, or medical diagnosis alone shall not be sufficient to justify a finding of incapacity.” In making this determination, the trial court considers evidence from all sources, not just experts. In re Guardianship of Stamm v. Crowley, 121 Wash.App. 830, 841, 91 P.3d 126 (2004).

¶ 26 Here, the trial court concluded clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that Emma is at a significant risk of personal harm “based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety.”

The court concludes, based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that Emma is at significant risk of personal harm based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety. In the court's opinion, the professionals who have concluded otherwise have not had all of the information that was provided to this court during the trial, having based their opinions primarily on short interviews done months ago.

¶ 27 Substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma is incapacitated as to her person. The trial court found that the unbiased testimony of Emma's neighbors, Don Gulliford and Janet Lotto, was more credible than the testimony of other witnesses. According to the unchallenged testimony of Don Gulliford, he found Emma wandering along a roadside ditch in the summer of 2003, holding a toothbrush. When he stopped to help her, Emma did not appear to know where she was going and “seemed confused and [in need] of assistance.” When Janet Lotto brought Emma food in November 2004 and in December 2004, Emma appeared confused and told Lotto to whisper “because she did not want Vernon Gabelein to know about the food.” And according to the testimony of other witnesses, there were multiple occasions in 2005 when Emma did not recognize people she had known for decades. In addition, the court relied on Frank Robinson's undisputed testimony about Emma. Robinson was a friend of Emma's since childhood and regularly visited her. According to Robinson, in the summer of 2005 and at trial, Emma did not recognize him and acted agitated and confused when he spoke to her.

¶ 28 It is also undisputed that when Emma was hospitalized in June 2005, the hospital personnel determined she was not competent to refuse medical care because she “was disoriented” and confused. Before Emma was admitted to the hospital in 2005, Emma had not been to a doctor or had any medical care for over thirty years.

¶ 29 There is also no dispute that “Emma does not cook, and relies on others for her meals.” And on the occasions when Emma cooked, she burned or undercooked the food or cooked spoiled meat. Emma would also turn the stove on and sometimes forget to turn it off and often dropped her lit cigarettes on the floor without noticing. In addition, the trial court's finding that Emma continued to go through “the garbage at the county boat ramp, even after being advised that it was dangerous because needles from illegal drug use had been discarded there” is unchallenged.

¶ 30 The court considered but expressly rejected the opinion of the psychologist, Dr. Janice Edwards, that Emma did not need a guardian, because the opinion was based on a “short interview[ ] done months ago.”

The court has struggled with these opinions because the court has respect for these professionals. But Dr. Edwards' impressions reflect a two-hour visit at the end of September of 2005.[Her] impressions are widely divergent from what the court observed of Emma over a period from December of 2005 through March 2, [2006], through ten days of trial. Even the guardian ad litem, who testified after Emma, acknowledged that if she were looking at Emma solely based on Emma's testimony in court, that she too might have doubts as to whether Emma needed a guardian.

The court is also mindful that the professionals based their opinions on information gathered when Emma was staying with Bob and Sandy Fisher. But the court concludes that things have changed since Emma moved back into her home alone on December 1, 2005... The court concludes that Emma appears to have gone downhill since she started living alone on December 1, 2005.

In evaluating Dr. Edwards' opinion, the trial court expressly “credit[ed] the information elicited on cross-examination.”

Dr. Edwards is a forensic psychologist who has done over 100 guardianship evaluations. However, the court credits the information elicited during her cross-examination: that she was not aware of much of the evidence provided to the court in this trial. For example, Dr. Edwards was not aware ? that Emma had not been to a doctor in over 30 years until she was hospitalized in June of 2005, that Emma had no preventative checkups or any well health care until the guardianship petition was filed, that Emma had refused emergency medical care, or that Emma was considered not competent to refuse hospitalization when she was admitted to the hospital in June of 2005.

¶ 31 During cross examination, the GAL also admitted that before her investigation was complete and before talking to “Earl Fisher, Emma's oldest son and the proposed guardian; Janet Lotto[; or] Emma's [siblings],” she had already decided that she would not recommend a guardianship.

¶ 32 Emma's trial testimony also supports the trial court's conclusion of incapacity. For instance, Emma's description about what she said when Janet Lotto brought food to her was incoherent:

Q. And you were in court when Janet Lotto described bringing food to you after Thanksgiving and Christmas?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told her to whisper and not to tell Vernon about it. Do you remember Janet saying that?

A. What? No. I know what that was all about. I don't know if I should tell it or not. But she got scared one night and she come up and I should have went with her. I told her afterwards, too, I said, Janet, I should have went with you. Because it was not at night, it was in sort of the afternoon.

And Emma often had difficulty answering simple questions during the trial. For example, when asked “[h]ow long have you had that microwave?” she replied “[s]ince I've been-and you should see the house. They're painting the house inside. Inside. Linda and Sandy, my daughter-in-law, well, Linda, there's-and we were talking about it the other day, we're going to finish painting the inside.” When asked “[w]hat did you believe that the property was worth when you agreed to sell it?” Emma replied “No, I sold it because there was so much junk up there.” Asked about the property that she sold for $150,000 that was worth $427,000, “Emma scoffed and said, ‘It's just sand’.”

¶ 33 The court found Emma was “frail, confused, unsteady, disoriented, childlike, and oftentimes belligerent.” According to the court, while it is not unusual for a person of Emma's age to be forgetful, “Emma's forgetfulness had another element to it. It is not that Emma could not remember something; it is that Emma refused to believe certain things had happened at all. On other occasions, Emma asserted certain information as if it was the truth when she clearly had no memory of the event.” The trial court also clearly rejected the argument that an infection in February caused Emma's sometimes incoherent testimony.4

¶ 34 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins rely on Elston v. McGlauflin, 79 Wash. 355, 140 P. 396 (1914), to argue the trial court impermissibly relied on its own observations of Emma's behavior at trial as evidence of incapacity in violation of ER 605. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins specifically challenge findings of fact 76, 92, and 93, claiming they were unable to challenge the court's observations that were not made part of the record.

¶ 35 Finding of fact 76 states:

If Emma did not agree with the testimony from other witnesses, she would make faces of astonishment or bafflement, indicating clearly her disagreement with the testimony. She continued to talk in court, at times so loudly that she would have to be reminded by the court to be quiet. In December of 2005, during the testimony of her sister-in-law, Ruth Gabelein Ohm, Emma laughed, smiled, talked, and looked around as if she was at a social gathering. Emma's attorney frequently had to tell her to be quiet. The court understands that a guardianship proceeding is a difficult time for anyone. But Emma's behavior in court was dramatically different from anyone else that the court has observed in ten years on the bench.

¶ 36 Finding of fact 92 states:

As Ron was testifying, Emma was saying to her attorney, loudly enough for anyone in the courtroom to hear, “That's not true! That's not true!”

¶ 37 Finding of fact 93 states:

In reaching its decision in this case, the court has carefully considered the opinions of the professionals described above: i.e., that Emma is fine. But it is the court's strong impression, and the court finds, that Emma is not, in fact, fine but rather that she is incapacitated. Emma has not appeared to be fine to this court, or to many people who are part of her family or otherwise knowledgeable about her and who have nothing to gain from their testimony about their concerns.

¶ 38 Under ER 605 “[t]he judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness.” In Elston, during the trial in an action to recover damages allegedly caused by negligent construction of an apartment building on a steep slope, the judge visited the site without the knowledge of the parties or counsel. Elston, 79 Wash. at 357, 140 P. 396. On appeal, the court held that the trial court's independent investigation impermissibly denied the parties a fair trial. Elston, 79 Wash. at 359, 140 P. 396. “The court unwittingly became a witness in the case and in some degree, at least, based his judgment upon his own independent experience and preconceived opinion.” Id. Here, unlike in Elston, the trial judge did not conduct an independent investigation or make a decision based upon independent experience and preconceived opinions. And in deciding the incapacity and competency of a witness, the trial court is entitled to draw on its observations of the witness. See Day v. Santorsola, 118 Wash.App. 746, 765, 76 P.3d 1190 (2003); State v. Avila, 78 Wash.App. 731, 735, 899 P.2d11 (1995).

¶ 39 The record also shows that on numerous occasions, the judge noted Emma's inappropriate courtroom behavior. For example, the court admonished Emma “to not make comments out loud during” the testimony of other witnesses. And as finding of fact 93 makes clear, the trial court considered but expressly rejected the expert opinions offered and primarily relied on the trial testimony of disinterested witnesses such as Don Gulliford, Janet Lotto, and Frank Robinson in reaching the conclusion that Emma is at significant risk of personal harm “based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety.” 5

¶ 40 Substantial evidence also supports the trial court's conclusion that “Emma is at significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately manage property or financial affairs.” There is no dispute that Emma wishes to remain in her home as long as possible, but that “Emma is not able to protect her resources to meet her future needs” and her “uni[n]formed decisions will have an enormous impact on her” ability to do so. The parties also do not challenge the finding that Emma “has absolutely no idea of property values or financial planning” or that after months of litigation about the value of the properties she sold “Emma is unaware of the market value of the property that she sold and does not even care.” Although Emma insisted “I know what I sold,” when she finally understood that she was being asked how much the property was worth, she admitted “I don't know. I don't know all that. Jeepers.” Emma also testified that “I forget how many acres I've got left. I had 24 but I don't have that much now. I don't know what all I have.”

¶ 41 In addition, the evidence establishes Emma has difficulty paying bills and is unaware of her finances.6 Emma relies on the bank tellers to make entries in her check register and could not account for the withdrawal of money. Emma did not recognize entries in her checkbook and could not explain the withdrawals from her account in 2004. And according to one of the court's unchallenged findings, “[i]n addition to having unaccounted withdrawals from her savings, Emma has little understanding of ‘investments,’ which also leaves her vulnerable to others.”

¶ 42 Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings, we conclude the court did not err in appointing a limited guardianship for Emma to allow her to meet her medical and day-to-day needs and assist her in managing her finances and property.

Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act Protection Order

¶ 43 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend that the trial court erred in concluding Emma was a vulnerable adult and entering a protective order under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act (AVA), chapter 74.34 RCW. Relying on former RCW 74.34.110(2),7 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert that the court had to find by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that Emma was a vulnerable adult when she signed the purchase and sale agreement with the Gabeleins in 2004 and the evidence does not support finding Emma was a vulnerable adult in 2004.8

¶ 44 Statutory interpretation is a question of law we review de novo. Western Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 140 Wash.2d 599, 607, 998 P.2d 884 (2000). The court's primary goal is “to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent.” State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 135 Wash.App. 149, 158-59, 143 P.3d 618 (2006). Legislative intent is determined primarily from the statutory language, viewed “in the context of the overall legislative scheme.” Collection Servs. v. McConnachie, 106 Wash.App. 738, 741, 24 P.3d 1112 (2001). If the statute's meaning is plain on its face, we give effect to that plain meaning. Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002).

¶ 45 The stated purpose of the AVA is to protect vulnerable adults from abuse, financial exploitation, and neglect. RCW 74.34.110. Under the AVA, the court shall conduct a hearing on a petition for an order of protection and can enter an order to protect the vulnerable adult from exploitation, “not to exceed one year.” Former RCW 74.34.130.

¶ 46 Former RCW 74.34.110(2) provides that: A petition shall allege that the petitioner is a vulnerable adult and that the petitioner has been abandoned, abused, financially exploited, or neglected, or is threatened with abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect by respondent.

¶ 47 A “vulnerable adult” is defined as a person “[s]ixty years of age or older who has the functional, mental, or physical inability to care for himself or herself” or is “[f]ound incapacitated under chapter 11.88 RCW” Former RCW 74.34.020(13). The AVA establishes an action for the protection of vulnerable adults in cases of “abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect.” The AVA definition of “abuse includes exploitation of a vulnerable adult.” Former RCW 74.34.020(2). “[E]xploitation” is defined as “an act of forcing, compelling, or exerting undue influence over a vulnerable adult causing the vulnerable adult to act in a way that is inconsistent with relevant past behavior.” Former RCW 74.34.020(2)(d). According to the statutory definition of “exploitation,” exploitation can only occur when the adult is vulnerable. Under the plain language of the AVA, we conclude the court must find an individual is a vulnerable adult at the time of the alleged exploitation.

¶ 48 Relying on the opinion of Dr. Edwards and the fact that the GAL did not recommend a guardianship, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins contend the evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult under the AVA in 2004 when she signed the purchase and sale agreement. Since her husband died in 1998, Emma has been vulnerable to others, who have taken advantage of her desire to please those persons she perceives as being her friends or looking out for her best interests, such as Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul. Emma has sold property to members of the Gabelein family for a fraction of its value jeopardizing her ability to remain in her home for the remainder of her life.

¶ 49 The testimony of Dr. Edwards and the GAL about Emma's mental capacity “presents one source of information among many, credibility is the province of the judge, and the judge can cast a skeptical eye when called for.” Stamm, 121 Wash.App. at 841, 91 P.3d 126. And the court rejected the opinion of Dr. Edwards as based on spending very limited time with Emma while she was being taken care of by and living with Bob and Sandy Fisher.

¶ 50 In addition, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that Emma was not a vulnerable adult under the AVA because the GAL “concluded Emma was not an exploited vulnerable adult.” They mischaracterize the GAL's testimony. While the GAL testified that she did not believe the Gabeleins had “purposely done something to hurt” Emma, the GAL's report states that “[n]one of this means that Emma has not been unduly influenced.”

¶ 51 Evidence concerning Emma's incapacity under chapter 11.88 RCW also supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult when she entered into the purchase and sale agreement with the Gabeleins in 2004.9 For instance, in 2003, the same year that Don Gulliford found Emma wandering along a ditch, disoriented and confused, Emma gave Samantha Saul a durable power attorney apparently without realizing it was effective immediately. Emma told Dr. Edwards that “she had made a power of attorney over to Samantha Saul [that] is not in effect, but will become active if she is unable to handle her own affairs.” 10 And as previously described, it is undisputed that by 2004 Emma could not independently manage her finances or take care of herself. And Ron testified that he stopped accepting out-of-town jobs in 2004 because his brother could no longer care for Emma by himself.

¶ 52 On this record, substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult in 2004 under the AVA when she sold the property to the Gabeleins.

¶ 53 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also challenge the trial court's conclusion that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exploited Emma by exerting undue influence over her by inducing her to sell her property to them in 2004 at a price far below the market value. They argue that Emma was not exploited because she met with an attorney about the 2004 purchase and sale agreement. But the trial court's unchallenged finding that Emma had “absolutely no idea of property values” supports the court's conclusion that Emma was exploited despite meeting with an attorney. And the unchallenged finding that Emma did not understand the effect of selling her property on her ability to live independently in her home for the rest of her life also supports the conclusion that Emma was exploited, despite meeting with an attorney.

¶ 54 Next, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins contend the property sale was not a gift and the trial court erred in relying on White v. White, 33 Wash.App. 364, 655 P.2d 1173 (1982), to shift the burden to the Sauls and Gabeleins to prove lack of undue influence. The trial court ruled that Emma made a gift to the Sauls and the Gabeleins. “By selling her property as far below its market value as she has, Emma has, in essence, made gifts to the Sauls and the Gabeleins of substantial value, based on the difference between the sales price and the fair market value of each property.”

¶ 55 As a general rule, the party seeking to set aside an inter vivos gift has the burden of showing the gift is invalid. Lewis v. Estate of Lewis, 45 Wash.App. 387, 388, 725 P.2d 644 (1986). But if the recipient has a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the donor, the burden shifts to the donee to prove “a gift was intended and not the product of undue influence.” Lewis, 45 Wash.App. at 389, 725 P.2d 644; White, 33 Wash.App. at 368, 655 P.2d 1173.11 “[E]vidence to sustain the gift between such persons must show that the gift was made freely, voluntarily, and with a full understanding of the facts. If the judicial mind is left in doubt or uncertainty as to exactly what the status of the transaction was, the donee must be deemed to have failed in the discharge of his burden and the claim of gift must be rejected.” McCutcheon v. Brownfield, 2 Wash.App. 348, 356, 467 P.2d 868 (1970). The donee's burden of proof is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Pedersen v. Bibioff, 64 Wash.App. 710, 720, 828 P.2d 1113 (1992). Whether a legal fiduciary relationship exists is a question of law, which we review de novo. S.H.C. v. Lu, 113 Wash.App. 511, 524, 54 P.3d 174 (2002). Whether a confidential relationship exists is a question of fact. McCutcheon v. Brownfield, 2 Wash.App. 348, 356-57, 467 P.2d 868 (1970).

¶ 56 The Sauls and the Gabeleins dispute the trial court's conclusion that Samantha and Linda had a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Emma. “A confidential or fiduciary relationship between two persons may exist either [in law] because of the nature of the relationship between the parties or the confidential relationship between persons involved may exist in fact.” McCutcheon, 2 Wash.App. at 356-57, 467 P.2d 868. A confidential relationship exists when one person has gained the confidence of the other and “purports to act or advise with the other's interest in mind.” McCutcheon, 2 Wash.App. at 357, 467 P.2d 868.

¶ 57 The power of attorney Emma executed in June 2003 that gives Samantha “all of the powers of an absolute owner over [Emma's] assets and liabilities,” including the authority to “[l]ease, sell, release, convey, exchange, mortgage, and release any mortgage on land, and any interest therein,” establishes Samantha had a legal fiduciary relationship with Emma. While Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that Samantha's fiduciary role is irrelevant because she did not purchase the property in 2004, the trial court's finding that her role was critical to the sale is unchallenged-“[t]he Gabelein transaction would not have occurred without the Sauls' participation in a boundary line adjustment.”

¶ 58 Substantial evidence also supports the court's findings that both Samantha and Linda had a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Emma and exerted undue influence over her. It is undisputed that Samantha was involved in all three real estate transactions and, for each transaction, “Emma thought the property was worth a substantial amount less than it was.” Samantha gained Emma's confidence and purported to act in Emma's best interest as her friend, giving advice based on her superior knowledge. For example, Samantha testified that in the 2002 sale, she rejected Emma's proposed price of $52,000 as “too low,” then showed Emma “comparable” property sales records demonstrating that $80,000 was a fair market value.12 But the trial court found $80,000 was a “bargain” price and below fair market value.13

¶ 59 Linda also gained Emma's confidence and purported to advise Emma as her friend and act with Emma's best interests in mind, using her superior knowledge. In the 2004 property transaction, Linda rejected Emma's price as “too low” but told Emma that comparable sales data showed $150,000 was “in the ballpark” of a reasonable price. Yet on appeal, there is no dispute that the property is “some of the best view property on Whidbey Island” and was worth $324,000 in June 2004 and $427,000 when the sale closed in May 2005.14 It is also undisputed that Linda was the listing agent for a house on a small lot in the same neighborhood that sold for only $150,000 around the same time. The trial court noted that this sale also showed that Linda's claim that $150,000 was “in the ballpark” was not credible.

¶ 60 Citing conclusions of law 10 and 17, the Sauls and the Gabeleins also claim the court erred by imposing a fiduciary duty on Samantha and Linda contrary to the laws governing real estate agents.15 Conclusion of law 10 states: Given Emma's age, her lack of sophistication in financial matters, and her almost childlike trust in Samantha and Linda, each of them should have insisted upon getting appraisals and paying fair market value in purchasing property from Emma.

¶ 61 Conclusion of law 17 states:

Samantha had an obligation to advise Emma about the fair market value of the property that Samantha purchased from her before the purchase. Linda had an obligation to advise Emma about the fair market value of the property that Linda purchased from her before the purchase.

¶ 62 It is undisputed that neither Linda nor Samantha acted as Emma's real estate agent for the 2004 real estate transaction. In context, it is clear that the crux of conclusions of law 10 and 17 is not the role Samantha and Linda played as real estate agents but rather their responsibility, because of their close relationship with Emma and Emma's unequivocal trust in and reliance on them, to use their superior knowledge in Emma's best interest.

¶ 63 Because the trial court correctly concluded that Samantha and Linda had a confidential relationship with Emma, as a matter of law they have the burden to prove a gift was not a result of undue influence. In a number of cases, Washington courts have held that below-market sales are gifts. In the Matter of the Estate of McLeod, 105 Wash.2d 809, 814, 719 P.2d 88 (1986) (in the context of the inheritance tax, “the excess of the fair market value above the [amount paid] was a gift”); Glorfield v. Glorfield, 27 Wash.App. 358, 359, 617 P.2d 1051 (1980) (for community property purposes in a dissolution, “sales which were substantially below fair market value” were characterized as gifts). Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins cite no case to the contrary.

¶ 64 The only authority Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins cite to support their argument that the 2004 transaction was not a gift is the introduction to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provision regulating taxation of real property transfers. WAC 458-61A-201(1)
provides:

Generally, a gift of real property is not a sale, and is not subject to the real estate excise tax. A gift of real property is a transfer for which there is no consideration given in return for granting an interest in the property. If consideration is given in return for the interest granted, then the transfer is not a gift, but a sale, and it is subject to the real estate excise tax to the extent of the consideration received.

But a later example in WAC 458-61A-201(6)(b) explains that the value transferred in excess of the consideration received is a gift:

(ii) Keith and Jean, as joint owners, convey their residence valued at $200,000 to Jean as her sole property. There is no underlying debt on the property. In exchange for Keith's one-half interest in the property, Jean gives Keith $10,000. Keith has made a gift of $90,000 in equity, and received consideration of $10,000. Real estate excise tax is due on the $10,000.

¶ 65 We conclude the trial court did not err in concluding that Emma's sale for well below market value was a gift and in shifting the burden to the Sauls and the Gabeleins to prove undue influence.16

¶ 66 According to one of the court's unchallenged findings of fact, “Emma did not have any idea of the value of the property that she sold to the Gabeleins and still does not.” Emma's lack of expertise in real estate and financial matters is also undisputed. Because Emma never had a full understanding of the facts, the claim of gift must be rejected.

¶ 67 Even if the Sauls and Gabeleins did not have the burden to prove undue influence, substantial evidence supports the court's conclusion that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence establishes “Emma has been exploited by the Sauls and the Gabeleins.” Undue influence can exist “when highly unreasonable consideration is coupled with other inequitable incidents.” Lewis v. Estate of Lewis, 45 Wash.App. 387, 391, 725 P.2d 644 (1986). “Even though no directly false statements are made, if there appears to be a studied effort to produce a false impression upon the mind of the party from whom land is being purchased, this, together with inadequacy of price, will be sufficient to authorize relief.” Downing v. State, 9 Wash.2d 685, 689-90, 115 P.2d 972 (1941).

¶ 68 Here, Samantha and Linda convinced Emma that they were looking out for her best interests by telling Emma her price was “too low,” then suggesting prices that were still egregiously low. Emma was also given misleading “comparable” property sales to lead her to believe that the bargain sale prices were reasonably close to market value.

¶ 69 After the first sale to the Thompsons, the Sauls asked Emma to sell them property.17 While Emma offered to sell the property to the Sauls for $52,000, they agreed to buy it for $80,000. Before trial, Samantha took the position that Don or Emma suggested $80,000 as the purchase price. But at trial, Samantha admitted that she proposed $80,000. However, she claimed that $80,000 was “in the range of what was reasonable” for five acres with a marine mountain view, despite the undisputed evidence that the property was assessed at $195,524 the previous year. And when the Sauls applied for a loan two years later, the bank appraisal valued the property at $400,000.

¶ 70 A few months after the sale to the Sauls, Linda Gabelein testified that she approached Emma about buying another five-acre parcel. During the transaction, Linda also purported to act in Emma's best interest by insisting on paying more than Emma initially offered but then agreeing to a price that was still far below market value. Sometime after the 2004 purchase and sale agreement, an addendum was executed. Linda brought the boundary line adjustment paperwork to Emma to sign. Emma signed at least two versions, including one that lacked a legal description or a map. In the boundary line adjustment that was finally approved, all of the less-desirable marsh and swampland was excluded from the five acres the Gabeleins purchased. The Sauls and the Gabeleins also took steps to ensure Ron and Don did not learn about the 2004 real estate transaction until after closing. Linda Gabelein told a fellow real estate agent that the sale was “hush-hush” and “a really good deal.”

¶ 71 There was also testimony that both the Sauls and the Gabeleins told others they were able to influence Emma. According to one unchallenged finding, Samantha told Ray Lotto that “she was working on Emma, by being nice to her and taking her on trips to Costco, so that she could get a listing on Emma's property that Lotto wanted to buy.” Ray Lotto testified that Samantha thought “given enough time [she would] be able to get this property for” him. Emma's daughter-in-law Sandy Fisher testified that Vernon Gabelein told her that he “could talk Emma into giving Bob Fisher and Earl Fisher her remaining five-acre parcel of property?” 18 And according to the GAL, Linda and Samantha could “get Ms. Endicott to change her mind.” The unchallenged findings also show that Samantha's influence over Emma extended beyond real estate. For instance, when Ron and Don questioned “the prudence of Emma's purchase of a 30-year annuity in 2002, she would not believe that their questions were valid until she had Samantha Saul check out the situation.” And it is undisputed that during Emma's testimony, she “volunteered, ‘[i]f Sam told you that, that's the truth.’ ? As Emma said, if Samantha Saul says it, that's the truth for Emma.”

¶ 72 Substantial evidence also supports the trial court's finding that the undue influence of the Sauls and the Gabeleins over Emma caused her “to act in a way that is inconsistent with relevant past behavior.” 19 Many witnesses testified that Emma was extremely frugal. Emma used to dig through trash to find can labels she could turn in for fifty cents or a dollar. Emma has always worn secondhand clothes she got for free. She did not replace her 50-year-old broken dentures because she did not want to spend the money. Before Shorty's death, the couple had never conveyed any property except when Emma gave her favorite sister Annie the one-third interest she inherited in their parent's home.20

¶ 73 On this record, we conclude the trial court did not err in ruling Emma is a vulnerable adult under the AVA and issuing a protective order preventing the Sauls and the Gabeleins from transferring or encumbering the property she sold to them in 2004.

CONCLUSION

¶ 74 We affirm the trial court's decision establishing a limited guardianship for Emma and issuing an order of protection for her as a vulnerable adult under the AVA. Substantial evidence supports finding that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma. As the prevailing parties on appeal, upon compliance with RAP 18.1, Ron and Don are entitled to attorney fees on appeal under RCW 11.96A.150 and RCW 74.34.130.21

FOOTNOTES

1. There was an understanding in the family that Earl and Bob would inherit Emma's five acres.

2. The court later entered an order of protection against Don because of an unrelated incident a year earlier.

3. The court selected Earl Fisher because he would act in his mother's best interest, he was impartial, and he was not interested in obtaining Emma's money or property.

4. “The court does not attribute Emma's behavior during trial solely to the urinary tract infection. The court observed Emma's behavior for three full days in December of 2005 and two full days in January of 2006, and her behavior was as described above. There is no suggestion that Emma was suffering from a urinary tract infection then. Even if she was suffering from a urinary tract infection, the antibiotics prescribed for her on February 8, 2006, would have been completed on February 13 or 14. Emma's disorientation cleared up with 24 hours when she was at the hospital in June of 2005 for the same condition. The difference between June of 2005 and February of 2006 is that Emma was no longer living with anyone who monitors whether she was taking her medication. Samantha, who took her to the hospital on February 8, testified that she did not know if Emma had finished her medication. Because Emma was diagnosed with two urinary tract infections in such a short period of time, the court questions whether she took all of her antibiotics as prescribed.”

5. And because substantial evidence supports finding Emma incapacitated, any error is harmless.

6. At some point Emma inadvertently let her homeowners' insurance lapse and apparently she often paid bills even when the statements showed a credit balance.

7. In this opinion, the statutory citations to the AVA refer to the version in effect in 2004 and 2005. Effective July 22, 2007, some sections of the AVA were amended in ways that do not affect this appeal.

8. Ron and Don contend the Sauls and the Gabeleins argue for the first time on appeal that the court erred in not addressing whether Emma was a vulnerable adult at the time of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in 2004. But below the Sauls and the Gabeleins took the position that the AVA required proof that Emma was vulnerable when she was allegedly
exploited in 2004.

9. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert the relevant time period was when the purchase agreement for the third sale was signed on June 15, 2004. Ron and Don assert the last exploitation occurred at the closing on May 16, 2005. Because substantial evidence supports finding Emma incapacitated before June 2004, we need not resolve the parties' disagreement about the relevant time period.

10. The court expressly found the psychologist's report of Emma's statement credible.

11. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend that only the donor may challenge the transaction and that White only applies to a rescission action. But the holding in White is not limited to actions by donors to rescind. See Matter of Estate of Eubank, 50 Wash.App. 611, 619-20, 749 P.2d 691 (1988); Lewis, 45 Wash.App. at 388-89, 725 P.2d 644.

12. Samantha's testimony also supports the challenged finding that Samantha knew Emma did not know the value of the property.

13. This challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence. The property was assessed at $195,524 in 2001, and an appraisal showed the land alone was worth at least $300,000 two years after the Sauls bought it.

14. The court's finding that the appraisal Ron and Don submitted was more credible is unchallenged. According to that appraisal, the five acres was worth $324,000 in June 2004.

15. Because the findings, conclusions, and protective order only relate to the 2004 real estate transaction, we need not address challenges to the findings and conclusions related to the first sale to Dina Thompson and her spouse, who are not parties to this action nor subject to the protective order.

16. The White court also distinguished inter vivos gifts from will contests. In will contests, the initial burden is on the party challenging the testamentary gift. By contrast, with an inter vivos gift the donor “strips himself of that which he can still enjoy and of which he may have need during his life.” White, 33 Wash.App. at 371, 655 P.2d 1173 (quoting Whalen v. Lanier, 29 Wash.2d 299, 312, 186 P.2d 919 (1947)).

17. The court rejected the testimony that Emma approached the Sauls. The trial court relied on Emma's statement to the psychologist that the Sauls asked her to sell them property and “she agreed?” And in the protection order hearing, Emma again stated that the Sauls “c[a]me and asked” about buying the property.

18. Because the trial court found Sandy Fisher's testimony about the sale in 2004 noncredible, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the conversation occurred. But while the court rejected Sandy Fisher's testimony that Emma was not exploited in the 2004 sale as not credible, the court expressly found her testimony about the conversation with Vernon was credible.

19. Former RCW 74.34.020(2)(d).

20. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that because Shorty always controlled the finances, Emma never had a chance to sell anything or give expensive gifts before he died. But for at least the first three years after Shorty died, Emma continued to live very frugally and did not sell any property. The largest gift Ron remembered Emma ever giving was $75 to her sister Annie on her 75th birthday in 2000.

21. Because we affirm, we also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Ron and Don attorney fees under RCW 11.96A.150 and RCW 74.34.130.

SCHINDLER, A.C.J.

WE CONCUR: APPELWICK, C.J., and BECKER, J. 

Windermere Bellevue Commons Associate Brokers Dick and Cecilia Pelascini’s Foreclosure Rescue Ripoff Scam

(L to R) Windermere Bellevue Commons Associate Broker Dick Pelascini and wife Cecilia Pelascini: Still generating commissions for Windermere.

 

Vila Pace-Knapp owned a home where she resided for many years, but eventually became delinquent on her payments, and started getting written notices of default and pending foreclosure that her home would be sold at an upcoming trustee’s sale. She sought to stave off the trustee’s sale through bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy court dismissed all of her petitions. The attempts at bankruptcy, however, did manage to postpone the scheduled trustee’s sale for many months, but the bankruptcy court’s final order of dismissal prevented her  from filing additional petitions.


At about the period of Pace-Knapp’s initial notices of foreclosure, Windermere Associate Broker Dick Pelascini, and Thomas Boboth of Pacific Shoreline Mortgage, individually approached her at her home. She knew neither of the men, but they were clearly aware of her pending foreclosure. They offered to collaborate with Pace-Knapp in an effort to save her home. Pelascini and Boboth each proffered business cards, identifying each respectively as a broker at a real estate company, and the president of a mortgage company. The pair visited many times over the ensuing weeks, continually offering to help her. Neither man ever stated they wanted to buy her house, or offer her a loan. Pace-Knapp declined their offers of help.


On an evening before the actual trustee’s sale, Pace-Knapp met Pelascini at his real estate office and signed a purchase and sale agreement for her home, a residential lease agreement, and an option to purchase the property from the Pelascinis, two years down the road. The documents were clearly labeled, but Pace-Kanpp did not read them, including the titles. She didn’t realize she’d sold her house to the Pelescinis until signing documents at the closing agent’s office, but still went ahead, and the trustee’s sale did not occur.


Pace-Knapp commenced living in the house under the new lease agreement with the Pelescinis for two and a half years, during which she paid the new owners rent. Then the Pelascinis declined to renew her lease a third time, and subsequently evicted her. She sued Dick and Cecilia Pelascini, Windermere Real Estate Bellevue Commons and Thomas Boboth and Pacific Shoreline Mortgage, for unconscionability, fraud, CPA violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She also sought relief from the sale and attorney fees. The trial court found that Pelescinis were liable for fraud and CPA violations. It ordered rescission of the contract and attorney fees and costs under the Consumer Protection Act. In typical “stalling-the-damage-award-style,” Windermere and the Pelescinis moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied, so they appealed.

The appeals court said, “The Pelascinis’ argument rests on the false premise that they ' …did help plaintiff save her house,' Simply stated, the point is that they saved her home for themselves so that they would not have to bid at the rescheduled trustee’s sale. The Pelascinis’ practice of preying on this and other vulnerable home owners on the eve of foreclosure is the type of practice likely to deceive future distressed owners in the same manner…. The trial court found that Pelascini and Boboth habitually work together to buy houses on the eve of foreclosure and that they did so in this case… essentially harassing her until she relented and accepted their offer to ‘help.’ …Pelascini and Boboth are likely to repeat this approach and have done so in the past.”

Both Cecilia and Dick Pelascini still work for Windermere. Here is the Court's opinion:

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

No. 59321-8-I

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED

FILED: March 17, 2008

VILA PACE-KNAPP,

Respondent,

v.

DICK PELASCINI and CECILIA PELASCINI, husband and wife and their martial community; WINDERMERE
REAL ESTATE/BELLEVUE COMMONS, INC.; THOMAS BOBOTH; and PACIFIC SHORELINE MORTGAGE, INC.,

Appellants.

Cox, J. — A plaintiff claiming a violation of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) must establish (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) public interest impact, (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) causation.1 Here, the trial judge’s unchallenged findings of fact support its conclusion that Dick and Cecilia Pelascini, Thomas Boboth, and Pacific Shoreline Mortgage, Inc. (collectively, “the Pelascinis”) violated the act. However, the trial court’s determination that Vila Pace-Knapp was entitled to rescission for fraud in the inducement of a sale of her property cannot be sustained. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a determination of damages and attorney fees under the CPA.

1 Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105
Wn.2d 778, 780, 719 P.2d 531 (1986).

Pace-Knapp owned and resided in her home in Bellevue for many years. In early 2001, she became delinquent in making payments on the loan that was secured by her property. In June 2001, she received written notices of default and foreclosure indicating that her home would be sold at a trustee’s sale in the near future. She attempted to avoid foreclosure by filing for bankruptcy three times, but the bankruptcy court dismissed all of her petitions. The bankruptcy filings delayed the scheduled trustee’s sale from June to October 2001. In the final order of dismissal, the bankruptcy court prohibited her from filing additional petitions.

Around the time of the initial foreclosure notices, Pelascini and Boboth individually approached Pace-Knapp at her home. She did not know either of them, but they were aware of the pending foreclosure proceedings. They offered to work together to help her “save her home.” Each gave her a business card showing that they were, respectively, a broker at a real estate company and the president of a mortgage company. They visited her many times over the next few weeks and continually offered to help her. They never stated they wanted either to buy her house or to help her by offering her a loan. Throughout this period, she declined their offers of help.

The evening before the final rescheduled trustee’s sale, Pace-Knapp went to Pelascini’s real estate office and signed several documents: a purchase and sale agreement for her home, a residential lease agreement, and an option to purchase the property from the Pelascinis in two years. Although they were plainly labeled as such, she did not read any portion of the documents, including the titles. When Pace-Knapp signed further documents at the closing agent’s office, she first realized she had sold her house to the Pelascinis. Nevertheless, she proceeded with the sale. As a result of this transaction, the trustee’s sale did not proceed.

She lived in the house under lease agreements with the Pelascinis for two and a half years, during which time she paid rent to the new owners. She was evicted when the Pelascinis declined to renew her lease a third time.

Shortly thereafter, she commenced this action, alleging unconscionablility, fraud, CPA violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She sought relief from the sale and/or damages as well as attorney fees.

At a bench trial, the trial court found that defendants’ representations led Pace-Knapp to reasonably believe they were planning a refinance of her home loan. The trial court also found her competent to enter into the contracts that she signed. Nevertheless, the trial court decided that the Pelascinis were liable for fraud in the inducement and CPA violations. It ordered rescission of the contract and attorney fees and costs under the CPA. It appears that the Pelascinis moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.

The Pelascinis appeal.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

The Pelascinis argue that the trial court erred in concluding that they violated the Consumer Protection Act. Based on the unchallenged findings of fact and the relevant law, we disagree.

The elements of a private CPA claim are:

(1) unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) occurring in trade or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; [and] (5) causation.[2]

We liberally construe the CPA to serve its beneficial purposes of protecting the public and fostering fair and honest competition.3

The Pelascinis do not challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact. Therefore, they are verities on appeal.4 We review issues of law de novo.5 We draw reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the trial court’s determination.6

Unfair or Deceptive Practice

Citing no case law, the Pelascinis argue that they did not engage in an unfair or deceptive practice. We disagree.

An act is unfair or deceptive if it had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public.7 Proof of intent to deceive is not required.8 For example, a defendant engages in an unfair or deceptive practice if he or she sells a house

2 Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 780.
3 RCW 19.86.920.
4 Perry v. Costco Wholesale, Inc., 123 Wn. App. 783, 792, 98 P.3d 1264
(2004).
5 Id.
6 Henry v. Bitar, 102 Wn. App. 137, 142, 5 P.3d 1277 (2000).
7 Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785.
8 Id.

with prior knowledge of a defect and fails to disclose that defect to the buyer.9 When the facts are not in dispute, we determine whether a practice was unfair or deceptive under the CPA as an issue of law.10

The Pelascinis’ argument rests on the false premise that they “did help plaintiff save her house.” The trial court found that Pace-Knapp reasonably interpreted the Pelascinis’ promises to mean that they would refinance her home, which means she would continue to own it. Taking the unchallenged findings as true, we conclude that the Pelascinis deceived Pace-Knapp when they promised her that they would help her “save” her home and implied that they would refinance her loan. Simply stated, the point is that they saved her home for themselves so that they would not have to bid at the rescheduled trustee’s sale. They did not help her save her home for her, as suggested. The Pelascinis’ practice of preying on this and other vulnerable home owners on the eve of foreclosure is the type of practice likely to deceive future distressed owners in the same manner.

In the Course of Trade or Commerce

The Pelascinis do not dispute that they were acting in the course of trade or commerce. Yet they argue that such a finding is incompatible with the trial court’s finding that Pace-Knapp thought they were acting as altruists — not in the course of their trade. In fact, the CPA applies to “every person who conducts

9 Burbo v. Harley C. Douglass, Inc., 125 Wn. App. 684, 700, 106 P.3d
258, review denied, 155 Wn.2d 1026 (2005).
10 Indoor Billboard/Washington, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington,
Inc., 162 Wn.2d 59, 84, 170 P.3d 10, 22 (2007).

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in any trade or commerce.”11 And “[r]eal estate sales clearly constitute ‘trade’ or ‘commerce’ for purposes of [the CPA].”12 Thus, it is clear from the facts of this case that the Pelascinis were acting in the course of trade or commerce by purchasing real estate. The fact that they hid their commercial intent from Pace-Knapp does not contradict this finding.

Impact on the Public Interest

The Pelascinis also argue that their actions did not have an impact on the public interest. We again disagree. Plaintiffs must show an impact on the public interest from a private transaction based on an analysis of the following non-exclusive factors:

(1) Were the alleged acts committed in the course of defendant’s
business? (2) Did defendant advertise to the public in general?
(3) Did defendant actively solicit this particular plaintiff, indicating
potential solicitation of others? [and] (4) Did plaintiff and defendant
occupy unequal bargaining positions?[13]

For example, in Sign-O-Lite Signs, Inc. v. DeLaurenti Florists, Inc., this court determined that a public interest impact existed when a sign company solicited a store owner and deceptively convinced the owner to sign an agreement that required the owner to pay substantially more for a sign than she had orally agreed.14 This court held that there was a public interest impact because the company acted within the course of its business, actively solicited

11 Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 (quoting Short v. Demopolis, 103
Wn.2d 52, 61, 691 P.2d 163 (1984)).
12 Edmonds v. John L. Scott Real Estate, Inc., 87 Wn. App. 834, 846, 942
P.2d 1072 (1997).
13 Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 790-91.
14 64 Wn. App. 553, 825 P.2d 714 (1992).

the store owner, and routinely solicits other business.15

Similarly here, the trial court found that Pelascini and Boboth habitually work together to buy houses on the eve of foreclosure and that they did so in this case. They actively solicited Pace-Knapp by approaching her at home a number of times, offering to help her, and essentially harassing her until she relented and accepted their offer to “help.” The court found that although Pace-Knapp was able to contract, they are real estate professionals, while she “is an unsophisticated homeowner whose ability to reason clearly during this period was obviously impaired.”16 Finally, although the trial court did not make a finding that Pelascini and Boboth advertise to the public, the court concluded that this type of transaction has an adverse effect on the public interest because it has the potential for repetition and evidence in this case showed that Pelascini and Boboth have “engaged in this approach before.”17

Given these unchallenged factual findings, we conclude that Pace-Knapp satisfied the public interest element. Pelascini and Boboth are likely to repeat this approach and have done so in the past. Such a business practice impacts the public interest by targeting and harming vulnerable individuals.

Injury / Damages / Attorney Fees Below

The Pelascinis argue that Pace-Knapp was not injured by the transaction

15 Id. at 562-63.
16 Clerk’s Papers at 247 (Finding of Fact 14).
17 Clerk’s Papers at 250-51 (Conclusion of Law 5). Although this
statement was contained in a conclusion of law, the portion regarding
Appellants’ past practice is a finding of fact.

and that she has the burden to prove “actual damages.” They also argue that attorney fees were inappropriate because the court did not award damages under the act. Identical arguments were rejected by the supreme court in Mason v. Mortgage America, Inc.,18 and we reject them here.

In Mason, as in this case, the trial court had ordered rescission of the contract in question and also found a violation of the CPA. The supreme court reiterated that injury and damages under the CPA are distinct. The loss of title to real property is “obviously” an injury under the CPA because it is a diminution of money or property.19 Because each element of a CPA claim, including injury, was met in that case, the supreme court held that attorney fees and costs were appropriate, even though there were no money damages in light of the rescission.20

Here, Pace-Knapp was injured because she lost the equity in her home. There are, potentially, other damages to which she is entitled as well. Accordingly, attorney fees were proper because each element of the CPA was met.

Causation

Again citing no case law, the Pelascinis argue that Pace-Knapp did not prove causation because her own acts caused her alleged injury. We disagree. The issue of causation under the CPA is an issue of fact for the trial

18 114 Wn.2d 842, 792 P.2d 142 (1990).
19 Id. at 854-55.
20 Id. at 855.
21 Indoor Billboard, 162 Wn.2d at 84.

court.21 But the Pelascinis do not challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact on appeal. The trial court found that Pace-Knapp was induced through fraud into selling her home and concluded that their actions were the cause of her injury.

The Pelascinis’ only possible challenge with regard to this element, then, is whether the trial court applied the proper law. Nothing in the record suggests that it did not.22 We will not presume otherwise.

CONTRACT RESCISSION

The Pelascinis raise several arguments regarding Pace-Knapp’s claim of fraud in the inducement and the trial court’s chosen remedy of rescission. We conclude that the remedy of rescission was not appropriate under the facts and law that control this case.

Fraud: Misrepresentation of Fact

The Pelascinis argue that the trial court erred in concluding that they made a misrepresentation of existing fact. We agree and hold that the trial court’s findings of fact do not support its conclusion of fraud.

To prevail on a claim of fraud, the plaintiff must prove with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that the defendant made a material misrepresentation of existing fact.23 Fraud in the inducement is fraud that induces the transaction

21 Indoor Billboard, 162 Wn.2d at 84.
22 Neither the trial court briefs nor the prior dispositive motions were made part of the record on appeal.
23 The nine elements of fraud are: (1) a representation of existing fact, (2)that is material, (3) and false, (4) the speaker knows of its falsity, (5) intent to induce another to act, (6) ignorance of its falsity by the listener, (7) the latter’s

by misrepresentation of “motivating factors such as value, usefulness, age, or other characteristic of the property.”24 Misrepresentations include “half-truths calculated to deceive,” 25 and inferences from the words used.26 A promise of future performance is not a representation of existing fact.27

Here, the trial court specifically found that the Pelascinis had not made a
misrepresentation of existing fact, but rather that the misrepresentations “were in the nature of intentions.”28 Yet the court concluded that all elements of fraud in the inducement were met in part because Pace-Knapp relied on them to “do as they promised.”29 This was an error of law because promises of future performance are not representations of existing fact. Thus, there is no basis to conclude that fraud in the inducement exists here. Absent fraud, there is no basis for the remedy of rescission.

Waiver

Even if Pace-Knapp had proven the elements of fraud in the inducement, case law is clear that she waived her right to the remedy of rescission by her delay in bringing this action.

reliance on the truth of the representation, (8) her right to rely on it, and (9) consequent damage. Pedersen v. Bibioff, 64 Wn. App. 710, 723 n.10, 828 P.2d 1113 (1992).
24 Id. at 722.
25 Ikeda v. Curtis, 43 Wn.2d 449, 460, 261 P.2d 684 (1953); see also id.
(“A representation literally true is actionable if used to create an impression substantially false.”).
26 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 159 (1981).
27 West Coast, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 112 Wn. App. 200, 206, 48
P.3d 997 (2002).
28 Clerk’s Papers at 249 (Conclusion of Law 3).
29 Clerk’s Papers at 250 (Conclusion of Law 4).

Even where a person has been defrauded, he or she may waive the right to seek rescission, or in certain circumstances, damages.30

Generally, a person wishing to avoid a contract has the choice either to continue performing under the contract and sue for damages or to promptly seek to rescind the contract.31 One who opts to rescind a contract for fraud “must act promptly after its discovery” in order to preserve the right to sue for rescission.32 If a party claiming to have been defrauded affirms the contract by entering into new “arrangements or engagements concerning the subject matter of the contract” after discovering the fraud, he has waived his right to sue for rescission.33 Waiving the right to sue for rescission merely by affirming the contract or delaying to seek rescission, however, does not necessarily bar the right to sue for damages.34

For example, in Johnson v. Brado, the purchasers of a home discovered after the sale that the house was not connected to the sewer, contrary to the seller’s previous promises.35 The buyers moved into the home and rejected the seller’s offer to pay for septic repair. The purchasers sued the seller approximately one year later. The court held that the buyers had waived their right to rescind the contract by moving into the house and affirming the

30 Owen v. Matz, 68 Wn.2d 374, 376-77, 413 P.2d 368 (1966).Salter v. Heiser, 39 Wn.2d 826, 831, 239 P.2d 327 (1951); Johnson v.
Brado, 56 Wn. App. 163, 165-66, 783 P.2d 92 (1989) (citing Weinstein v.
Sprecher, 2 Wn. App. 325, 330, 467 P.2d 890 (1970)).
32 Weitzman v. Bergstrom, 75 Wn.2d 693, 697, 453 P.2d 860 (1969).
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 56 Wn. App. 163, 783 P.2d 92 (1989).

contract.36 But they had not waived their right to sue for damages because no unequivocal act evinced their intention to do so.37

Here, Pace-Knapp waived the right to rescission by remaining in her house for more than two years and signing two lease agreements after she discovered that the Pelascinis purchased her property. Rescission was not an appropriate remedy after Pace-Knapp affirmed the agreement and allowed sufficient time to pass before attempting to repudiate it. Because we hold that Pace-Knapp did not prove the elements of fraud and that the remedy of rescission was not available to her, we need not address the Pelascinis’ additional arguments related to fraud.

ATTORNEY FEES

Citing to Sign-O-Lite Signs, Pace-Knapp seeks attorney fees as the substantially prevailing party on appeal under the CPA.38 She is entitled to such an award, both at trial and on appeal. We remand to the trial court to determine the amount of the fee award.39

We affirm the judgment to the extent of the CPA award and remand for the determination of damages and the amount of attorney fees on appeal. We reverse the fraud in the inducement determination.

36 Id. at 167.
37 Id.
38 64 Wn. App. at 568.
39 See RAP 18.1(i).

Cox, J.

WE CONCURR

Applewick, C.J.

Grosse, J.

 

More Innocent and Unsuspecting Lives Ruined by the Cost of Chasing Windermere Through the Courts...

 

Windermere Allen & Associates (LC Realty) Longview, and Agent Lance Miller's Deliberate Non-Disclosure of Home's Prior Use as Pot Farm and Methamphetamine Laboratory

(Left) Lance Miller from Windermere Real Estate/Allen & Associates also operated LAM Management which handled the subject home a rental prior to its sale to Eva and Eddie Bloor.

 

Eva and Eddie Bloor relocated to Longview, in Washington State, and purchased a home from Charmaine and Robert Fritz through Lance Miller at Windermere Real Estate/Allen & Associates, who served as dual agent for both for both parties. The Fritzes and Miller both opted to withhold their knowledge that the onetime rental property had been a site for marijuana farming and methamphetamine production. Windermere and Miller were cognizant of the property’s prior use because Windermere staff managed the rental home months earlier when a drug raid occurred, and they subsequently issued a notice of eviction on the tenants after learning of their illicit operation. Locals all heard the news, including the Fritzes, who conversed about it with others.

RCW 64.06.020, with its very pertinent and mandatory Seller Disclosure Statement question, “Has the property been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site?” had been checked “No” by Fritz in the presence of Miller, and the form was later conveyed to the Bloors, who occupied the residence and only later learned of their new home’s toxic past from neighbors and news stories.

Mrs. Bloor queried the health department as to decontamination, officials concluded the home to be unfit for human habitation, and compelled the Bloors to abandon the place with nothing but what they were wearing at the moment. Mr. Bloor was not even granted brief consideration to retrieve the tools by which made a living. The Bloors filed a complaint against the Fritzes, agent Miller, Windermere and franchiser Windermere Services Company, plus Cowlitz County. With Bloors eventually prevailing, the trial court granted recision—an unwinding of their real estate transaction—and also their damages both jointly and severally on loss of wages and personal property, lost use of the home itself, emotional distress, and ruin of the Bloor’s credit.

In typical stall mode, Windermere-Miller parties appealed, but lost again. For the particulars on this incredible, predatory saga, read the following Washington State Appeals Court Opinion:

DOWNLOAD THE APPEALS COURT OPINION HERE.

 

PUBLISHED OPINION


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II

No. 35740-2-II


EDDIE BLOOR and EVA BLOOR, husband
and wife,

Respondents,

v.

ROBERT A FRITZ and CHARMAINE A. FRITZ, and the marital community comprised thereof; LANCE MILLER, a single person; ALLEN & ASSOCIATES; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICE CO., a Washington corporation,

Appellants.

And COWLITZ COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Cowlitz County does not appeal.

Defendant.

Armstrong, J.—Eddie and Eva Bloor purchased a home from Robert and Charmaine Fritz through Lance Miller, an agent at LC Realty, Inc. After learning that the home was contaminated by a methamphetamine lab, the Bloors sued the Fritzes, Miller, LAM Management, LC Realty, and Cowlitz County. The trial court found that the Fritzes negligently misrepresented the condition of the property and that Miller failed to disclose a known material fact about the property and negligently misrepresented its condition, thereby violating the Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Miller and LC Realty argue that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s findings that Miller knew of the illegal drug manufacturing on the property and failed to disclose it; they also argue that the Bloors failed to prove an Act violation. The Fritzes argue that the trial court erred in (1) failing to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim and (2) rescinding the real estate purchase and sale agreement. The Fritzes and Miller both challenge the trial court’s damage and attorney fee awards. We hold that the trial court erred in calculating damages in conjunction with rescinding the contract, specifically by granting the Bloors more damages than necessary to restore them to their pre-contract position. Otherwise, we find no error and, thus, affirm.

FACTS

Robert Fritz owned a home and approximately five acres of land on Spirit Lake Highway in Cowlitz County. He and his wife, Charmaine, moved from the home in 2001 and hired LAM Management, Inc. (LAM) to manage the property as a rental. Lance Miller and Jayson Brudvik are co-owners and operators of LAM. Miller and Brudvik are also licensed real estate agents for LC Realty, Inc.

In January 2004, Jason and Charles Waddington, Pam Jackson, and Sarah Holton occupied the Spirit Lake property under a rental agreement through LAM. On January 30, the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Joint Narcotics Task Force executed a search warrant at the property. Task force members discovered a marijuana growing operation in the house’s basement and implements of methamphetamine manufacturing on and under the house’s rear deck and in a hot tub on the deck. Although the task force processed the site as a methamphetamine lab, no one from the task force or any other law enforcement agency notified the Cowlitz County Health Department, the Washington State Department of Health, or any other state agency of the methamphetamine lab. The State charged Jason Waddington with manufacturing marijuana and Charles Waddington with manufacturing methamphetamine.

On January 31, the task force issued a press release that identified the Spirit Lake property as the site of the drug search, identified the people involved, and stated that the task force had removed a marijuana growing operation and implements of a small methamphetamine lab from the property. On February 1, the Longview Daily News published an article that reported the information in the press release.

Charmaine learned of the police activity at the property and contacted numerous law enforcement agencies to find out what had occurred at the property. On February 2, she contacted the task force and spoke with Judy Conner, the support staff specialist. Connor told Charmaine that the police had arrested people on the property and that the task force had confiscated a marijuana grow operation and implements of a methamphetamine lab.

The following day, Charmaine spoke with Detective Darren Ullmann, a member of the task force who had been present at the search. Ullmann told Charmaine that the task force had removed implements of a methamphetamine lab from the property. Charmaine shared this information with Robert. Miller also contacted law enforcement to learn the status of the property and the arrests in the first few days of February.

LAM initiated eviction proceedings against the Waddington tenants, and they left the property in February or March 2004. LAM subsequently re rented the property for a short period of time but evicted those tenants in May 2004. The Fritzes then decided to sell the property.

In preparation for the sale, the Fritzes cleaned the house, painted it, and changed the floor coverings. During this time, Charmaine spoke with John and Jenae Cyr, who lived across the street from the property. Charmaine told the Cyrs that she and her husband felt they were lucky that the Waddington tenants had not cooked methamphetamine inside the house but had cooked it only on the back porch.

Eddie and Eva Bloor moved to Cowlitz County from Missouri in 2004, and began looking for a home to purchase. Brudvik showed them the Spirit Lake property. The Bloors decided to make an offer to buy the property. Miller represented both the Fritzes and the Bloors in the transaction.

Robert completed a seller’s disclosure statement in which he represented that the property had never been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site. Miller reviewed the disclosure statement with the Bloors, but he did not disclose that the drug task force had discovered a marijuana grow operation or methamphetamine lab on the property. The Fritzes accepted the Bloors’ offer and the transaction closed in August 2004. The Bloors moved into the home shortly thereafter.

In September, the Bloors’ son heard from a member of the community that the property was known as a “drug house.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 20. The Bloors began investigating and found an on-line version of the February 1 Daily News article. Eva contacted the task force, where Sergeant Kevin Tate confirmed that the task force had confiscated a methamphetamine lab at the property. She then contacted the Cowlitz County Health Department, where Audrey Shaver confirmed that nobody had reported the lab to the health department and that it would investigate the matter to determine what action it would take.

On October 22, Shaver told the Bloors that the health department had determined that the property was contaminated by the methamphetamine manufacturing and was not fit for occupancy. She told the Bloors that they could not remove their personal property from the house because of the risk of crosscontamination. The Bloors left the residence as instructed, leaving nearly all their personal belongings in the house and garage.

The health department posted an order prohibiting use of the property. The order stated that the Bloors were financially responsible for the cost of remediation, that a certified decontamination contractor would have to perform the remediation, and that use of the property was subject to criminal charges. Occupancy of buildings contaminated by methamphetamine manufacturing is dangerous to the health and safety of occupants.

The Bloors stayed with relatives until they could secure a place to live, eventually moving to Spokane. They had to repurchase clothing, bedding, furniture, and other necessities. They were unable to both support themselves and make their monthly mortgage payments. The Bloors experienced emotional distress and anxiety due to the loss of their home, personal effects, and keepsakes.

The Bloors sued the Fritzes, Miller, LAM Management, LC Realty, and Cowlitz County. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled for the Bloors, awarding them damages jointly and severally against all the defendants for emotional distress, loss of personal property, loss of income, loss of use of the property, and damage to the Bloors’ credit. It also awarded the Bloors $10,000 as punitive damages and $13,907.30 for attorney fees against Miller and LC Realty under the Act. It ordered the contract between the Bloors and the Fritzes rescinded, requiring the Fritzes to pay the Bloors’ lender the purchase price, accrued interest, late charges, and foreclosure fees, and the Bloors to return the property to the Fritzes. Finally, the trial court awarded the Bloors $18,975.55 in expenses against the Fritzes and, applying a 1.2 multiplier, $125,335.25 in attorney fees against the Fritzes, Miller, and LC Realty; it awarded the Bloors their statutory costs against all defendants.

The trial court dismissed LAM with prejudice.

Miller and LC Realty (collectively Miller) principally argue that (1) insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s findings that Miller knew about the meth lab, (2) the trial court erred in finding that he violated the Act, and (3) the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees with a multiplier and all the Bloors’ litigation expenses. In addition to joining Miller in several claimed errors, the Fritzes principally argue that (1) the economic loss rule precludes the Bloors from seeking damages for the tort of negligent misrepresentation, (2) the trial court erred in rescinding the contract rather than awarding damages, and (3) the trial court erred in awarding damages for emotional distress, income loss, and injury to the Bloors’ credit ratings. We hold that the trial court erred only in awarding the Bloors damages beyond those necessary to restore them to their pre-contract position.

ANALYSIS

Miller and LC Realty ’s Appeal

I. Knowledge Of Methamphetamine Manufacturing


Miller argues that substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s findings regarding his knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing at the Spirit Lake property.

He assigns error to the following findings of fact:

X.

Jayson Brudvick saw the article published in the Longview Daily News on Sunday, February 1, 2004, and contacted the Fritzes by telephone to notify them and to get instructions on how to proceed with respect to evicting the tenants.


XVI.

During the first few days of February 2004, Lance Miller contacted law enforcement regarding the status of the Property and the arrests that were made at the Property. During his contact, Lance Miller was informed of the marijuana grow operation and the discovery of the meth lab. The denial by Lance Miller that he was informed of the discovery of the implements used in meth manufacturing on the Property is not credible.

LIX.

Lance Miller listed the Property and entered it on the multiple listing service. He also showed the Property to another prospective buyer, all without revealing the history of illegal drug manufacturing at the Property. Miller knew of the history of illegal drug manufacturing at the Property from one or all three of his contacts with Jayson Brudvik from his report of the article in the newspaper, from Charmaine Fritz relative to her contacts with the Task Force, and from his personal contact with law enforcement. Miller also knew from his prior involvement with property that had been contaminated by meth manufacture of the danger of contamination with toxic chemicals from such operations. The denial by Miller of his knowledge of the history of illegal drug manufacturing at the Property is not credible.

LXI.

Miller concealed his knowledge that the Property had been used for illegal drug manufacturing when he announced his listing of the Property, and during his marketing of the Property for the Fritzes. Miller knew of the history of illegal drug manufacturing and of the potential contamination, knew that the Fritzes had not disclosed it on their Disclosure Statement, and failed to disclose his personal knowledge of the history of use of the Property for illegal drug manufacturing, or of the potential contamination of the Property to the public, to a prospective buyer of the Property that was interested in the Property at the same time as the Bloors, or to the Bloors.

LXII.

The Bloors were damaged by Miller’s failure to disclose the history of drug manufacturing at the Property. As shown by the investigation made by Eva Bloor upon receiving information that drug activity had occurred at the Property, Miller’s failure to disclose his knowledge of the drug activity on the Property to the Bloors misled the Bloors and deprived them of essential information needed by them to learn of the true condition of the Property. Had Miller revealed his knowledge of the drug activity on the Property, the Bloors would have probably made inquiry to law enforcement and the health department, which they did upon receiving information of the history of such activity at the Property.

CP at 15, 17, 29-31.

Where the trial court has weighed the evidence, our review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and, if so, whether the findings in turn support the conclusions of law and the judgment. City of Tacoma v. State, 117 Wn.2d 348, 361, 816 P.2d 7 (1991). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the finding. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Ctr. v. Holman, 107 Wn.2d 693, 712, 732 P.2d 974 (1987). If the evidence satisfies this standard, we will not substitute our judgment for the trial court’s, even though we may have resolved disputed facts differently. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873, 879-80, 73 P.3d 369 (2003).

Miller argues that no evidence supports finding of fact X, that Brudvik read the February 1, Longview Daily News article about the search at the Spirit Lake property. He points out that Brudvik did not testify about the date of the article he read or identify the February 1 article as the article he read. Brudvik testified that he read in the Longview Daily News that there was a “marijuana bust” at the property. 3 Report of Proceedings (RP) at 714. Although he did not recall all the details from the article, he testified that he read the entire article, that he read it over a weekend, and that he recognized the names reported in the article. He testified that he contacted the Fritzes within a couple of days to discuss evicting the tenants. The February 1 article was published on a Sunday and it named the three residents who had been arrested, Jason and Charles Waddington and Sarah Holton. Robert testified that Brudvik called him on Monday, February 2, to discuss the newspaper article. This is substantial evidence to support a finding that Brudvik read the February 1, Longview Daily News article.

As with much of their evidence, the Bloors presented Brudvik’s deposition testimony at trial, but they did not call Brudvik to testify.

Miller next contends that no evidence supports finding of fact XVI, that law enforcement told Miller about discovering the methamphetamine lab and that Miller’s denial that he received this information was not credible. He argues that law enforcement’s failure to report the lab to the health department lends credibility to his assertion that no law enforcement officer told him of the lab. He notes that no law enforcement officer testified about informing Miller, Brudvik, or LC Realty about discovering the lab; nor was there evidence that he received a copy of a police report describing the search and arrests.

Miller testified that he asked a law enforcement officer whether methamphetamine manufacturing had occurred on the property and the officer said it had not. But officers involved in the search testified that they would not have told someone there was no methamphetamine manufacturing on the property when they did in fact find implements of a methamphetamine lab. The trial court, as the finder of fact, determines disputed facts by weighing the credibility of witnesses’ testimony. Bartel v. Zucktriegel, 112 Wn. App. 55, 62, 47 P.3d 581 (2002). We will not disturb a trial court’s credibility determinations on appeal. Bartel, 112 Wn. App. at 62. The trial court did not believe that a law enforcement officer would deny the existence of a known methamphetamine lab when asked about it directly. The officers’ testimony provides substantial support for this finding.

Miller next argues that no evidence supports finding of fact LIX, that Miller knew of the history of illegal drug manufacturing on the property from his contacts with Brudvik, Charmaine, and law enforcement and that his testimony to the contrary was not credible. He again asserts that he did not learn of the methamphetamine manufacturing from law enforcement and that Brudvik did not learn of it from the news article. Miller also argues that there is no evidence Charmaine told him about illegal drug manufacturing, pointing to her testimony that she did not tell either Miller or Brudvik about methamphetamine lab activity on the property.

We have, however, already rejected Miller’s challenges to the trial court’s findings that Miller and Brudvik learned of the methamphetamine lab in the days following its discovery. And the trial court did not believe Charmaine’s testimony that she did not know about the methamphetamine lab. Miller testified that he discussed what Charmaine had learned from the task force with Brudvik. Substantial evidence also supports this finding.

Miller next argues that no evidence supports finding of fact LXI, that he knew the Fritzes did not disclose that the property had been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site in their seller’s disclosure statement and did not disclose his personal knowledge to the contrary.

But Miller testified that he saw that Robert had marked “no” in response to the question asking if the property had been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site. RP at 765-66. And he does not challenge the trial court’s finding that, when he reviewed the seller’s disclosure statement with the Bloors, he did not disclose the history of the task force search or the discovery of the marijuana grow operation and methamphetamine lab implements. Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 42, 59 P.3d 611 (2002). Given the finding that Miller knew of the methamphetamine manufacturing on the property, substantial evidence supports a finding that he failed to disclose this knowledge to the Bloors.

Finally, Miller contends that no evidence supports finding of fact LXII, that his failure to disclose his knowledge of the history of illegal drug manufacturing at the property damaged the Bloors because it misled them and deprived them of information they needed to learn of the property’s true condition. He points out that the purchase and sale agreement included a provision for a neighborhood inspection and that information about the task force search and drug arrests was readily available in the public record.

Eva Bloor testified that, if the Fritzes had disclosed the illegal drug manufacturing at the home, she might have changed her mind about buying the property. She would have asked questions about the drug manufacturing, including what the drug was. She also would have inquired with the health department. That the Bloors began investigating the property’s history as soon as they learned of the illegal drugs supports a finding that if they had known earlier, they would have investigated before closing the purchase. Again, substantial evidence supports this finding of fact.

II. Failure To Disclose a Material Fact

Miller next argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to disclose his knowledge of the methamphetamine manufacturing as RCW 18.86.030 requires.

Under RCW 18.86.030(1)(d), a real estate agent has a duty to disclose “all existing material facts known by the [agent] and not apparent or readily ascertainable to a party; provided that this subsection shall not be construed to imply any duty to investigate matters that the [agent] has not agreed to investigate.” A material fact is “information that substantially adversely affects the value of the property or a party’s ability to perform its obligations in a real estate transaction, or operates to materially impair or defeat the purpose of the transaction.” RCW 18.86.010(9). But that a property is or was the site of “illegal drug activity . . . not adversely affecting the physical condition of or title to the property is not a material fact.” RCW 18.86.010(9).

Miller bases his argument solely on his contention that he did not know of the methamphetamine manufacturing on the property. He does not assign error to the trial court’s conclusion that methamphetamine manufacturing is a material fact that a real estate agent has a duty to disclose. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Miller knew of the methamphetamine manufacturing on the property, and that finding supports a conclusion that Miller violated his duty to disclose known material facts about the property, Miller’s argument fails. The trial court did not err in concluding that Miller violated RCW 18.86.030. 4

III. Negligent Misrepresentation

Miller contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his failure to disclose the history of illegal drug manufacturing on the property was a negligent misrepresentation.

A plaintiff claiming negligent misrepresentation must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that (1) the defendant supplied information for the guidance of others in their business transactions that was false, (2) the defendant knew or should have known that the information was supplied to guide the plaintiff in his business transactions, (3) the defendant was negligent in obtaining or communicating the false information, (4) the plaintiff relied on the false information, (5) the plaintiff’s reliance was reasonable, and (6) the false information proximately caused the plaintiff damages. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Baik, 147 Wn.2d 536, 545, 55 P.3d 619 (2002).

Miller again relies on his assertion that he did not know of the illegal drug manufacturing on the property to argue that he was not negligent in communicating the false information to the Bloors. Again, as with his argument under RCW 18.86.030, because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Miller knew of the illegal drug manufacturing on the property, and Miller does not claim that he disclosed the drug problem to the Bloors, Miller’s argument fails.

Miller also argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he failed to disclose a material fact without making a finding that the manufacture of marijuana is a material fact under RCW 18.86.010(9). Because the court found, however, that the manufacture of methamphetamine is a material fact that Miller failed to disclose, such a finding was not necessary.


Miller points out that, under RCW 18.86.030(2), a real estate agent owes no duty to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of a party’s statement unless otherwise agreed. But because Miller actually knew of the illegal drug manufacturing, this standard does not apply. The trial court did not err in concluding that Miller negligently misrepresented a material fact in failing to disclose the illegal drug manufacturing on the property.

IV. Consumer Protection Act

Miller next argues that the trial court erred in concluding that he violated the Consumer Protection Act.

Under the Act, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. RCW 19.86.020. To prevail in a private claim under the Act, a plaintiff must establish five elements: (1) unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3) public interest impact, (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) causation. Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 780, 719 P.2d 531 (1986). Whether particular actions give rise to a violation of the Act is a question of law that we review de novo. Svendsen v. Stock, 143 Wn.2d 546, 553, 23 P.3d 455 (2001). Miller contends that the trial court erred in concluding that his conduct was unfair or deceptive and that it impacted a public interest. He argues that the Fritzes’ home sale was an isolated incident and that his conduct during the sale did not affect anyone other than the parties to the contract.

To show that a party has engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice, a plaintiff “need not show that the act in question was intended to deceive, but that the alleged act had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public.” Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 785 (citing State v. Ralph Williams’ N.W. Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wn.2d 298, 553 P.2d 423 (1976)). Miller does not dispute that he advertised the property for sale to the public by listing it in the multiple listing service directory and placing a for sale sign on the property. He also showed the property to another prospective buyer before the Fritzes accepted the Bloors’ offer. Miller did not disclose the history of illegal drug manufacturing on the property to the Bloors or the other prospective purchaser, or on the multiple listing service directory. Listing and showing the property without disclosing its history of illegal drug manufacturing had the capacity to deceive any member of the public who used the directory or expressed interest in the property.

Miller also argues that the trial court erred in concluding that his conduct impacted the public interest because this is a private dispute with no likelihood that additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in the same way. But, while it may be more difficult for a plaintiff to show a public impact from a private dispute, a dispute between a real estate agent and a property purchaser may have a public impact.

In Svendsen, the court considered the effect of the seller disclosure statute on a real estate agent’s liability under the Act. In that case, the seller’s agent knew of flooding problems on the property. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 551-52. Yet she instructed the seller to conceal the problem in the seller disclosure form, and she also fraudulently concealed her own knowledge. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 550-52. The court first noted that several cases decided before adoption of the seller disclosure statute had held that “an agent’s failure to disclose a known material defect in the sale of real property is a violation of the [Act].” Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 556 (citing McRae v. Bolstad, 101 Wn.2d 161, 676 P.2d 496 (1984); Robinson v. McReynolds, 52 Wn. App. 635, 762 P.2d 1166 (1988); Luxon v. Caviezel, 42 Wn. App. 261, 710 P.2d 809 (1985)). The court concluded that the seller disclosure statute did not change this rule but, instead, preserved a cause of action under the Act where it exists independent of the seller disclosure statement. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 558.

The court then considered whether the buyer had established the public interest element.It addressed the following factors: (1) whether the acts were committed in the course of defendant’s business, (2) whether the defendants advertised to the public, (3) whether the defendant actively solicited the plaintiff, and (4) whether the parties occupied unequal bargaining positions. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 559 (citing Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 790-91). If present, these factors show a likelihood that additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in the same manner. Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 790-91. No single factor is dispositive, nor is it necessary that a buyer prove all factors. Hangman Ridge, 105 Wn.2d at 791. The Svendsen court concluded that the buyer had established a public interest impact. Svendsen, 143 Wn.2d at 559.

Here, Miller, acting as a real estate agent, failed to disclose a known material fact, a history of illegal drug manufacturing, in the sale of the property to the Bloors. His conduct occurred in the course of his business of offering residential property for sale to the public. He advertised the property for sale to the public by listing it on the multiple listing service directory and placing a for sale sign on the property. And, although he did not actively solicit the Bloors, the record shows that the parties did not occupy equal bargaining positions.

The trial court did not err in finding that Miller’s conduct impacted a public interest.

These findings support the trial court’s conclusion that Miller violated the Act.

For example, the Bloors’ initial offer was below the Fritzes’ asking price, but when Miller told them that another party was interested in the property, they agreed to make a full price offer. These findings support the trial court’s conclusion that Miller violated the Act.

The Fritzes’ Appeal

I. Negligent Misrepresentation

The Fritzes argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the Bloors’ negligent misrepresentation claim, asserting that no claim exists for economic loss resulting from the sale of a residence. They assert that the Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 153 P.3d 864 (2007), reversed the Court of Appeals decision that the Bloors relied on below to argue to the contrary and decided this “precise issue.” Br. of App. at 15.

The Bloors maintain, however, that the Fritzes did not raise the economic loss rule before the trial court and that, under RAP 2.5(a), we should not consider the issue. They assert that they relied on the Court of Appeals decision in Alejandre only for the proposition that a common law cause of action exists for failure to disclose information in a seller’s disclosure statement. The Fritzes respond that they implicitly raised the economic loss rule by arguing in their motion to dismiss that the Bloors had not proved a special relationship between the parties, an element of a negligent misrepresentation claim.

The economic loss rule bars recovery for an alleged breach of tort duties where a contractual relationship exists and the losses are economic. Alejandre, 159 Wn.2d at 683. Economic losses are those losses arising directly from the defect, such as repair costs for defective construction. See Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass’n Bd. of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 526, 799 P.2d 250 (1990). But the economic loss rule does not bar recovery for personal injury or damage to property other than the defective property. Alejandre, 159 Wn.2d at 684.

Miller also faults the trial court for concluding that marijuana production is also illegal drug manufacturing and that Miller’s denial that it is a material fact he was required to disclose was a threat to the public’s health and safety. But because Miller’s failure to disclose the methamphetamine manufacturing at the property was an independent basis for finding a consumer protection violation, we do not reach this issue.

Although the Fritzes argued lack of a “special relationship” in their motion to dismiss, nothing in that argument alerted the trial court that Fritzes were also arguing the economic loss rule as a bar to the tort claim. The Fritzes were essentially arguing that the Bloors had failed to prove one element of their negligent misrepresentation claim. That argument did not include the entirely different notion that the Bloors’ tort claim might be barred by the economic loss rule. We conclude that the Fritzes waived their economic loss argument by not raising it before the trial court. RAP 2.5(a); Better Fin. Solutions Inc. v. Caicos Corp., 117 Wn. App. 899, 912-13, 73 P.3d 424 (2003).

II. Rescission

The Fritzes next argue that the trial court erred in rescinding the real estate purchase and sale agreement. They maintain that rescission was inappropriate because there was not a complete failure of consideration and the cost to cure the defect was slight compared to the purchase price of the property.

Contract rescission is an equitable remedy in which the court attempts to restore the parties to the positions they would have occupied had they not entered into the contract. Hornback v. Wentworth, 132 Wn. App. 504, 513, 132 P.3d 778 (2006), review granted, 158 Wn.2d 1025 (2007). We review a trial court’s decision to rescind a contract for an abuse of discretion. Hornback, 132 Wn. App. at 513. A court sitting in equity has broad discretion to shape relief. Hough v. Stockbridge, 150 Wn.2d 234, 236, 76 P.3d 216 (2003).

In their closing argument, the Bloors stated that they preferred rescission of the contract over contractual damages, and the trial court ordered rescission in its oral decision. When the parties expressed confusion as to how rescission would work, the court directed the parties to work out the details and to advise the court if they could not. The Bloors later told the trial court that the parties had concluded that rescission was not feasible because the Fritzes would be unable to return the purchase price to the Bloors. Accordingly, the Bloors requested damages for the cost of decontamination and restoration of the property instead. The Fritzes agreed with the change. Yet at the next hearing, the Fritzes told the court that they preferred rescission over contractual damages and that they were “willing and able” to go forward with rescission. RP at 1462, 1469-70. The trial court continued the hearing to allow the Bloors to consider whether they were willing to accept rescission as their remedy. The Bloors elected to return to the rescission remedy.

Given the trial court’s broad discretion in shaping an equitable remedy, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering rescission. The Fritzes requested rescission after the Bloors had agreed to accept contractual damages, also at the Fritzes’ request. Although the Bloors’ attorney expressed frustration with the Fritzes’ shifting position, the Bloors agreed to return to the rescission remedy. A party cannot set up an error below and then complain of it on appeal. Casper v. Esteb Enters., Inc., 119 Wn. App. 759, 771, 82 P.3d 1223 (2004). Moreover,the Fritzes did not argue before the trial court that there was not a complete failure of consideration or that the cost to remediate the property was not high enough to justify rescission. Rescinding the contract put the Bloors as close as possible to the position they would have been in had they never purchased the property. The trial court did not err in rescinding the real estate purchase and sale agreement.

The Fritzes argue in the alternative that the trial court erred in awarding the Bloors interest on the total purchase price of $149,000 and lender fees as part of the rescission remedy because to do so goes beyond restoring the parties to their original positions. They focus on the fact that the Bloors financed the entire purchase price of the property and made only one mortgage payment before they left the house due to the contamination. The trial court ordered the Fritzes to pay the $149,000 purchase price; $38,555.13 of interest on the purchase price, accrued at the statutory rate of 12 percent per annum from the date the health department posted the property as unfit for habitation; and late charges and foreclosure costs of $9,231.89—a total of $196,787.02—into the court’s registry. When payment to the court was complete, the court would order the funds disbursed to the Bloors’ lender to satisfy the debt secured by the property with any excess funds going to the Bloors. The court would then enter a decree quieting title to the property in the Fritzes.

Upon completing the contract, the Fritzes received the full purchase price from the Bloors’ lender and the Bloors became indebted to the lender for that amount. But the Bloors did not lose the use of $149,000 by financing the purchase. Rather, the Bloors incurred $149,000 of debt to purchase the property. Thus, the Bloors were not entitled to interest on the $149,000 because they would not have had the funds to invest if the purchase had not gone through. See Jones v. Best, 134 Wn.2d 232, 242, 950 P.2d 1 (1998) (purpose of prejudgment interest is to compensate a party for the loss of use of money to which he was entitled). To restore the Bloors to their pre-contract position, the Fritzes must pay the $149,000 debt together with the unpaid interest that has actually accrued, penalties, and foreclosure costs the lender assessed against the Bloors. The Bloors are not entitled to any excess funds. After the Fritzes demonstrate that they have paid all these obligations, they are entitled to an order quieting title to the property.

III. Damages

A. Loss Of Income and Damage To Credit Rating

The Fritzes next argue that insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s award of damages for loss of income and damage to the Bloors’ credit rating.

They assign error to the following findings of fact:

XLVIII.

Due to the financial burden of setting up a new household and reestablishing their lives, the Bloors were unable to make payments on the underlying indebtedness secured by the Property. As a result of the Bloors’ inability to pay their loan obligations, the beneficiaries under the Deed of Trust that secured the purchase money loan to the Bloors initiated foreclosure proceedings, which proceedings were suspended on several occasions while this litigation was pending. Additional penalties and interest have accumulated on the debts owed by the Bloors.

LIII.

When they purchased the Property in July 2004, the median credit score for Ed Bloor was 666 and the median credit score for Eva Bloor was 647. Due to the loss by the Bloors of their home and belongings, and their resulting inability to make the required monthly payments on their loans, as of April, 2006, Ed Bloor’s credit score had fallen to 569 and Eva Bloor’s credit score had fallen to 552. The cause of the difference between the credit scores in July, 2004 and the credit scores in April, 2006 was the reporting of the Property foreclosure proceedings and other associated debts that were proximately caused by the Bloors’ loss of their home and belongings due to the discovery of the meth contamination.

LIV.

Due to the reduction of the Bloors’ credit scores it is reasonably certain that for at least the next ten (10) years the Bloors will suffer economic loss when they apply for credit. A reasonable estimate of the loss they will suffer from the damage to their credit scores can be made based on the increased cost they will likely than not [sic] incur to acquire and pay a home purchase loan. The reduced credit scores the Bloors now have will result in them having to pay approximately one percentage point more in interest on a home loan, which translates to a current loss of $10,000.00, when the added cost of the loan over the normal amortization period of the loan is reduced to present cash value. This loss is reasonably certain and based on reliable statistical data provided by Robert Moss, the Bloor’s [sic] economic expert witness.

LV.

Ed Bloor was unable to work for at least three months due to the contamination of the Property and the loss of his tools and equipment. His average [monthly] income prior to the discovery of the contamination was $2,500.00. He lost approximately three months income and thus, his income loss due to his inability to work was $7,500.00.

CP at 26-28.

The Fritzes argue that the evidence shows that the Bloors did not have sufficient savings or income to pay their mortgage payments when the health department posted the property as unfit for habitation. They maintain that Ed Bloor’s loss of income was due to the fact that he had not yet started working after moving from Missouri. And they assert that the damage to the Bloors’ credit ratings was due to their poor financial condition and history of poor financial responsibility.

Ed Bloor testified that in the weeks after he moved into the house, he obtained a business license in order to start a siding business and was in the process of obtaining a bond for it. He owned all the tools necessary for siding and stored them in the garage at the Spirit Lake property. While he prepared to start his business, he performed remodeling work, earning a couple thousand dollars. But because the garage where he stored his tools was contaminated, he had to abandon his tools when he left the house and was unable to start a siding business or continue the remodeling work. Ed Bloor obtained employment in April 2005, after moving to Spokane, in a position where he did not need his siding tools. His average monthly income in Spokane was $2,500. Robert Moss, the Bloors’ financial expert, testified that the average length of unemployment in Washington is three months. This evidence supports the finding that Ed Bloor lost $7,500 in income due to the contamination of the property.

In addition to leaving behind Ed Bloor’s siding tools, the Bloors were unable to remove their clothing, bedding, furniture, cooking utensils, or personal items from the home. They had to replace all these items. Ed Bloor testified that they used the funds they had at the time to “try to get [their] life back to where [they] could live.” RP at 370. This evidence, along with the evidence about Ed Bloor’s loss of income, supports the finding that the Bloors were unable to make the mortgage payments because of the property contamination.

The Fritzes do not dispute that the Bloors’ credit ratings dropped by about 100 points each from the time they bought the house to the time of trial, but the Fritzes attribute that drop to the Bloors’ history of poor financial management rather than the loss of the house. Yet the Fritzes do not explain how the Bloors’ past financial mismanagement would cause a current drop in their credit ratings. The Bloors’ expert testified that a 100-point drop in credit rating would cause a buyer to incur about $10,000 more in interest costs over the first 7 years of a loan. The Fritzes offered nothing to rebut this testimony, which supports the finding that the drop in the Bloors’ credit ratings caused the Bloors damages.

B. Emotional Distress

The Fritzes contend that the trial court erred in awarding the Bloors damages for emotional distress, arguing that emotional distress damages are not available for rescission of a contract or breach of a contract and repeating their argument that the economic loss rule bars damages for negligent misrepresentation.

But the trial court specified that it awarded emotional distress damages as a consequence of the negligent misrepresentation, not under a contract theory. And we have already declined to consider the Fritzes’ argument that the economic loss rule bars the Bloors’ recovery for negligent misrepresentation.

The Fritzes do not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact in support of emotional distress damages. These include that the Bloors suffered from anxiety and discomfort as a result of the loss of their home, personal effects, and keepsakes. Ed Bloor experienced symptoms of depression, his sister noticed changes in his personality, and he blamed himself for what had happened and felt like he had let his family down. Eva Bloor also experienced anxiety, resulting in a trip to the emergency room because she thought she was having a heart attack. A doctor diagnosed her with anxiety and panic attacks and prescribed medication to reduce her anxiety. The trial court did not err in awarding emotional distress damages.

C. Litigation Expenses

The Fritzes argue that the trial court erred in awarding the Bloors their litigation expenses beyond the statutory costs allowed in RCW 4.84.010. We review a trial court’s award of attorney fees and costs for abuse of discretion. Schmidt v. Cornerstone Invs., Inc., 115 Wn.2d 148, 169, 795 P.2d 1143 (1990).

Under RCW 4.84.010, “there shall be allowed to the prevailing party upon the judgment certain sums by way of indemnity for the prevailing party’s expenses in the action, which allowances are termed costs, including, in addition to costs otherwise authorized by law, the following expenses . . . .” And in an action on a contract that specifically provides for the award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party, the prevailing party is “entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to costs and necessary disbursements.” RCW 4.84.330.

Here, the real estate purchase and sale agreement provided, “If Buyer or Seller institutes suit against the other concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.” Ex. at 41. The trial court found that the term “expenses” was broader than the term “costs” and that it expressed the parties’ intent to allow the prevailing party to recover all of the expenses arising from the breach of the contract or attempts to enforce the contract. The trial court ordered the Fritzes to pay the Bloors $18,975.55 in expenses. This amount included the Bloors’ expert witness fees, court reporter fees, travel expenses, mediation expenses, and other expenses.

The Fritzes rely on our recent opinion in Paradiso v. Drake, 135 Wn. App. 329, 143 P.3d 859 (2006), review denied, 160 Wn.2d 1024 (2007), to argue that the language in the real estate purchase and sale agreement entitles the Bloors only to statutory costs as defined in RCW 4.84.010. But we addressed attorney fees only in the unpublished portion of that opinion. Citation to this part of the opinion was improper. GR 14.1. Moreover, the attorney fee section of that opinion does not address any distinction between statutory costs and other expenses.

Our primary goal in interpreting a contract is to ascertain the parties’ intent. Paradise Orchards Gen. P’ship v. Fearing, 122 Wn. App. 507, 516, 94 P.3d 372 (2004). The Fritzes do not assign error to the trial court’s finding that the parties intended the term “expenses” to include costs other than those that RCW 4.84.010 defines. This finding supports the trial court’s award of additional expenses under the contract.

The Fritzes also fault the trial court for failing to apportion the cost of transcribing deposition transcripts based on the portions used at trial. The Bloors’ attorney stated, however, that he calculated the percentage of each deposition transcript read into the record at trial and apportioned the costs accordingly. The Fritzes did not object to the Bloors’ calculation. The Fritzes cannot now complain that the trial court used the Bloors’ calculation.

Attorney Fees

I. Segregation Of Claims

The Fritzes contend that the trial court erred in awarding the Bloors their attorney fees against the Fritzes and Miller jointly and severally, arguing that the trial court should have segregated the fees it awarded for each claim, excluded fees for claims that did not give rise to an award of attorney fees, and excluded duplicative and unnecessary work.

In Washington, a party may recover attorney fees only when a statute, contract, or recognized ground of equity permits recovery. Panorama Vill. Condo. Owners Ass’n Bd. of Dirs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 144 Wn.2d 130, 143, 26 P.3d 910 (2001). Whether a party is entitled to an award of attorney fees is a question of law that we review de novo. Tradewell Group, Inc. v. Mavis, 71 Wn. App. 120, 126, 857 P.2d 1053 (1993). Whether the fee award is reasonable is a matter of discretion for the trial court, which we will alter only if we find an abuse of discretion. Scott Fetzer Co. v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141, 147, 859 P.2d 1210 (1993).

The trial court found that there was no basis to award attorney fees against Cowlitz County. But contrary to the Fritzes’ assertions, the trial court excluded the time the Bloors’ attorneys spent exclusively on claims against Cowlitz County from the attorney fee calculation.

A trial court may require a plaintiff to segregate its attorney fees between successful and unsuccessful claims. Kastanis v. Educ. Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 501-02, 859 P.2d 26, 865 P.2d 507 (1993). If the claims are unrelated, the court should award only the fees attributable to the recovery. Blair v. Wash. State Univ., 108 Wn.2d 558, 572, 740 P.2d 1379 (1987). But where the attorney fees for successful and unsuccessful claims are inseparable, the trial court may award the plaintiff all its fees. Blair, 108 Wn.2d at 572.

Although there is no finding of fact that the Bloors’ claims were inseparable, the trial court stated, in considering whether to apply a lodestar enhancement, “The unsuccessful claim against LAM Management, I don’t think that can really be segregated too much from what was claimed here. It would be virtually impossible to segregate that out in my view. . . .” RP at 1440. The Bloors’ attorney also stated to the court that it would be “almost impossible” to segregate the time spent on the various claims. RP at 1447-48. The claims arose out of the same set of facts and involved interactions between the defendants. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not segregating the Bloors’ attorney fees.

Also contrary to the Fritzes’ assertions, the trial court excluded hours that it found to be duplicative or unnecessary, including 13 hours of the time it took to draft the complaint and the hours that a second attorney spent attending depositions.

II. Lodestar Multiplier

Finally, Miller contends that the trial court erred in applying a 1.2 multiplier to its award of attorney fees against Miller and the Fritzes, arguing that the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings in support of enhancing the attorney fee award.

Miller assigns error to the following findings of fact relevant to this issue:

LXV.

The declarations submitted by the Bloors’ attorneys show that they expended over 800 hours in the prosecution of the Bloor’s [sic] claims. The Bloors did not have the money to hire their attorneys and pay for their representation. The Bloors’ attorneys, expecting the defendants to capitulate, accepted the representation on a contingent fee basis and, when the defendants failed to accept responsibility, the attorneys assumed significant business risk that they would not be paid. Although the Bloors paid the filing fee and some of the service fees, they were unable to pay any of the remaining expenses, and had they not prevailed at trial, the Bloors’ attorneys faced substantial risk that they would not be paid their fees or the significant expenses and costs they advanced.

LXXIII.

The claim of damage to the Bloors’ credit was a novel issue presented by the Bloors’ attorneys and the claim against Cowlitz County based on its failure to comply with the requirements of reporting under RCW 64.44 et seq., the contaminated properties statute, was unusual and was apparently the first such claim against a governmental entity made under that statute.

LXXIV.

Plaintiffs’ case was legally complex with multiple legal theories presented against multiple Defendants. Plaintiffs’ case was complicated by having to prove that the Fritzes and Miller had knowledge of the use of the Property for illegal drug manufacturing using circumstantial evidence.

LXXVI.

The many hours expended on the prosecution of the Bloors’ claims necessarily precluded the Bloors’ attorneys from other employment opportunities that would have otherwise been available.

LXXXII.

Some of the issues involved in the Bloors [sic] claims were novel. Cowlitz County is a member of the task force that conducted the search and arrests leading to the discovery of the meth lab, and task force members failed to report the discovery to the Cowlitz County Health Department, as required by law. Determining that Cowlitz County was the liable entity for such failure required careful investigation and development of the Bloors [sic] claims, and overcoming the defenses claimed by Cowlitz County, including the claim of public duty doctrine. The case was complex in that the Bloors had to prove multiple acts and omissions of the four defendants, and the Fritzes and Miller steadfastly denied their commission of such omissions and acts. The persistent resistance of the Fritzes and Miller to acknowledge liability, the time and labor required to prosecute the claims, the necessity of an expeditious resolution and time sensitivity of the claims required diligent and determined prosecution of the Bloors [sic] claims. The Bloors [sic] claims were also undesirable because of their inability to pay their attorneys, their residence in Spokane, the relative difficulty of communication with them, and the resources the defendants were willing to expend to defend against the claims. These factors, the uncertainty of recovery and the contingent nature of the representation all support an enhancement of the attorney fees to be awarded. An enhancement based on a multiplier of 1.2 should be made to the hourly rates applied to the allowed hours expended by the Bloors’ attorneys prior to the date the Court announced its oral ruling.

CP at 32, 35, 37.

Under the lodestar method of calculating an award of attorney fees, the court must first determine that counsel expended a reasonable number of hours in securing a successful recovery for the client and that the hourly rate counsel billed the client was reasonable. Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 434, 957 P.2d 632, 966 P.2d 305 (1998). The court must exclude any wasteful or duplicative hours. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 434. The lodestar fee is the reasonable number of hours incurred in obtaining the successful result multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 434.

The court presumes that the lodestar amount is a reasonable fee. Henningsen v. Worldcom, Inc., 102 Wn. App. 828, 847, 9 P.3d 948 (2000). But in rare instances, the court may, in its discretion, adjust the lodestar amount up or down to adjust for factors that the lodestar calculation has not already taken into account. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 434; Henningsen, 102 Wn. App. at 847. These factors include the contingent nature of success in the case and the quality of the legal representation. Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581, 593-94, 675 P.2d 193 (1983).

Here, the Bloors requested a 1.5 multiplier on the attorney fee award. The trial court found that the complexity of the case, the fact that it presented novel issues, the contingent nature of success, the high quality of representation, and the loss of other work made an enhancement appropriate. But because several of these factors were not relevant to the claims on which it awarded fees, it concluded that a 1.2 multiplier was appropriate.

Miller argues that there is no evidence, other than a single attorney’s declaration, to support the finding that the Bloors presented novel claims and that the declaration is insufficient to support the finding.

The Bloors asked a local attorney with at least 15 years’ experience in real estate matters to provide an opinion on the reasonableness of their attorney fee request. He opined that one reason to apply a lodestar multiplier was the novelty of two of the Bloors’ claims, the liability of the County for failure to report the methamphetamine lab and the damage to the Bloors’ credit rating. The attorney explained that he had no prior experience with either claim. Miller points out that there is no evidence in the record that no other county has been sued for failing to report a methamphetamine lab. But the local attorney’s testimony that he had no experience with such claims supports the trial court’s finding that the issues were novel. In addition, Miller and the Fritzes admitted to some novelty in the Bloors’ credit rating damage claim by challenging its admissibility on the basis that no court had previously allowed such testimony. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding.

Miller also challenges the trial court’s finding that the case was complex, arguing that multiple defendants and multiple claims do not alone make a case complex. Again, the Bloors’ expert opined that the case was complex. And the trial court stated,

This was a complicated case, at least from my perspective. I find it a little unusual that the defense would say this isn’t complex now when it was pretty complicated at the time. There were numerous issues here and a liability and damages portion between several parties. I viewed it as a complex case, presenting a number of issues versus different parties.

RP at 1438. The Bloors’ attorneys spent more than 800 hours over 24 months to prepare the case; the parties took 6 days to try it. Three hearings were required to complete the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Together, these factors support the trial court’s conclusion that the case was complex.

Miller argues that the evidence does not support a finding that recovery was uncertain, asserting that recovery against Cowlitz County was almost certain. But the trial court found that the other defendants were “steadfast in their denial of responsibility,” and the lack of direct evidence against Miller and the Fritzes created “significant difficulty” in the case. CP at 32. The trial court also found that the quality of all parties’ representation, including Miller’s and the Fritzes’, was high. Even if recovery against the County was almost certain, substantial evidence supports a finding that recovery against Miller and the Fritzes was uncertain.

Miller also challenges the trial court’s finding that the many hours the Bloors’ attorneys worked on the case precluded them from other employment opportunities. As noted above, the trial court found that the Bloors’ attorneys spent over 800 hours working on the case over 24 months. The trial court noted that this factor takes into account whether an attorney turns down “more sure things or sure-fire payment to accept this case which is not, was not from the beginning a sure thing.” RP at 1439-40. The trial court also found that the Bloors’ attorneys expected the defendants to concede liability and when they did not, the attorneys had to continue with the case. Miller does not explain how the Bloors’ attorneys could have worked on other cases with more certain recovery at the same time they spent over 800 hours on this case. Substantial evidence supports this finding of fact.

The trial court considered appropriate factors in considering whether to adjust the lodestar amount, and it did not abuse its discretion in deciding to apply a 1.2 multiplier.

III. Attorney Fees on Appeal


The Bloors request their attorney fees on appeal under RAP 18.1. Where a statute or contract allows an award of attorney fees at trial, an appellate court has authority to award fees on appeal. Standing Rock Homeowners Ass’n v. Misich, 106 Wn. App. 231, 247, 23 P.3d 520 (2001); Reeves v. McClain, 56 Wn. App. 301, 311, 783 P.2d 606 (1989) (citing W. Coast Stationary Eng’rs Welfare Fund v. City of Kennewick, 39 Wn. App. 466, 694 P.2d 1101 (1985)). The trial court awarded the Bloors their attorney fees under the real estate purchase and sale agreement and the Act. Because they have prevailed on appeal, we award the Bloors their attorney fees under RAP 18.1 in an amount to be set by a commissioner of this court.

We affirm but vacate the damage award and remand for the trial court to enter new judgment for the Bloors consistent with this opinion.

Armstrong, J.

We concur:

Houghton, C.J.

Quinn-Brintnall, J.

COULD IT HAPPEN TO YOU? —THE GRUELING HUMAN TOLL OF CHASING WINDERMERE CROOKS THROUGH THE COURTS: $311,304.67 IN LEGAL FEES, 5 YEARS DISTRESSING LITIGATION, and DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE TO BUILD A NEW ONE...

COURT SAYS WINIDERMERE CAMANO ISLAND'S SONYA EPPIG "...DID NOT SO UNEQUIVOCALLY SET FORTH THE PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROBLEMS...

...And when Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for approximately two years, Camano [Windermere Realty] learned about the permitting and inspection problems but did not inform the Ruebels."

Left, Sonya Eppig and current Windermere Real Estate/CIR owner, Marla Heagle, who did not own Windermere CIR during the Eppig case, but nonetheless continues to expose the public to Eppig's ethics and collect commission from Eppig transactions: "...Eppig did not tell the Ruebels about the addendum Nelson prepared disclosing that the engineering work was not complete and that the building plans did not meet the UBC requirements. Instead, Eppig helped draft a revised addendum that did not so unequivocally set forth the permitting and inspection problems. And when Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for approximately two years, Camano learned about the permitting and inspection problems but did not inform the Ruebels."

DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE APPEALS COURT OPINION HERE.

Thomas and Diane E. Ruebel became interested in a Camano Island home being sold by Mike Hovis. The Ruebels had representation by Sonya Eppig of Windermere / Camano Island Realty. Mr Hovis had been remodeling the property since 1995 and the interior was yet to be completed. Unbeknownst to the Ruebels, Hovis had been cited by the Camano Island County Building Department for not having officially approved framing specifications and engineering drawings. An expert testified that the building’s structural integrity had been compromised. Hovis had installed wall treatments that hid the problems. Prior to the Ruebels, another buyer determined the home’s impediments, at which time Windermere entered in dialog with the County.

During the Ruebels’ initial purchase of the property, Eppig was involved in the permit and inspection concerns. Hovis and Eppig  both proffered clear misrepresentations to the Ruebels about the status of the property. Through vaguely wording an addendum put into the closing papers, Hovis and Eppig sought to “disclose” the home’s impediments without actually revealing them. After closing, the Ruebels found the extent of the property’s damage was so severe, the most economical course of action would be to raze it to the foundation and build all over.

 

DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h).

 

Court of Appeals Division I

State of Washington

Opinion Information Sheet

 

Docket Number: 58533-9-I

Title of Case: Camano Island Realty, Et Al., App./cross-resp. V. G. Thomas & Diane E. Ruebel, Resp./cross-app.

File Date: 10/01/2007

SOURCE OF APPEAL

_______________

 

Appeal from Island Superior Court

Docket No: 03-2-00516-3

Judgment or order under review

Date filed: 06/08/2006

Judge signing: Honorable Vickie I Churchill

 

JUDGES

_______________

Authored by Ann Schindler

Concurring: Ronald Cox

William Baker

 

COUNSEL OF RECORD

_______________

 

Counsel for Appellant/Cross-Respondent

Jeffrey Paul Downer

Lee Smart Cook Martin & Patterson PS

701 Pike St Ste 1800

Seattle, WA, 98101-3929

 

Matthew F. Davis

Attorney at Law

5224 Wilson Ave S Ste 200

Seattle, WA, 98118-2587

 

Counsel for Respondent/Cross-Appellant

John Wentworth Phillips

Phillips Law Group PLLC

315 5th Ave S Ste 1000

Seattle, WA, 98104-2682

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

 

G. THOMAS RUEBEL AND DIANE E. RUEBEL, 

Respondents,

v.

[Windermere] CAMANO ISLAND REALTY, INC., a  CORPORATION, AND SONYA EPPIG,

Appellants.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

No. 58533-9-I

FILED: October 1, 2007

SCHINDLER, A.C.J. Based on the failure to disclose inspection and permitting problems with the house they purchased, Thomas and Diane E. Ruebel (the Ruebels) sued Windermere/Camano Island Realty, Inc. (Camano Realty) and its real estate agent, Sonya Eppig, for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, and violation of the Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW (CPA). At the conclusion of a two-week trial, the jury rejected the Ruebel’s claim for fraudulent concealment, but found in their favor on negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the CPA. The jury awarded the Ruebels approximately $126,300 for the CPA claim and approximately $34,000 for the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims, attributing 30 percent of the fault to Camano Realty. Camano Realty and Eppig appeal the trial court’s decision denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the CPA claim and the court’s entry of judgment on the verdict against them. Camano Realty and Eppig also challenge the trial court’s award of approximately $311,000 in attorney fees on the CPA claim. In their cross appeal, the Ruebels challenge the court’s decision to not include the amount the jury awarded for the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that Camano Realty and Eppig violated the CPA and the jury’s decision to attribute fault to Camano Realty and Eppig, we affirm the court’s denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law and entry of the judgment on the verdict. We also affirm the trial court’s decision to not include the amount awarded on the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims. But because the trial court did not enter findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the award of attorney fees, we reverse the attorney fee award and remand.

FACTS

Mike and Marilyn Hovis (Hovis) owned a Victorian-style waterfront house on Camano Island with a detached three car garage and loft apartment on a four acre parcel of property. In 1995, Hovis obtained a permit from the Camano Island County Building Department (Building Department) to remodel the main house. Mike Hovis acted as the general contractor for the remodel. In January 1996, the Building Department told Hovis that he needed to address several framing issues and the structural engineering requirements for the two-story house. The Building Department told Hovis he needed to submit approved engineering plans and framing specifications. Without submitting the requested information, Hovis proceeded with the installation of the interior wallboard and exterior siding. In 1997, the building permit expired.

From 2000 to 2001, Hovis listed the property for sale with Windermere/Camano Island Realty (Camano Realty). Camano Realty advertised the property as a Victorian waterfront estate with an unfinished interior. During the two years that Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for sale, two offers were made and then rescinded. In the spring 2001, Hovis, one of the potential buyers, and a Camano Realty agent met with the Building Department about the status of the expired building permit. The Building Department examiner, Ben VanDuine, described the outstanding inspections that still needed to be done, including the framing, plumbing, and electrical inspections. In addition, VanDuine told Hovis, the prospective buyer, and the Camano Realty agent that the work had to comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and approved plans and updated engineering calculations had to be submitted to the Building Department.

In late 2001, Hovis hired a contractor, Stephen Redmond, to finish the remodel. Redmond applied for a new building permit for the remodel. Although Hovis had not obtained the necessary inspections or submitted engineering plans and calculations, in December 2001, the Building Department issued a new building permit to Redmond.

In 2002, Hovis listed the property for sale with Preview Realty and real estate agent Roger Nelson. In early spring, the Ruebels contacted their Seattle neighbor, Rene Stern, a Windermere real estate agent, about their interest in purchasing the Hovis property. Stern agreed to act as the Ruebels? agent for the Seattle house but referred them to Sonja Eppig, a Windermere real estate agent with Camano Realty, for the Hovis property. In April 2002, Eppig met with the Ruebels. At the meeting she gave them a copy of the Real Property Transfer Disclosure Statement for the Hovis Property, Puget Sound Multiple Listing Form 17 (Form 17). In Form 17, Hovis states that they had been remodeling the house since 1996 and all the building permits are current. Hovis also states that they did not know if there were any restrictions on the property that would affect future construction or remodeling or any other material defects affecting the property that a prospective buyer should know about. On April 16, the Ruebels made an offer to purchase the Hovis property contingent on an inspection and study to determine the feasibility of the floor plan and the cost of finishing the remodel.

In the April 27 addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Hovis represented that: [t]o the best of seller’s knowledge, seller states that all work performed to date has passed all inspections. Any work that has not passed inspection will be corrected, reinspected and approved prior to closing at sellers [sic] expense. Purchaser to verify to own satisfaction within feasibility time.

The inspection report raised a number of concerns, including questions about the status of the building permit and inspections for the remodeling work. The report specifically notes that there was no framing inspection certificate and recommended checking with the Building Department.

On April 29, the Ruebels met with Eppig to go over the inspection report. According to Tom Ruebel, Eppig agreed to check with the Building Department on the status of the permit and the inspections. Eppig denied agreeing to check on the status of the permit and the inspections, but admitted that she met with VanDuine and learned that the Building Department needed building and engineering plans.

Hovis’ contractor, Redmond, testified that at approximately 11:15 a.m. on May 6, Eppig called to tell him that the Building Department was going to send him a letter suspending the building permit because updated building and engineering plans were never submitted.1 Tom Ruebel testified that Eppig unexpectedly called him on May 6 to recommend extending the deadline for the feasibility study because the Building Department needed some engineering plans, which she agreed to obtain.

On May 6, the Building Department suspended the permit. In the May 6 letter to Redmond, the Building Department states that the permit was erroneously issued. The letter also states that the permit will not be reinstated unless Hovis addressed the issues identified during the framing consultation in 1996 and provided updated engineering plans that complied with the 1997 UBC. Eppig did not tell the Ruebels that the Building Department had suspended the building permit. Sometime after May 6, Eppig obtained some engineering information from Preview Realty and requested building plans from Hovis’ architect.

On May 7 or 8, Eppig sent the Ruebels an extension until May 15 for the feasibility study and assured them that there was no problem with complying with the Building Department's request for the engineering information.

Enclosed are copies of the engineers [sic] report. I talked with Ben at County. They are okay. He does want the engineer's stamp and license number, so I will get that. Also included are the signatures from the seller re: the extension of the feasibility study. Sincerely, Sonya.

1 Redmond’s phone log was introduced as an exhibit and the log showed an incoming call from Eppig on May 6, 2002, at 11:16 a.m.

Contrary to Eppig’s assurances, VanDuine testified that he told Eppig the engineering data she provided was inadequate and that before reinstating the permit, the Building Department needed additional data, including lateral engineering calculations.

Tom Ruebel testified that Eppig called him before May 14 to tell him that the issues with the Building Department were resolved and they could release the feasibility contingency. On May 15, the Ruebels waived the feasibility contingency.

Nelson testified that sometime after May 15, Eppig told him the Building Department had identified problems with the building permit and the required inspections on the house. She asked Nelson to meet with the Building Department because the Ruebels were concerned about the status of the building permit and they were going to refuse to close on June 17 unless the problem was solved.

On June 7, Nelson faxed a proposed addendum to Eppig. According to Nelson, the purpose of the addendum was to notify the Ruebels that the construction was not approved by the Building Department. The addendum states that the engineering work is not complete, the building plans may not meet the 1997 UBC requirements, and the seller is not responsible for meeting the UBC requirements.2 Eppig told Nelson the addendum was unacceptable and helped draft a revised addendum. The revised addendum states that the framing inspection consultation

2 The addendum states:

Seller and Purchaser acknowledge that plan engineering work for Island County Building Dept. is not complete regarding wall sheer and lateral calculations, and the plans may not meet all of 1997 Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.) requirements. Purchaser intends to complete further remodeling before completion, which will require additional/new calculations. Purchaser is responsible to complete such work as part of home completion process. Seller is not required to bring existing improvements on premises to meet 1997 U.B.C.

are not complete according to Island County, and that engineering calculations of structure were still needed, but that Hovis agreed to pay the Ruebels $1,000 for costs related to additional lateral engineering calculations. The revised addendum also notes that intended changes by purchaser . . . may require additional work to comply with current UBC requirements.3

Tom Ruebel testified that Eppig called about the addendum and told him that it would benefit them because Hovis agreed to set aside $1000 at closing for any future engineering necessary in finishing the remodel. But the Ruebels did not see the written addendum until closing on June 17. Tom Ruebel testified that from May 15 until closing on June 17, he was not aware of any permitting or inspection concerns. The Ruebels purchased the property on June 17. The Ruebels signed the revised addendum as part of the paperwork at the closing, but did not carefully read it.

After purchasing the property, the Ruebels’ contractor, Richard King, identified a number of problems, including the framing work, which undermined the structural integrity of the house. The Ruebels also learned for the first time that on May 6 the Building Department had suspended the building permit for failure to submit the necessary engineering plans, obtain necessary inspections or comply with the UBC. Rather than proceed with remodeling, the Ruebels decided it was less costly to

3 The revised addendum states:

Seller and Purchaser acknowledge that the framing inspection/consultations are not complete according to Island County. Engineered lateral calculations of structure are needed. Seller and Purchaser agree that closing agent shall hold back $1,000 from seller?s proceeds of closing. This money shall pay for costs related to additional lateral engineering calculations of existing structure and will be returned to seller if not spent within six months from date of closing. Seller and Purchaser acknowledge that the structure, along with intended changes by purchaser as part of the completion process, may require additional work to comply with current UBC requirements. Any future work and engineering costs (excepting the $1,000 described above) to complete the structure, is the responsibility of the purchaser.

demolish the house and build a new house.

In July 2003, the Ruebels sued Hovis alleging negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and constructive fraud. In April 2004, the Ruebels sued Washington Builders and its owner, Terry Moran for negligent and defective construction. In addition, the Ruebels sued Preview Realty, Nelson, Camano Realty, and Eppig alleging negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud. The Ruebels also alleged Camano Realty and Eppig breached their fiduciary duty and Preview Realty and Nelson breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing. In an amended complaint, the Ruebels alleged breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation of material facts, and violation of the Consumer Protection Liability Act, chapter 19.86 RCW (CPA), as against Camano Realty and Eppig. Camano Realty denied the existence of an agency relationship with Eppig and denied liability.

Shortly before trial, the Ruebels settled with all the defendants except Camano Realty and Eppig. During the 9-day trial, a number of witnesses testified, including the Ruebels, Eppig, Nelson, Redmond and VanDuine. Contrary to the testimony of Nelson, Redmond, VanDuine, and Tom Ruebel, Eppig unequivocally denied that she knew the building permit was suspended or that she agreed to check on the status of the permits.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that the Ruebels proved an agency relationship between Camano Realty and Eppig. While the jury concluded the Ruebels did not prove fraudulent concealment, the jury found the Ruebels proved a violation of the CPA, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. As to negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, the jury attributed 10 percent of the fault to Eppig and 30 percent to Camano Realty. Camano Realty and Eppig filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law to set aside the jury verdict on the CPA violation. The trial court denied the motion and the court entered a final judgment on the jury verdict of approximately $145,000. The trial court also awarded the Ruebels $311,304.67 in attorney fees, $3,561.49 in costs, and $10,000 in exemplary damages under the CPA.

ANALYSIS

Camano Realty and Eppig contend the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that substantial evidence does not support the jury verdict that Camano Realty and Eppig violated the CPA.

Standard of Review

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party, a trial court should grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law when the court concludes there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to sustain a verdict for the nonmoving party. Sing v. John L. Scott, 134 Wn.2d 24, 948 P.2d 816 (1997). Substantial evidence exists if the evidence is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the declared premise. Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 Wn.2d 907, 915, 32 P.3d 250 (2001) (quoting Brown v. Superior Underwriters, 30 Wn. App. 303, 306, 632 P.2d 887 (1980)). We apply the same standard as the trial court when reviewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Guijosa, 144 Wn.2d at 915.

CPA

Under the CPA, unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. RCW 19.86.020. To prove a CPA violation, a plaintiff must establish five elements: (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) that occurs in trade or commerce; (3) public interest impact; (4) injury to plaintiff in his or her business or property; and (5) causation. Guijosa, 144 Wn.2d at 917; Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 784, 719 P.2d 531 (1986).

The CPA does not define the term “deceptive,” but implicit in that term is the understanding that the actor misrepresented something of material importance. Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 91 Wn. App. 722, 730, 959 P.2d 1158 (1998), rev’d on other grounds, 138 Wn.2d 248, 978 P.2d 505 (1999). For an unfair or deceptive act, plaintiff need not show that the act in question was intended to deceive, but that the alleged act had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public. Hangman, 105 Wn.2d at 785. Whether a party committed an unfair or deceptive act is reviewed for substantial evidence. Whether an act violates the CPA is a question of law. Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 93 Wn. App. 202, 214, 969 P.2d 486 (1998) (citing Leingang v. Pierce County Med. Bureau, Inc., 131 Wn.2d 133, 150, 930 P.2d 288 (1997)). It is well established that a real estate agent who knowingly fails to disclose known material defects in the sale of real property violates the CPA. Svendsen v. Stock, 143 Wn.2d 546, 23 P.3d 455 (2001).

 Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice

Relying on Guijosa, Camano Realty and Eppig argue that the jury’s rejection of the Ruebels fraudulent concealment claim requires setting aside the jury’s CPA verdict because the Ruebels did not allege or prove an unfair or deceptive act or practice other than fraudulent concealment.

In Guijosa, the plaintiffs did not allege or prove any act or practice that violated the CPA other than discrimination. While the jury rejected the plaintiffs' claims for false imprisonment, battery, malicious prosecution, and discrimination, the jury found Wal-Mart violated the CPA. Guijosa, 144 Wn.2d at 912-913. The trial court granted Wal-Mart’s motion for judgment as a matter of law to set aside the jury’s verdict on the CPA claim because the record presented no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to support the jury’s verdict that Wal-Mart violated the CPA.? Id. at 913. On appeal, the supreme court affirmed the trial court’s decision to set aside the jury verdict on the CPA claim. While the court concluded the jury instructions did not prevent the jury from finding a CPA violation separate and apart from discrimination, because the plaintiffs only presented evidence of discrimination practice, there was insufficient evidence to support a violation of the CPA.

Here, as in Guijosa, the jury instructions allowed the jury to find that Camano Realty and Eppig violated the CPA by failing to disclose known material problems with the Hovis house separate and apart from fraudulent concealment.4 But unlike in

4 Jury Instruction No. 16 provides:

The Ruebels claim that Ms. Eppig and Camano Island Realty violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. To prove this claim, the Ruebels must prove by preponderance of the evidence each of the following propositions:

(1) That Ms. Eppig engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice;

(2) That the act or practice occurred in the conduct of Ms. Eppig’s trade or commerce.

(3) That her act or practice affected the public interest;

(4) That the Ruebels were injured with respect to their property, and

(5) That Ms. Eppig’s acts or practices were a proximate cause of the Ruebels’ injury.

If you find from your consideration of all of the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, your verdict should be for the Ruebels on this claim. On the other hand, if any of these propositions has not been proved, your verdict should be for defendants on this claim.

Guijosa, the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Camano Realty and Eppig engaged in unfair and deceptive acts that violated the CPA. Both Eppig and Camano Realty knew the necessary inspections and permits were not obtained and failed to disclose that information to the Ruebels. And even though Eppig denied seeing the May 6 letter or knowing that the permit was suspended, her testimony was contradicted by Redmond and Nelson. Redmond testified that Eppig contacted him on May 6 and told him that ?Ben? at the Building Department was going to send a letter suspending the building permit. Nelson testified that Eppig referred to the May 6 letter during conversations with him. Eppig also admitted obtaining and submitting the engineering reports and assuring the Ruebels that the Building Department was “okay.” In addition, Eppig did not tell the Ruebels about the addendum Nelson prepared disclosing that the engineering work was not complete and that the building plans did not meet the UBC requirements. Instead, Eppig helped draft a revised addendum that did not so unequivocally set forth the permitting and inspection problems. And when Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for approximately two years, Camano learned about the permitting and inspection problems but did not inform the Ruebels.

Camano Realty and Eppig also argue that, as a matter of law, only the listing agent for the seller has a duty to disclose material facts related to the purchase and sale of property under the CPA. We disagree. The duty also applies to a buyer’s agent who knows and fails to disclose material adverse facts.5 Edmonds v. Scott Real

 5 Camano Realty’s and Eppig’s attempt to distinguish Robinson v. McReynolds, 52 Wn. App. 635, 762 P.2d 1166 (1988), is unpersuasive. Here, the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Camano Realty and Eppig knew about the problems with the Hovis house.

Estate, 87 Wn. App. 834, 848, 942 P.2d 1072 (1997). In Edmonds, this court held that where the buyer’s agent knew the seller’s assertions in the property information form were false but failed to disclose that information, as a matter of law, the buyer’s agent violated the CPA. Edmonds, 87 Wn. App. at 848-49.

Public Interest Impact

In the alternative, Camano Realty and Eppig contend that the evidence fails to support the jury’s finding that the Ruebels proved an act or practice that impacted the public interest. Specifically, Camano Realty and Eppig assert the Ruebels did not prove that there is a likelihood other buyers would be harmed in exactly the same fashion.

A private dispute has an impact on the public interest where there is a likelihood that additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in exactly the same fashion. Hangman, 105 Wn.2d at 790. Whether the act complained of has an impact on the public interest is determined based on several nonexclusive factors that are considered in the context in which the alleged acts were committed. Id. at 789-90.

(1) Were the alleged acts committed in the course of defendant’s business? (2) Did defendant advertise to the public in general? (3) Did defendant actively solicit this particular plaintiff, indicating potential solicitation of others? (4) Did plaintiff and defendant occupy unequal bargaining positions?

Hangman, 105 Wn.2d at 790-791. None of the factors is dispositive and not all of the factors need be present. The factors represent indicia of an effect on public interest from which a trier of fact could reasonably find public interest impact. Hangman at 791. Consistent with Hangman, the court instructed the jury that:

An act or practice affects the public interest if it is likely that additional plaintiffs have been or will be injured in exactly the same fashion. In deciding whether Ms. Eppig’s actions affected the public interest in this case, you may consider, among other things:

(1) whether her acts or practices were done in the course of her business;

(2) whether Ms. Eppig advertises to the public in general;

(3) whether Ms. Eppig actively solicited the Ruebels, indicating potential solicitation of others.

(4) Whether Ms. Eppig and the Ruebels had unequal bargaining positions, which can be shown by inequality of knowledge about the property. In reaching your decision no one factor is decisive; you do not need to find that all factors are present, and you are not limited to considering only these factors.

Camano Realty and Eppig do not challenge the jury instruction. Rather, they assert that the Ruebels did not prove Eppig’s acts have an impact on the public interest because the Ruebels did not prove that Eppig did or will commit any similar act. But the instructions do not require the jury to find plaintiffs have been or will be injured in exactly the same fashion before considering the four nonexclusive factors. Here, substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that Eppig’s acts impacted the public interest.6 There is no dispute that Eppig’s failure to disclose that the building permit was suspended, that inspections were not done, and the information provided to the Building Department was incomplete and inadequate, occurred in the course of business. There is also no dispute that Camano Realty and

6 Camano Realty and Eppig rely on several cases holding the plaintiff failed to establish the public interest element. But because the determination of whether there is a public interest impact turns on the circumstances and facts specific to each case, Camano Realty’s and Eppig’s reliance on these cases is not persuasive. Sloan v. Thompson, 128 Wn. App. 776, 115 P.3d 1009 (2005), rev. denied, 157 Wn.2d 1003 (2006) (sale of home did not occur within course of seller’s business); Cashmere Valley Bank v. Brender, 128 Wn. App. 497, 116 P.3d 421 (2005), aff’d, 158 Wn.2d 655 (2006) (no evidence that bank advertised loans to the public); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Whiteman Tire, 86 Wn. App. 732, 935 P.2d 628 (1997) (tire dealer, a franchisee, did not have unequal bargaining power); Pac. Northwest Life Ins. Co. v. Turnbull, 51 Wn. App. 692, 754 P.2d 1262 (1988) (sophisticated land investor did not have unequal bargaining power with real estate agent); and Broten v. May, 49 Wn. App. 564, 744 P.2d 1085 (1987) (no evidence that defendant solicited plaintiff’s business and the two parties occupied equal bargaining positions). Eppig advertised to the general public and solicited and obtained referrals through membership in the Windermere referral network.7 And while Eppig knew about the permitting, inspection and engineering problems with the Hovis house, Eppig did not disclose these problems to the Ruebels.8

Apportionment of Fault

Camano Realty and Eppig also claim the jury instructions did not permit the jury to attribute 30 percent fault to Camano Realty and the trial court erred in entering judgment on the jury verdict. Relying on the jury instruction defining vicarious liability, Camano Realty and Eppig argue that was the only basis that allowed the jury to find Camano Realty liable. But Camano Realty’s and Eppig’s argument ignores the jury instruction on apportionment of fault, the Special Jury Verdict form, and the evidence that supported the jury’s attributing 30 percent fault to Camano Realty.

A party has a duty to propose an appropriate verdict form and failure to object precludes consideration of issues concerning the verdict form on appeal. Lahmann v. Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, 55 Wn. App. 716, 723, 780 P.2d 868 (1989); Wickswat v. Safeco Ins. Co., 78 Wn. App. 958, 966-67, 904 P.2d 767 (1995).

 Jury Instruction 23 tells the jury that it must apportion fault for the Ruebels negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claim:

7 Citing Jackson v. Harkey, 41 Wn. App. 472, 704 P.2d 687 (1985), Camano Realty and Eppig also argue that this factor requires proof of false advertisement. Because Jackson was decided before Hangman, the court did not expressly consider whether the construction company advertised to the general public. In addition, the act complained of in Jackson was misleading advertisement whereas, here, the act complained of is failure to disclose material facts in a real estate transaction.

8 In supplemental briefing, Camano Realty and Eppig contend that under Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 153 P.3d 864 (2007), the Ruebels CPA claim fails as a matter of law because as a tortbased claim, the economic loss rule bars the Ruebels from recovering economic damages. But here, the CPA is a statutory based remedy that allows a plaintiff to recover damages. See e.g. Griffith, 93 Wn. App. 202; Sign-O-Lite v. DeLaurenti Florists, Inc., 64 Wn. App. 553, 825 P.2d 714 (1992).

If you find for plaintiffs for their claims for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty (other than fraudulent concealment or violation of the Consumer Protection Act), you must apportion fault to other persons who you find are at fault.

First, you must determine the dollar amount of damages caused by Ms. Eppig’s negligence or breach of fiduciary duty. The court will provide you with a special verdict form for this purpose.

Before you determine that another person is at fault for such damages, defendants must prove each of the following propositions by a preponderance of the evidence:

First, that the person is at fault; and

Second, that the person’s fault was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs? damages.

Third, that those damages are in addition to damages caused by Ms. Eppig’s fraudulent concealment or violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

The court will provide you with a special verdict form for this purpose. Your answers to the questions in the special verdict form will furnish the basis by which the court will apportion liability, if any.

Consistent with Instruction 23, the Special Jury Verdict form also tells the jury to determine whether anyone else is at fault for the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty damages and if so, to attribute a percentage of fault. The Special Jury Verdict form states:

QUESTION 5: Did the Ruebels prove their claim for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty?

ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)             Yes

(INSTRUCTION: If you answered “No” to Question No. 5, then sign this verdict and notify the bailiff. If you answered “Yes” to Question 5, proceed to Question No. 6.[)]

QUESTION 6: What is the total amount of damages proximately caused to the Ruebels by Ms. Eppig’s negligence or breach of fiduciary duty?

ANSWER: $33,750.00

QUESTION NO. 7: Was any one else at fault and did that fault proximately cause part or all of the Ruebels’ damages?

ANSWER: (Write “yes” or “no”)             Yes

QUESTION NO. 8: Assume that 100% represents the total combined fault which proximately caused the plaintiffs? damages. What percentage of this 100% is attributable to Sonya Eppig and other persons whose fault proximately caused plaintiffs’ damages? Your total must equal 100%.

Answer:

Sonya Eppig 10%

Other (list names and percentage)

Camano Island Realty/Windermere Realty 30%

Rene Stern 5%

Steve Redmond 15%

Watson Mike Hovis 20%

Roger Nelson 15%

Island County Building Division 4%

Thomas and Diane Ruebel 1%

Substantial evidence also supports the jury’s finding attributing fault to Camano Realty. Camano Realty was the listing agent for the Hovis property from 2000 to 2001. VanDuine testified that in April 2001 he had a meeting with Hovis, a Camano Realty agent, and the potential buyers. At the meeting, VanDuine described the permitting problems including inadequate framing inspections and incomplete engineering information. The trial court did not err in entering judgment on the jury verdict against Camano Realty.

Attorney Fees

Last, Camano Realty and Eppig challenge the trial court’s decision to award approximately $311,300 in attorney fees on the CPA claim because the court did not segregate and deduct the fees incurred on unrelated legal theories and claims and did not enter findings and conclusions to support the award of attorney fees. They also argue the trial court failed to take into account time spent on unsuccessful claims and duplicative and wasted effort.9

9 Specifically, Camano Realty and Eppig contend the trial court failed to properly segregate and deduct fees for time spent (1) prior to amending the complaint in April 2004 and in March 2005; (2) pursuing claims against the other defendants; and (3) pursuing unsuccessful claims against Camano Realty and Eppig.

To reverse an attorney fee award, an appellate court must find that the trial court manifestly abused its discretion. Pham v. City of Seattle, 159 Wn.2d 527, 538, 151 P.3d 976 (2007). The trial court abuses its discretion when it is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. Pham, 159 Wn.2d at 538. Trial courts must create an adequate record for review of fee award decisions. Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398, 435, 957 P.2d 632 (1998). Findings of fact and conclusions of law are required to establish such a record. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 435. Failure to create an adequate record will result in a remand of the award to the trial court to develop such a record. Mayer v. City of Seattle, 102 Wn. App. 66, 79, 10 P.3d 408 (2000).

Under the CPA, a successful plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs. RCW 19.86.090. If attorney fees are only reasonable for certain claims, the court must segregate the time spent on other theories and claims on the record, even if the other theories and claims are interrelated or overlap. Hume v. Am. Disposal Co., 124 Wn.2d 656, 673, 880 P.2d 988 (1994) (quoting Travis v. Washington Horse Breeders Ass’n, Inc., 111 Wn.2d 396, 411, 759 P.2d 418 (1988)). An attorney fee award must properly reflect the segregation of time spent on other claims, except when the trial court finds that no reasonable segregation of successful and unsuccessful claims can be made. Hume, 124 Wn.2d at 672.10 The burden of

10 See also Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677, 692, 132 P.3d 115 (2006) (not an abuse of discretion when trial court did not segregate based on its finding that the plaintiffs requested CPA fees could not realistically be separated from time spent pursuing their Product Liability Act claims?). But see Loeffelholz, 119 Wn. App. at 692 (holding that the record does not show that the claims were so interrelated as to excuse segregation and the case embodied many claims and issues and an award of nearly half the total fees incurred represents too high a proportion to be reasonable); Mayer, 102 Wn. App. 66 (abuse of discretion when court awarded fees for time spent on discovery that was not relevant to plaintiff’s Model Toxics Control Act claim which provided attorney fees).

segregating, like the burden of showing reasonableness overall, rests on the one claiming such fees. Loeffelholz, et. al v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethnic and Accountability Now (C.L.E.A.N), 119 Wn. App. 665, 690, 82 P.3d 1199 (2004); Katanis v. Educ. Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn.2d 483, 501-502, 859 P.2d 26 (1993).

Here in June 2003, the Ruebels sued Hovis for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and constructive fraud. In April 2004, the Ruebels added Windermere Real Estate, Camano Realty, Sonja Eppig, Preview Realty, Roger Nelson, Washington Builders and its owner Terry Morgan. In addition to negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, the amended complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty against Camano Realty and Eppig, breach of good faith and fair dealing against Preview and Nelson, and negligent and defective construction against Washington Builders and Morgan. Yet the Reubels attorney stated that only approximately $7,200 could be deducted for time spent on the unrelated CPA claims and theories. The trial court agreed but did not enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the attorney fee award of $311,305.11

Relying on the trial court’s oral ruling and a recent supreme court decision, Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc., 156 Wn. 2d 677, 692, 132 P.3d 114 (2006), the Ruebels argue that the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding segregation was not reasonable. But here, unlike in Mayer, the trial court’s oral decision does not provide a clear explanation that the CPA work could not be segregated from the WPLA work,

11 The cases the Ruebels cite to argue that oral findings are sufficient are not persuasive. Neither Goodman v. Darden, Doman & Stafford Assoc., 100 Wn.2d 476, 670 P.2d 648 (1983) nor Malfait v. Malfait, 54 Wn.2d 413, 341 P.2d 154 (1959) address the need for findings to support an award of attorney fees.

Mayer, 156 wn.2d at 693.12

On attorney’s fees, there is no challenge to the loadstars being reasonable. The only challenge is to the segregation. I am somewhat concerned about the attorney’s fees before Ms. Eppig or Camano Island Realty were included in the -- included in the complaint, however, there was a great deal of work at the time about the damages, about what -- what happened to the house, the house left, and whether or not we were going to have pictures and what that -- would happen. And those were obviously questions and -- and I’m not sure if I’m correct on that. Those -- those things may have come up once the realty defendants were entered into the action. But I can see that it was a record that was being built on this CPA claim. I don’t see how these could be segregated myself and I believe that the court cases say that if it’s not reasonable to be segregated then it will not be segregated.

Because the trial court failed to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the award of attorney fees, we reverse and remand.13 On remand, the Ruebels have the burden to segregate the time spent on the CPA claim from the time spent on the unrelated legal theories and claims and the court must enter written findings to support an award of attorney fees.

Cross Appeal

On cross appeal, the Ruebels claim the trial court erred by not including the $13,500 the jury awarded for the negligence claim. Specifically, the Ruebels argue that the stipulation to not award negligence damages was void because it was based on misrepresentation and mutual mistake.

12 See also Brand v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 139 Wn.2d 659, 674, 989 P.2d 1111 (1999) (while the court concluded that the trial court properly refused to segregate the fees attributable to plaintiff’s unsuccessful claim, because the trial court failed to enter written findings or to articulate specific reasons supporting the amount of the attorney fees award, the court remanded for it was unable to judge whether the trial court abused its discretion). And in Pham, 159 Wn.2d 527, the trial court entered thirty-five findings of fact justifying its fee award, including the court’s reason for segregating and deducting hours that were unproductive or not sufficiently related to the successful claim. Pham, 159 Wn.2d at 539-40.

13 On remand, the court should also consider whether there was any duplicative or wasted effort and the reasonableness of the fee award.

During deliberations, the jury asked whether it should answer Question 5 “Did the Ruebels prove their claim for negligence or breach of fiduciary duty?”, if it answered Question 4 “What is the amount of damages proximately caused to the Ruebels by Ms. Eppig’s fraudulent concealment and/or violation of the Consumer Protection Act?” The attorney for Camano Realty and Eppig expressed the concern that the jury could award double damages. In response,the Ruebels’ attorney agreed that if the jury awarded damages under the negligence claim that were not greater than the amount under the fraudulent concealment and CPA claims, the damages should not be included in the award.

. . . that I only argued one theory of damages, so maybe the best way of dealing with this is to do this. I really do think this is going to be confusing to the jury if we add this double damages stuff because we haven’t talked about it and it’s not in the instructions.

I agree that if there are any damages that are awarded under the negligence count and they’re not greater than the amount under the fraud and Consumer Protection Act counts, then they will be subsumed within the first one, and that will settle the matter, I would think.

Based on the stipulation of Ruebels’ attorney, the court responded to the jury question by answering, “yes”.

In the Special Jury Verdict form, the jury found the amount of damages proximately caused by Eppig's violation of the CPA was $126,319.51. The jury also found the amount of damages proximately caused by Eppig?s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty was $33,750. Based on the stipulation, the trial court did not include the damages for the negligence and breach of fiduciary claims in the award.

A valid stipulation is binding unless fraud, mistake, or misunderstanding is established. De Lisle v. Fmc Corp., 41 Wn. App. 596, 597, 705 P.2d 283 (1985) (citing Baird v. Baird, 6 Wn. App. 587, 494 P.2d 1387 (1972).

To support their claim that the stipulation is void, the Ruebels cite to a criminal case, State v. Schaupp, 111 Wn.2d 34, 757 P.2d 970 (1988) concerning entry of a plea agreement based on an alleged misrepresentation. In Schaupp, the court rejected the State’s claim that the plea agreement was void because there was no evidence of misrepresentation. Schaupp, 111 Wn.2d at 38-39. Here, as in Schaupp, the record does not support misrepresentation. Based on a concern about awarding double damages, Ruebels’ attorney agreed with the concern and suggested a means to avoid it.

To support their claim that the stipulation is void based on mutual mistake, the Ruebels cite several cases for the general proposition that contract principles apply to determine whether a stipulation is enforceable.14 But a party with constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to an alleged mistake cannot claim mistake as a basis to avoid a stipulation. Denaxas v. Sandstone Court of Bellevue, LLC, 148 Wn.2d 654, 668, 63 P.3d 125 (2003). Because Ruebels’ attorney had constructive knowledge of the jury instructions, the claim that the stipulation is void based on mutual mistake also fails.

Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s entry of judgment on the jury verdict but reverse and

14 Wm. Dickson Co. v. Pierce County, 128 Wn. App. 488, 493, 116 P.3d 409 (2005) (“Contract principles govern final judgments entered by stipulation or consent.”); Haller v. Wallis, 89 Wn.2d 539, 546, 573 P.2d 1302 (1978) (trial court’s decision not to vacate a stipulated order under CR 60(b) affirmed where there was no evidence of fraud or collusion and none of the irregularities charged is attributable to the respondent); and Harford v. Harford, 86 Wn. App. 259, 266, 936 P.2d 48 (1997) (trial court’s decision to vacate a stipulated order under CR 60(b) reversed where court found only that a unilateral mistake was made).

remand on the attorney fees award. Because the Ruebels prevailed as to the merits of their CPA claim, upon compliance with RAP 18.1, the Ruebels are entitled to attorney fees on appeal. RCW 19.86.090; Sevendson v. Stock, 143 Wn.2d at 250.

WE CONCUR:

 

 

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..."

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

 

DAVID OTT, an individual,

 

Plaintiff

 

vs.

 

JAMES MARQUEZ, an individual; ANDREA MARQUEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

 

Defendants.

 

 

Case No. 30·2013·00663429·CU·FR·CJC

 

 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:

 

1) FRAUD;

 

2) CONVERSION;

 

3) NEGLIGENCE

 

Judge Derek W. Hunt

 

 

 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

 

            1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff DAVID OTT ("Plaintiff') was and is an individual residing in California.

 

            2. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times mentioned herein, defendant JAMES MARQUEZ (“Mr. Marquez”) was and is an individual residing in the County of Orange. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all times mentioned herein, Mr. Marquez was and is an owner or principal of Windermere Real Estate Socal, Inc. (“Windermere”), as well as an owner or principal of A & L Partners, Inc. (“A & L Partners.”)

 

            3. Plaintiff is informed and believes that at all times mentioned herein, defendant ANDREA MARQUEZ (“Mrs. Marquez”) was and is an individual residing in the County of Orange. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that at all times mentioned herein, Mrs. Marquez was and is an owner or principal of Windermere, as well as an owner or principal of A & L Partners.

 

            4. Mr. Marquez and Mrs. Marquez shall be collectively referred to herein as “Defendants.”

 

            5. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of these fictitiously named defendants is in some manner responsible for the events and damages alleged herein and will seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Each reference in this complaint to “defendant,” “defendants,” or a specifically named defendant refers also to all defendants sued under fictitious names.

 

            6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, each of the defendants, as well as DOES 1 through 1 00, was the principal, agent, representative, partner, joint venturer, co-conspirator, alter ego or employee of each of the other defendants, as well as DOES 1 through 100, and in doing the things alleged herein was acting within the course and scope of such relationship with the full knowledge, consent, authority and/or ratification of each of the other defendants and DOES 1 through 100.

 

            7. Jurisdiction in the State of California is proper because Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants reside there.

 

            8. Venue in Orange County is proper as the conduct giving rise to this action substantially occurred there.

 

BACKGROUND FACTS

 

            9. Plaintiff is a real estate agent duly licensed under the laws of the State of California. At all times relevant herein up until on or about October 21, 2011, Plaintiff was a successful real estate agent and independent contractor for Windermere.

 

            10. On August 18, 2011, through no fault of Plaintiff, the buyer of one of the properties for which Plaintiff was the listing agent and Windermere was the broker (the “Flower Street Property”) filed legal proceedings in Orange County Superior Court, case number 30-2011-00501187-SC-SC-CJC, arising out of that sale and naming, among others, Plaintiff, Defendants, and A & L Partners as defendants (the “Flower Street Property Litigation.”)

 

            11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants resent Plaintiff for referring the Flower Street Property listing to them and, unfairly and without justification, blame him for causing them to enter into a transaction in which they, separately and independently of Plaintiff, ultimately acted unlawfully.

 

            12. On August 5, 2011, Plaintiff entered into a written exclusive right to sell listing agreement (the “Listing Agreement”) for 21436 Chirping Sparrow Road in Diamond Bar, California 91765 (the “Property”) with the owner of the Property, Mark Palmer (the “Seller”), at a list price of $499,999. A true and correct copy of the Listing Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

 

            13. Pursuant to the terms of the Listing Agreement, Windermere was the broker for the sale of the Property and Plaintiff, as the listing agent, was entitled to a commission of 3.5% of the sale price of the Property (the “Commission.”)

 

            14. On September 26, 2011, Plaintiff entered into a written referral agreement (the “Referral Agreement”) which entitled Plaintiff to an additional 25% of the Maritza Jimenez's, the selling agent's, commission if Plaintiff procured the ultimate buyer for the Property (the “Referral Fee.”) A true and correct copy of the Referral Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

 

            15. Plaintiff did in fact procure the buyer for the Property, and as such is entitled to the Referral Fee.

 

            16. The sales transaction for the Property was submitted to escrow on August 30, 2011 at a sales price of $543,000. The sale of the Property was ready to be closed on or about October 15, 2011. However, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants intentionally delayed the close of escrow on the Property until December 28,2011, because they wanted to wait until the Flower Street Litigation was concluded and use that litigation as an excuse to deprive Plaintiff of his Commission and Referral Fee.

 

            17. On or about September 2, 2011, A & L Partners submitted instructions to Seller to pay a commission of $19,005.00 to Plaintiff at Windermere, and a commission of $13,575.00 to Maritza Jimenez, the selling agent for the Property at Windermere.

 

            18. On or about October 21, 2011, Plaintiff was scheduled to testify in the Flower Street Litigation. However, in advance of that testimony, Defendants instructed Plaintiff to commit perjury when he testified. Rather than doing as Defendants requested, Plaintiff refused to testify and on that very same day, Plaintiff resigned from Windermere and became an agent and independent contractor for a new real estate company, Keller Williams Pacific Estates (“Keller Williams.”)

 

            19. As part of Plaintiff’s resignation, Defendants agreed that the listing for the Property, among other properties, would be transferred to Keller Williams for continued service by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff would still be entitled to the Commission and Referral Fee. Defendants later tried, unsuccessfully, to renegotiate the terms of the Commission to be less favorable to Plaintiff.

 

            20. This transfer was in the best interest of all parties involved, including Defendants, because if the Property remained listed with Windermere, the sale of the Property would be in violation of the arms-length transaction requirement for short sales, since Seller was an agent for Windermere at the time of the listing. Prior to Plaintiff's resignation, Plaintiff vocalized his concerns to Defendants regarding the propriety of the short sale of the Property with Windermere as the broker.

 

            21. Nonetheless, on October 28, 2011, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants falsified a document signed by Seller in order to revoke Plaintiff's authorization to discuss the sale of the Property with Bank of America, the financial institution associated with the short sale of the Property.

 

            22. Thereafter, Defendants refused to transfer the listing for the Property to Keller Williams or allow Plaintiff to communicate with Bank of America or any other parties related to the sale of the Property.

 

            23. Plaintiff is entitled to a Commission of $19,005 and a Referral Fee of$3,393.75, equal to 25 percent of Maritza Jimenez’s commission, but Defendants have refused to pay Plaintiff this Commission and Referral Fee.

 

 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

 

FRAUD

 

(Against All Defendants)

 

            24. Plaintiff refers to each of the foregoing paragraphs in their entirety, and hereby incorporates them by reference as though fully set forth herein.

 

            25. Plaintiff is informed and believes that as a result of the Flower Street Property Litigation, Defendants sought to injure Plaintiff personally and professionally because they blamed Plaintiff for the ensuing litigation and for refusing to perjure himself in that litigation at the request of Defendants. Plaintiff is further informed and believes Defendants did so because Plaintiff vocalized his concerns regarding the arms-length transaction requirement for the short sale of the Property, and Defendants' imminent violation thereof.

 

            26. On or about October 20, 2011, Defendants represented to Plaintiff that he would receive a “short sale negotiation fee” for the Property, even after his resignation from Windermere. Mr. Marquez confirmed this representation in writing in an email dated October 21, 2011.

 

            27. On or about October 21, 2011, Defendants represented to Plaintiff that the listing for the Property would be transferred to Keller Williams and that he was allowed to continue to service the Property. Christine Haynes, a sales manager for Windermere, confirmed this representation in writing in an email dated October 27,2011.

 

            28. However, Plaintiff is informed and believes that at the time Defendants made these representations, they knew that they were false, and that they would not transfer the listing for the Property to Keller Williams, that they would not allow Plaintiff to continue to service the Property, and that they would not pay Plaintiff his Commission or Referral fee. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants never had any intention of following through on their promises and contractual obligations because they resented Plaintiff for bringing them the Flower Property, a transaction which ultimately resulted in litigation, and for vocalizing his concerns regarding Defendants’ unethical and unprofessional conduct.

 

            29. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants made these representations to deceive Plaintiff, because they intended to delay the close of escrow on the Property until after the Flower Street Property Litigation concluded and use that litigation as an excuse to deprive Plaintiff of his Commission and Referral Fee.

 

            30. Plaintiff justifiably relied on these misrepresentations by completing his transition from Windermere to Keller Williams without first waiting for escrow to close on the Property and receiving his Commission and Referral Fee. Defendants’ misrepresentations lulled Plaintiff into a false sense of security that he would be able to resign from Windermere, work at Keller Williams, continue to service the Property, and receive his Commission and Referral Fee without any problems.

 

            31. On October 28,2011, Seller signed a form authorizing Maribel Cabrera at the Bank of America HELOC Short Sale Department to discuss his account with his realtor. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, in furtherance of his deceit, Mr. Marquez altered this document after Seller signed the authorization and without Seller's knowledge to include a typewritten "Special Note" that stated “Please be advised that DAVID OTT with Windermere Preferred Living is NO LONGER AUTHORIZED to negotiate this short sale on my behalf. Any further contact with him on my behalf is strictly prohibited. Please contact my new negotiator as listed above.”

 

            32. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Mr. Marquez made this alteration in order to cause injury to Plaintiff professionally, again because of his resentment of Plaintiff for the Flower Property Litigation and for Plaintiff’s vocalization of his concerns regarding Defendant's unethical and unprofessional conduct. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that Mr. Marquez did so in order to purposely delay the close of escrow on the Property until after the Flower Street Litigation had been concluded so that he could use that litigation as an excuse to deprive Plaintiff of his Commission and Referral Fee.

 

            33. Each of the Defendants engaged in the aforementioned conduct for his or her own personal benefit and advantage, rather than solely on behalf of and at the direction of Windermere. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the Defendants attempted to gain personally from defrauding Plaintiff in at least the following ways: </