Welcome To WindermereWatch
We hope to be of service by helping you choose the right Realtor, and by providing the information you need to avoid grave personal risk by cancelling or not renewing your Windermere Real Estate listing. Perhaps you’ve already wisely chosen to bypass Windermere.
Authorities including consumer advocate groups, attorneys, elected lawmakers and insider experts all agree that the American real estate industry cries out for greater regulation to protect consumers from the irrevocable human disaster and financial ruin that results from being victimized by dishonest, unethical real estate agents, brokers, and their wealthy, litigious companies. Companies like Windermere Real Estate—an enormous political contributor—who manipulate our inundated courts and the justice system to stall, wear down and financially break damaged consumers, some of whom end up actually homeless, simply for buying a home through Windermere Real Estate. And it could happen to you, too.
But of all real estate companies in the United States, the most unethical, dishonest, culturally toxic and predatory company is Windermere Real Estate, America’s criminal real estate enterprise, headquartered in Seattle, at franchiser Windermere Services Company.
Windermere is one our country's largest real estate firms with annual residential transactions in the multi-billions. Windermere was founded by John Jacobi, who was intitially in banking, and he has kept the company a private, family owned enterprise, eluding the transparency and ethical accountibility required by stockholders. For decades, Windermere has harnessed the art of positive PR, affixing itself—however superficially—to community art events, the homeless, and even an annual regata—the Windermere Cup. But those are the disingenuous and cynical subterfuge created by an adept market manipulator, shown briefly to the public to obscure and obfuscate Windermere's true predatory nature.
Process Abusing Management Team...
FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY'S GOVERNING PEOPLE:
• Geoffrey P. Wood
• Jill Jacobi Wood
• John O. Jacobi
• Paul Drayna...
...All experts at inducing yet higher and higher annual sales volume through deliberate and knowing marketing fraud; and at practicing the outright, unrestrained intimidation and coercion of Windermere victims, to illegally impose silence and suppress their constitutionally-protected speech rights. Through commissions paid to franchiser Windermere Services Company—every Windermere office in every state that Windermere operates—is an enthusiastic partner and knowing accessory to Windermere's criminal activities, illegal attempts at quashing speech rights, and abuse of the public.
Windermere Real Estate is a textbook public predator who operates franchise brokerages in Washington State, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Hawaii and British Columbia.
If you’re buying or selling property through Windermere Real Estate in any of those states or British Columbia, a percentage from your transaction will be used by Windermere Services Company and its unscrupulous Demco Law Firm, to destroy the lives of totally innocent real estate consumers who’ve unwittingly encountered Windermere damage and corruption. Windermere will never pay legitimate damages or take responsibility for its wrongdoing, even when it means stalling cases all the way to the supreme court, a strategy which Windermere/Demco has often employed. Could you afford that costly, mentally and emotionally grueling process? Just for buying or selling a house?
Windermere's Clear and Overt Marketing Fraud
Windermere endlessly promotes a deceptive, express and implied warranty in sales documents and on the internet that states "We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." In other Windermere promotion, like the Puget Sound Business Journal, CEO Geoff Wood is quoted as saying "In the real estate business somebody's word is very important. If you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." The article goes on to say, "Geoff oversees marketing, legal, financial and internet development services throughout the Windermere network..." Wood clearly claims dominion over both Windermere's legal and internet strategy.
Effective reportage can often be indelicate when recounting the facts, and it must be said—in consideration of all the Windermere victims listed here who seek Windermere's honesty and integrity—that Windermere Services CEO Geoffrey P. Wood is a patent liar when he states his company's false committment to honesty and integrity. He both lies and decieves again when he says that "In the real estate business somebody's word is very important. If you say you're going to do something, you've got to do it." Wood sure doesn't do what he says he's going to do. He sues for trade libel and defamation, and tries to use the legal system to suppress victims' speech rights when they ask him to do what he say he's going to do. As this web page proves, Mr. Wood does anything BUT what he says he's gonna do.
Mr. Wood, Jill Jacobi-Wood, and governing cohorts John O. Jacobi and lawyer Paul Drayna, have gone to the absolute ends of the earth in stonewalling, ignoring, denying and fleeing any and all responsibilty for Windermere misconduct. When called upon by victimized Windermere consumers to make good on its warranty of honesty and integrity, Windermere even states in legal pleadings that Windermere agents are not agents of Windermere! This despite Windermere Services' brazen and continual profit upon the dishonest Windermere people profiled here—agents and brokers that Windermere Services know affirmatively to be dishonest, yet upon whom it collects commission. As the legally designated Governing People and top managers of the Windermere empire who drive policy, ethics and promotion, it must be said that Geoff Wood, Jill Jacobi-Wood, John O. Jacobi and Paul Drayna are all insufferable liars.
Among its many unprincipled corporate policies, Windermere Services is well-known for using mendacious, vexacious litigation, and malicious prosecution, to intimidate and coerce consumers damaged by Windermere agent-broker misconduct, into signing away their constitutionally protected speech rights in Windermere's infamous "Dark Clause" public silence agreement. Windermere's Dark Clause is designed to gag public truth of illicit Windermere methods, hush bad publicity about Windermere, and darken websites like WindermereWatch.com.
Don’t risk doing business with Windermere. After reading what follows here, please CANCEL or DON’T RENEW YOUR WINDERMERE LISTING, and REFUSE TO FUND PUBLIC PREDATOR WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE.
Windermere Freeland Agents Saul and
Gabelein’s Abuse of a Vulnerable Adult
What follows here is perhaps the single most despicable example of Windermere Real Estate’s culturally toxic, arrogant, shamelessly persistent and egregious contempt for the justice system, human decency, and its very own customers. Customers who’ve been damaged through the actions of greedy and unethical Windermere agents and brokers—whom Windermere defends, no matter what their conduct.
John Demco is the ethically elastic Windermere kingpin lawyer who operates Demco Law, Windermere’s in-house legal firm, whose primary job it is to stall and outspend small fry consumers damaged by dishonest Windermere brokers and agents. When an innocent real estate consumer has the misfortune to suffer one of Windermere’s many bad apples, Demco Law will refuse to settle the matter forthrightly, no matter what conspicuously unlawful or offensive conduct the agent or broker has committed. Demco and Windermere will force the aggrieved party to sue or swallow their damage and go away. It’s basic Windermere complaint strategy.
And it’s the basic common thread that all cases here reported share. Nobody who’s buying or selling a house starts out EXPECTING to be victimized by their real estate company, but in all the cases listed here, It’s Windermere agents and brokers who’ve made criminal PREEMPTIVE strikes at unsuspecting clients, who are then forced onto the Windermere litigation treadmill, seeking equitable relief that will never come. Because in truth—unless you’re rich—your peace of mind and hard-won financial future are probably over the very moment that preemptive, unlawful Windermere strike is perpetrated against you by your Windermere agent or broker—or both.
If you have any experience at all with our justice system, you know its costly lawyers and clogged, dysfunctional courts actually work in favor of perpetrators and against aggrieved parties, because of the immense time and expense involved in pursuing justice. In other words, when your Windermere agent or broker perpetrates that initial offense—of which you will no doubt be unaware until after the fact—your happy life and future is over RIGHT THEN, because you’ll be forced to chase that Windermere crook through the courts forever, probably all the way to the supreme court of your state—maybe 6, 8 or 10 years! So even if you win, you lose.
And wouldn’t you know… Windermere lawyer John Demco is also a Windermere real estate broker, too. He owns interest in, at last count, 7 Windermere offices, including one in Freeland, Washington, where two of his agents, Samantha Saul and Linda Gabelein—a mother and daughter team—violated Washington State’s Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act by exploiting and exerting undue influence upon vulnerable widow Emma Endicott of Whidbey Island. Over the years, Saul and Gabelein were able to gain Endicott’s confidence as part of her extended family, and were eventually able to unduly prevail upon Endicott to convey portions of her prime Whidbey Island property portfolio to the Saul and Gabelein families at prices dramatically below their true and fair market value. And in another odd, suspicious scenario, Endicott became persuaded her own sons had abused her after Saul visited her in the hospital.
Perhaps Saul and Gabelein were emboldened just by knowing that the owner of their particular Windermere shop—John Demco—wasn’t just any old RE broker. He was Windermere’s hardboiled legal torpedo, too. In a conflicted and unsavory setup, Demco was both employer and owner of the agents’ brokerage, profiting on any transactions there; while he and his law firm also defended Saul and Gabelein in court. Windermere is never bashful about the propriety of such arrangements.
Demco is listed as a Governing Person of Windermere Freeland with April and Steven Kieburtz. Demco and the Kieburtzes are listed as Governing People of Windermere brokerages in Monroe (with Deborah Kay Smith, also listed); Poulsbo (with Carol Sue Rogers, also listed); Oak Habor, Seattle, Clinton and two Windermere offices in Langley.
Demco and and other Demco Law attorneys, including professional prevaricator Matthew F. Davis, and L’Nayim Shuman-Austin, defended agents Gabelein and Saul at trial, who not only suffered resounding defeat, but were strongly rebuked by island County Superior Court Judge Vickie L. Churchill in a long, sensitive and articulate Findings Of Fact & Conclusions Of Law. We strongly suggest reading the whole document, but here are some highlights:
• P 3, L 19: “Emma has spent most of her life living quietly in the family home, which is in a small neighborhood overlooking scenic views of Mutiny Bay, on Whidbey Island. Emma has never had a driver’s license, or a checking account, or a credit card.”
• P 4, L 6: “…Emma inherited the family acreage outright after Shorty’s death in 1998. …After his death, Emma took over managing the family finances and the property.”
• P 4, L 15: “Emma is related by marriage to the respondents. Emma’s brother, John Ohm, is married to Vernon Gabelein’s sister, Ruth Gabelein Ohm. Samantha (“Sam”) Saul, daughter of Vernon’s wife, Linda Gabellein, is married to Bob Saul, a long-time friend of the twins since grade school.”
• P 6, L 3: “But since Shorty’s death, Emma has sold 15 acres of property, in 3 separate transactions, at below market value. Emma sold the property to the Sauls, to the Gabeleins, and to the Thompsons, all of whom are members of the same family.”
• P 7, L 13: “Samantha acted as dual agent for Emma and for her sister and brother-in-law.”
• P 8, L 4: “Samantha testified that she did not suggest a price to her sister when the Thompsons made an offer. The court does not find that testimony credible…”
• P 8, L 17: “The assessor’s value in 2001 for the property that they bought was $195,524, yet the Sauls bought the property for $80,000.”
• P 9, L 15: “Samantha asserts that she believed that $80,000 was, ‘in the range of what was reasonable.’ However, just two years after the Sauls bought this property, they applied for a home construction loan, in July of 2004. In their application, they told the bank the property was worth $400,000.”
• P 10, L 6: “Shortly after Emma’s sale to her daughter, Samantha, Linda Gabelein, who is also a real estate agent, approached Emma and asked her to sell the five-acre parcel next to Samantha’s property to Linda and her husband.”
• P 12, L 15: “Within three years of her husband’s death, Emma started selling property that had been in her husband’s family since 1947 and property that had been in her family since sometime long before 1976 and that she had owned since 1976. All of the property was sold to members of the family of Linda and Vernon Gabelein, with Samantha Saul involved in each one. All of the property was sold at bargain prices, below its fair market value.”
• P 14, L 12; “The court finds that the comparables submitted by Linda and Samantha were obviously prepared for purposes of this litigation, and the court has given them little or no weight."
• P 15, L 4: “The court finds that the Gabeleins made an active effort to keep Emma’s last property sale a secret from Emma’s younger sons and from anyone else who might have objected.”
• P 15, L 14: “The sale to the Gabeleins was processed as a boundary line adjustment, which also served to keep the transaction private.”
• P 16, L 18: “Adding to the secrecy, the Gabeleins had the sale closed in Everett, although their general practice was to have other sales closed on the island.”
• P 17, L 21: “Barbara Mearing, Samantha and Linda’s real estate broker, represented the Gabeleins in their purchase of property from Emma and earned a $7,500 commission from the sale. 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 gives Ms. Mearing’s testimony little weight.”
• P 47, L 13: “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.”
• P 50, L 4: “The court concludes that Emma is a vulnerable adult who has been exploited by the Sauls and the Gabeleins. The Gabeleins and the Sauls have gained Emma’s confidence, are aware that they have the ability to exert undue influence over Emma, and, in fact, have exerted undue influence over Emma.”
Windermere appealed of course, and failed again.
Samantha Saul and Linda Gabelein now ply their craft at Kensington Properties, 5595 Harbor Ave., Freeland, WA 98249. Want to buy a house from them?
Windermere-Demco Never Settles…
Csaba Kiss at Windermere Real Estate/East was “…far more inclined to let a court decide” the Popchois warranty rights “than to spend money to settle” the Popchois warranty claim
You Never Know What a Windermere Associate Broker Might Be Doing…
This taken straight from No. 07-2-08247-6 SEA "Defendants Popochoi's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims and Third Party Claims"
D. THIRD PARTY CLAIM
1. THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF. Ivan G. Popchoi and Varvara M. Popchoi, husband and wife, purchased the real property legally described in Exhibit A to this Third Party Complaint from Csaba Kiss, pursuant to a Statutory Warranty Deed.
2. THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT. Third Party Defendant Csaba Kiss is a single person who sold the real property to the Popchois legally described in the Exhibit A to this Third Party Complaint, by Statutory Warranty, dated May 4, 2006. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Csaba Kiss has been a sophisticated, professional real estate sales person.
3. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIRD PARTY CLAIM.
3.1 On May 4, 2006, Csaba Kiss conveyed the real property legally described in Exhibit A to this Third Party Complaint to Ivan and Varvara Popchoi by Statutory Warranty deed, which stated, in part, that Csaba Kiss “conveys and warrants” the legally described property to Ivan G. and Varvara M. Popchoi. At the time that he signed the Statutory Warranty Deed, Csaba Kiss knew from the sale negotiations that the Popchois purchased the property to build a new home on it, then to sell the property after a year.
3.2 The real property that Csaba Kiss warranted and conveyed to Ivan and Varvara Popchoi includes the real property to which Plaintiffs Edmondson claim ownership by adverse possession.
3.3 To satisfy City of Bellevue requirements for developing the real property, the Popchois had their property surveyed and had the surveyor stake the boundaries at the corners. On August 18, 2006, shortly after the surveyor had completed staking the corner boundaries of the lot, the Edmondsons’ attorney, Joshua Sundt, notified the Popchois by letter that the Edmondsons’ claimed ownership by adverse possession of a portion of the property that Csaba Kiss had conveyed to the Popchois’ by Statutory Warranty deed.
3.4 The Popchois retained attorney David Paul Williams to advise them concerning the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim and to assert their rights under the Statutory Warranty Deed. Mr. Williams promptly notified Csaba Kiss of the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim by letter, dated August 31 2006, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this Third Party Complaint as Exhibit B. The letter was sent to Mr. Kiss by first class mail, and also by certified mail, return receipt requested.
3.5 Mr. Wlliams’ August 31, 2006 letter to Csaba Kiss advised Mr. Kiss that time was of the essence in eliminating the Edmondsons’ claim because the foundation of the Popchois’ new residence was scheduled to be poured the following week. Mr. Williams’ letter urged Mr. Kiss that, under warranty, Mr. Kiss would be liable for the Popchois’ attorneys fees in responding to the adverse possession claim and requested that Mr. Kiss keep attorney Williams apprised of Mr. Kiss’s efforts to resolve the Edmondsons’ claims so that the Popchois’ attorneys fees may be kept to a minimum.
3.6 By letter dated September 6, 2006, Mr. Williams notified Csaba Kiss that the Popchois had delayed pouring the foundation for the residence to September 11, 2006 to allow Mr. Kiss additional time to resolve the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim. Mr. Williams further stated that “no further delays can be expected as every day of delay costs my clients money. All consequences of any failure to act on your part rest solely with you.”
3.7 Csaba Kiss failed to respond to David Williams’ letters, so Mr. Williams personally undertook negotiations with Joshua Sundt, the Edmondsons’ attorney, to reach a negotiated resolution of the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim. By letter to Csaba Kiss dated October 6, 2006, Mr. Williams notified Mr. Kiss that the Edmondsons had been unwilling to accept any of Mr. Williams’ offers to resolve their adverse possession claim by agreement and that the Popchois were asserting claims against Mr. Kiss for “Breach of one or more warranties given when you conveyed the property to my clients.” Mr. Williams’ letter urged Mr. Kiss once again to retin an attorney to take steps to cure his breaches of warranty and titile by purchasing whatever property rights the Edmondsons claim. Mr. Wlliams reminded Mr. Kiss that the Popchois “intend to complete construction of their new home and sell it within a year at which time they must be able to convey clear title to their purchaser.” Mr. Williams requested a response to his letter by October 16, 2007.
3.8 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.” (Editor’s note: bold emphasis added.)
Windermere Real Estate East Associate Broker Csaba Kiss got what he wanted, and a court did indeed decide:
1. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Ivan G. Popchoi and Varvara M. Popchoi and against Csaba Kiss in the total amount of $44,885,39, comprised of:
A. $30,281.90 in fees and costs that the Popchois to defend their title against the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim,
B. $10,993.63 that the Popchois paid Csaba Kiss for land that the Edmondsons owned by adverse possession,
C. $3,609.86 in interest on the $10,993.63 payment, calculated from May 4, 2006, the date of payment to January 23, 2009, plus with $3.628 additional interest accruing each day after January 23, 2009 until the date that Judgment is entered.”
At WindermereWatch we are always gratified when parties like the Popchois, who are damaged by Windermere people, have the resilience, tenacity and resources to go the legal distance and prevail in court. But we must ask the obvious rhetorical question: Who needs the hassle? You're better off at Coldwell Banker, John L. Scott, Keller Williams, Century 21, RE/MAX or Prudential.
Csaba Kiss was garnished to satisfy the Judgment against him, and is still working for Windermere.
Deliberately Concealing Toxic Rat Infestation,
Then Lying About It, Too...
Windermere Northeast Liars George Rudiger and Joan Whittaker:
The Worst of the Worst, Most Corrupt of the Corrupt.
Gary Kruger sold his condo in Nevada to buy a small home in Seattle, where he’d lived in the 1980s. He eventually settled on a $205,000 Shoreline house listed by Windermere Realty Northeast. George Rudiger was the listing agent, and Joan Whittaker was the Broker/Owner of Northeast at that time. Whittaker is still an owner of Windermere Northeast, but after being repeatedly being sued and ruining many lives, Whittaker has withdrawn any mention of herself on the Windermere Northeast webpage. If you call Windermere Northeast, they’ll tell you that Joan “…is retired.” As you see here, however, Joan is certainly not retired from litigation, and being sued for her incredible dishonesty and incompetence.
At purchase, Kruger had 8+ credit, a pre-approved loan, and a $47,000 cash down payment. He also had zero debt, plus extra cash savings for starting a small ad agency and making minor improvements to the new home. His life was good.
The Shoreline house was just right, but he’d noticed on his initial visit that it had an odd aroma. He mentioned it to his agent who responded that since the sellers had little kids and pets, the odor could probably be ascribed to those. The house was small but neat, and had recently been painted in “Martha Stewart colors.” The place had a huge, well landscaped back yard—a major selling point. Kruger’s agent also recommended an inspector, and the house passed with only a few cursory repairs. It was the first house he ever bought.
The day he got possession of his new home and spent significant time there prepping for some light remodeling of floors, paint, and kitchen cabinets, he had a mysterious anaphylactic allergic reaction. His throat and eyes swelled up, and he had to vacate the premises. He’d found rat droppings, a rat hole torn in a closet ceiling, a rodent bait station hidden in the kitchen pantry, and steel wool stuffed around a heating duct. When a kitchen cabinet was moved, out spilled a festering rats' nest of feces, urine-soaked rockwool insulation, old food wrappers, rubber shards off electrical wire, and multiple dead rat carcasses.
A pest expert was called who urged Kruger and his helper to open the adjoining bathroom and kitchen wall, because rats travel to warmth and moisture to nest in interior walls. When they opened the wall, they were overcome by freshly exposed rat waste fumes, and confronted with more dead rat bodies and insulation so saturated with rat urine that it was still damp. The pest expert warned that no more work could be performed on the premises without proper ventilation and the wearing respiration devices.
Other infestation sites yielded yet more toxic rodent nests and carcasses. Interior insulation, wallboard and studs were saturated with rat waste. Durable wire mesh screens meant to deter rodents were installed on the attic floor, more at the crawlspace entry door, and yet more between exterior foundation blocks and wood framing, suggesting the sellers of the home were clearly aware of their rat problem. Kruger’s buyer’s inspection noted none of the pest problems, but as he would find out later, home inspectors are “…not required to move anything.” Kruger couldn’t inhabit a house that made him sick and might very well harbor disease.
In checking his Form 17 Sellers Disclosure Statement, question 4(F) about “When and by whom” a whole house inspection was completed, the sellers answered “Yes, April of 1997,” but they did not answer the question about WHO did the inspection. On question 4(G) “…have there been any problems with pest control, infestations or vermin?” the sellers checked “No.” After consultation, he reluctantly hired West Seattle attorney Jeffrey C. Mirsepasy, who advised him to get expert opinions and a videotaped inspection of the property.
Mirsepasy wrote to George Rudiger of Windermere Northeast, and John Jacobi at franchiser Windermere Services Company that, “We believe the plain existence of the following conditions were known by Windermere but not disclosed to potential purchasers, including Mr. Kruger: • Substantial metal screening…."
Windermere Services Company, author of the company’s fraudulent marketing commitment to high ethics and integrity, was totally silent and did not reply.
Rudiger and Whittaker Lie
Windermere Northeast Broker/Owner Joan Whittaker responded in a letter that…
“Mr. Rudiger categorically denies he had any knowledge whatsoever of the alleged conditions. Indeed, if he had such knowledge, he would have seen to it that these conditions would have been disclosed by the seller, in the sellers’ “Real Property Disclosure Statement” (Form 17).” And later that, “…there was no knowledge of any problems by Mr. Rudiger.”
At Mirsepasy’s direction, Kruger pushed ahead on filing complaints against the sellers and home inspector.
Meanwhile, a certified American Society Home Inspector (ASHI) expert wrote a report saying the house was “...not fit for habitation.” An environmental air expert’s affidavit said, “As I told Mr. Kruger, there was nothing I could do for him. The house had odors from the rodent urine soaked into the subfloors in the kitchen and bathroom that my ozone treatment would not take out.” An estimate was more than $100,000 to clean and fix the home by removing and replacing “…all effected insulation, wood members and fibrous finish materials.” Wiring was chewed-out and “This condition causes a fire hazard.”
The long and expensive litigation process commenced. Kruger couldn’t live in the disgusting home, and couldn’t afford to fix it. His entire life was spontaneously re-arranged and put on hold. He had to store his worldly goods and rent an apartment—in addition to mortgage payments, legal fees and living expenses. His savings were quickly exhausted, and he ended up living in a friend’s dining room. Tragically, after 9 months vacant—and without ever living in it a single day—he was forced to sell the home at a $47,000 loss, just to get out from under the mortgage.
Shortly thereafter, through discovery, the sellers revealed inspection and transaction documents from THEIR 1997 purchase of the house : THEY BOUGHT THE HOME FROM GEORGE RUDIGER AT WINDERMERE NORTHEAST, and Rudiger himself had already referenced an inspection report and written in his own hand about “durable wire mesh” to limit rats, in an addendum. Rudiger was a 30-year family friend of the seller.
For months, while his entire life and everything he’d ever worked for was literally being destroyed, while he’d innocently become ensnared in costly and devastating litigation, while he’d actually gone homeless, lost $47,000 and spent nearly another $40,000 for an attorney, George Rudiger and Joan Whittaker and Windermere were lying. And this from a giant real estate organization who promotes itself as a caring part of the community, a socially responsible business citizen, and that it has a commitment to “The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity."
Mirsepasy Presses for More Money on the Eve of Trial, and then Quits...
Kruger sued Windermere Northeast, Rudiger and Whittaker, waiting 20 months for trial and paying lawyer Mirsepasy nearly $40,000. But when he ran out of money, Mirsepasy demanded yet another $25,000 trial retainer to represent him at a dispositive summary judgment hearing, and Kruger failed to raise the money. Mirsepasy quit and withdrew from the case, leaving Kruger to appear at the summary judgment hearing without counsel of any kind, and Windermere was let out of the suit on a technicality. Ironically, if Mirsepasy just had the loyalty—and decency—to defend the one motion which would’ve forced Wndermere to trial, Kruger’s future and finances might have been saved. But even MORE pertinent, if Windermere had honored its commitment to ethics and integrity, none of the whole nightmare would have occurred in the first place!
Windermere Abuses the Legal Process by Using It and the Courts to Coerce Silence and Quash Victims' Constitutionally Protected Speech Rights
When Kruger went public on the internet about his Windermere experience, franchiser Windermere Services, Whittaker and Rudiger sued him for trade libel and defamation to coerce his silence. Right after serving him their lawsuit, Windermere-Demco attorney Matthew Davis wrote Kruger an email that stated, “In the meantime, you need not hire an attorney… Unless and until I tell you otherwise, we will try to resolve this directly and outside the legal system.”
In other words, Windermere-Davis knew Kruger was telling the truth about his Windermere experience and had not actually committed any libel or defamation. Windermere was using the legal system to falsely prosecute Kruger, but it wanted to prevent Kruger’s OWN USE of the legal system to defend himself. Windermere was trying to coerce Kruger into being unrepresented by counsel, and also into not filing an answer to its specious complaint. But Kruger answered pro se, and spent another 2 years and thousands more to defend the bogus lawsuit. His answer included the counterclaim, abuse of process: The improper and tortious use of a legitimately issued court process to obtain a result that is either unlawful or beyond the process’s scope. Specifically, Windermere sought the result of getting Kruger to abandon his speech rights and be forever silence about his Windermere experience.
The Lies and Dirty Tricks of Windermere-Demco Attorney Matthew Davis
Davis never expected Kruger to answer Windermere’s phony lawsuit, muchless counterclaim for abuse of process, so he had a problem—going to trial in a lawsuit for libel and defamation where a defendant was telling the truth. Windermere couldn’t let its true behavior be seen by a jury, or let a court and jury see that Windermere told Kruger not to hire a lawyer when the sued him, so it had to get Kruger’s counterclaims—including the abuse of process claim—thrown out of court.
It’s important to note here that earlier in the legal process, Kruger submitted an answer to the lawsuit that the court clerk rejected because it had no physical address for him and it also lacked the requisite $200 filing fee. The answer actually never got filed, and that version of the answer didn’t contain Kruger’s counterclaim for abuse of process. Ironically, because of the missing address, the court clerk returned Kruger’s insufficient answer to opponent Davis at Demco, who contacted him about by email. Kruger wrote another amended answer that included the abuse of process counterclaim, provided an address and filing fee, and filed it with the court clerk. So Davis now had two versions of the Kruger answer, one that had been filed; and one that had NEVER been filed, and didn’t contain all of Kruger’s counterclaims.
Davis brought a motion for partial summary judgment to have Kruger’s counterclaims thrown out, but his motion lacked any reference to the counterclaim about Windermere’s abuse of process—Davis had attached the UNFILED VERSION of Kruger’s answer to the motion, while swearing under penalty of perjury that it was true and correct. Kruger complained to Davis in an email, who replied, “I will simply file a corrected version.” Kruger then said he felt “bamboozled” by Davis’ actions, and Davis responded that “The attachment will be supplemented, but nothing in the motion itself will change.” Kruger accepted Davis’ promise that he would file the correct version of his answer and attach it to the motion.
Once again, Kruger couldn’t afford counsel to represent him at oral argument for Windermere’s partial summary judgment motion, so he appeared himself, and lost again. The court threw his counterclaims out. He never even considered the possibility that Davis might have been lying about filing the corrected version of his answer, which included the abuse of process counterclaim.
After the hearing, Kruger was never able to find Davis’ corrected supplement to Windermere’s motion in the Superior Court Case Summary. He again wrote to Davis, requesting “Please provide me the evidence that Windermere’s Motion proceeded to a decision in its favor with a corrected version of my proper Answer filed with the court by you in advance of the hearing.” After a long, pregnant pause, Davis’ smarmy reply was “You filed it, so I did not need to.” Demco attorney Matthew Davis lied about attaching and filing the correct answer to Windermere’s motion. By lying to the court and Kruger, he tricked them both into prevailing on his motion without even attaching the true document that contained the abuse of process counterclaim.
But Windermere still had a big problem, even though Kruger had no counterclaims. They were still suing somebody for trade libel and defamation who was telling the truth, and they were heading straight for trial. In another brazen dirty trick, Davis sent an order to the court requesting a “non-jury trial,” despite his knowledge that Kruger had filed a jury demand and paid the jury fee. Kruger emailed Davis “Why does your order request a non-jury trial? I paid the jury fee.” Davis replied “Right. I forgot. You will see it as a scheme, but it was an oversight.” At this point, Davis started pressing Kruger to sign Windermere’s Dark Clause silence agreement, quashing his constitutionally protected speech rights.
Windermere’s whole purpose in suing Kruger for trade libel and defamation was to use the legal process unlawfully to coerce and intimidate him into silence about his Windermere experience. Kruger steadfastly refused to sign the document. Windermere’s bullying, sham trial drew close.
As part of the required process prior to trial, Kruger arranged for Alternative Dispute Resolution with Superior Court Judge Charles Mertel, and provided his court a settlement memorandum. Changing its tune before Judge Mertel, Windermere offered Kruger a paltry $10,000 to sign the dark clause, which he refused, asking for $15,000 instead. Davis told Kruger and Mertel he would have to get an okay on the higher sum.
Two days later, Davis emailed Kruger that “I am instructed to inform you that all settlement offers are withdrawn.” And shortly thereafter, Windermere declared a “nonsuit” under CR 41(a)(1)(B), a civil rule of which most people are unaware, that allows a plaintiff party like Windermere, to voluntarily dismiss its own lawsuit because—according to Black’s Law Dictionary—“…the plaintiff has failed to make out a legal case or bring forth sufficient evidence.”
Windermere Agent Recommends Rookie
Inspector Who Misses Toxic Mold
As recently as 2008, Windermere was hyping Scott DeShryver’s home inspection expertise in the Kitsap Sun.
But home inspectors can often be “ringers.”
A big mistake many home buyers make is using a home inspector that’s been recommended by their agent—or worse—the listing agent of the property they’re considering. Buyers might figure that one inspector is as good as another, but they should check an inspector’s credentials thoroughly, and Google the inspector on the web, too, to see if any complaints are floating around cyberspace about the inspector they’re considering.
When real estate agents recommend inspectors, bad things often happen, because the agents are looking for an uncomplicated, quick sale, and their recommendation might produce a “softball” inspection; an inspection which deliberately ignores problems so that the sale will go through easily, and the recommending agents will recommend them again. Countless consumers have fallen into this trap and paid a big price for doing so.
Theresa McCormick offered on a property in Lakewood, Washington, through Windermere Silverdale agent Judy Bigelow. Bigelow was a veteran agent and connected McCormick with Lighthouse Home Inspection’s Scott DeShryver, without disclosing to McCormick that Mr. DeShryver was acquainted with her son, and was also a relative neophyte at inspecting homes.
Deshryver failed to identify nearly a thousand square feet of soft rot fungus in the home’s attic. A laboratory examined the fungus and concluded that Chaetomium—a most virulent strain of mold—was present. We’ve all heard the nightmare scenarios produced by moldy homes, and mold’s insidious effect upon allergies and the human immune system. Anaphylactic reactions to mold can even produce death
To further complicate matters, McCormick learned that inspector DeShryver had no insurance, and accordingly, that an attorney wouldn’t want the case because DeShryver had no deep-pocket insurer from which to collect damages if McCormick managed to prevail in court. Bigelow told McCormick “There is nothing Windermere can do” because Windermere was not a party to her agreement with DeShryver for his services
Once again, the decidedly murky ethics of a Windermere agent overtook decency, and Windermere’s fraudulent marketing claim of commitment to honesty and integrity. McCormick lost hundreds of thousands in sorting out the mold mess, and her family took major hits to their health. In this case, there are many parallels to Windermere’s behavior in the Kruger Rathouse case, chief among them, Windermere’s despicable failure to recognize its own bad apples. It prefers to keep collecting on them instead.
In a re-inspection of McCormick’s home, DeShryver acknowledged that he had not seen the damage in his previous inspection because Lighthouse Home Inspection’s policy is to avoid disturbing insulation. What good is an inspection that misses toxic defects like mold?
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."
RCW 18.86.050: "Unless additional duties are agreed to in writing signed by a buyer's agent, the duties of a buyer's agent are limited to those set forth in RCW 18.86.030 and the following, which may not be waived except as expressly set forth in (e) of this subsection: (a) To be loyal to the buyer by taking no action that is adverse or detrimental to the buyer's interest in a transaction; (b) To timely disclose to the buyer any conflicts of interest; (c) To advise the buyer to seek expert advice on matters relating to the transaction that are beyond the agent's expertise."
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 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 herd 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. As part of the costly and lengthy appeals process, the appellant files a brief to which the respondent answers, after which the appellant is afforded reply. The Bloor legal documents can be found in our Law Library.
Windermere Associate Broker Dick Pelescini’s
Foreclosure Rescue Ripoff Scam
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 a 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 Pelescini, 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. Pelescini 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 hera loan. Pace-Knapp declined their offers of help.
On an evening before the actual trustee’s sale, Pace-Knapp met Pelescini 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 Pelescinis, two years down the road. The documents were clearly labled, 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 Pelescinis 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 in the inducement, 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.
The Windermere Relocation Rape Case:
Court Declares that Windermere "...condoned a rape by a business collegue..."
Editorial Preface:
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 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 concern for the social damage it has done to people or communities. It cares only about how to manipulate the law to avoid any legal responsibility.
All citizens who abhor such treatment of women in the workplace should recall Maureen Little v. Windermere Relocation when choosing real estate services.
Summarized and excerpted from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
Maureen Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services (“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 override was based on the assumption that Little would close four transactions per month, with a provision for rollover when she did not make the 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 and 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 drover 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 id 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.
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. § 2000e, 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.
Little appealed dismissal of her claims, and the appeals court reversed in part, and ruled:
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[]."
Incredibly, Windermere asked for a re-hearing, but "...the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
Windermere settled out of court.
Windermere's Unseemly Grip on State Governments...
December 3, 2009—After Nearly 7 Years Producing Commission for Windermere Services and Windermere Spokane Valley Owner Cate Moye, Convicted Robbery Felon and Shotgun Shootout Windermere Agent, Nicholas Granly, Mysteriously Disappears from the Windermere Real Estate/Valley Roster—Ironically—just as Owner Moye is Nominated for Vice Chair of Washington’s Real Estate Commission, and "All [other] comissioners voted for Cate Moye." —DOL Acting Administrator Jerry McDonald
(Below from L to R)
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—Ubruptly Now Gone from Moye's Windermere Spokane Operation
In November of 2006, Governor Chris Gregoire’s press release states Ms. Moye “…is a member of the Spokane Association of Realtors professional standards committee…”
So we must pose the obvious rhetorical inquiries:
Does Ms. Moye’s application of Realtors’ professional standards embrace the continued profit on convicted felons, without putting active clients on notice that an agent of such dubious history will have absolute, unsupervised and unregulated access to Windermere client homes?
In 7 years, 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?
The Washington State Real Estate Commission’s Mission Statement: “To uphold, protect, and promote the public interest, which embraces both the interests of regulated licensees and entities and the interests of consumers, by the fair and impartial development and administration of the licensing laws and regulations,” is surely in conflict with commission member Moye-Windermere's usual approach to protecting the public interest—that of putting a convicted robber in your living room while you're not at home, without telling or asking you.
Members of Washington State’s Real Estate Commission who all voted for Cate Moye are;
• Ralph Osgood, Assistant Director Department of Licensing
• Kyoko Matsumoto Wright of Coldwell Banker Bain
• Jeff Thompson, Windermere Tri-Cities, Kennewick
• Paul Chiles, Chiles & Company Inc.; Commercial Real Estate Services
• George Pilant, RE/MAX
• Dan Murphy, Windermere Fauntleroy; John W. Jacobi, Governing Person, Fontleroy
With Cate Moye, Windermere Valley, Spokane, a total of 3 Windermere members stack the commission, including Dan Murphy of Windermere Fauntleroy, where Windermere founder John W. Jacobi is listed as a Governing Person. Ralph Osgood, DOL Assistant Director ALSO gets a vote... 3 Windermere votes and bureaucrat vote? Does that smell right to everybody?
“Integrity” is the most overused word in our global marketing culture. “Honesty” is perhaps the second most overused word in our global marketing culture. Many large companies are able to hide and obfuscate the reality of their own ethical performance and social responsibility simply by flooding the marketplace with paid promotion devices, like snappy websites, glossy brochures, and targeted PR events which trumpet words like “Service” and “Dedication” and “Honesty” and “Integrity.”
And Windermere Real Estate circulates its disingenuous sales promotion all over the place. It doesn’t care that its message content is counterfeit. It cares only about getting a percentage of YOUR property transaction—and if something goes wrong, well… they’ll beat it down with their unprincipled lawyers; or wear you out by spending your entire estate on mendacious litigation.
But the public is smart, and votes on unethical corporate performance with its feet and pocketbooks. The visitor traffic numbers at windermerewatch.com prove just how interested consumers are in learning about where they should—and should not—place their confidence in choosing a company to help buy or sell their home.
Windermere Real Estate absolutely saturates the marketplace with “…we are committed to… The highest ethical standards, Uncompromising honesty and integrity.” Windermere also ballyhoos “The best from and for Windermere people” and “The improvement of life in the neighborhoods we serve.” Yet, if you were a client of owner Cate Moye’s Windermere Real Estate/Valley, Inc., in Spokane Valley, Washington, from 2003 through at least August of 2009, you might just have been connected to Windermere Spokane Valley’s Nicholas Granly, a Windermere agent with convictions for robbery, burglary and theft.
On January 28, 2004, Spokane’s Spokesman-Review reported that “A former police officer attempting to sell her Spokane Valley house returned a few days ago to a big surprise… While she was away, her home was shown to prospective buyers by a real estate agent with convictions for robbery, burglary and theft… From the business card Realtor Nicholas A. Granly left behind, the ex-cop remembered he was involved in a shotgun standoff with Spokane sheriff’s deputies five years ago… How can a guy like this be in my home? asked the homeowner and now business owner, who asked not to be identified. I’m outraged, and I’m mad.”
Despite the local controversy, and obvious consumer trepidation at having such unsupervised visits to listed homes and their valuable, often irreplaceable contents, convicted felon Granly continued to generate commissions for Windermere and owner Cate Moye until sometime late in 2009, when Granly mysteriously disappeared from the Windermere Real Estate/Valley roster, after the Granly story got out on WindermereWatch.com.
Incredibly, Windermere Real Estate/Valley Inc.’s Owner Cate Moye was appointed to Washington State’s Real Estate Commission by Governor Chris Gregoire in November of 2006, nearly 3 years after the Spokesman-Review’s Granly article; and a period in which Windermere Owner Moye continued her profit on agent Granly. Internet archives show Granly's Windermere roster listing from 2003 through 2008. Before, during, and after his exposure as a convicted felon.
Windermere is adept at infecting government bureaucrats with “The Windermere Way”, and getting ethically questionable access to what’s going on in government agencies, who supposedly regulate the real estate industry and Windermere itself. But with 3 votes on the Washington State Real Estate Commission—plus an automatic DOL bureaucrat vote—one might think that Windermere Real Estate has undue influence over Washington State policy.
Why on earth is a real estate commission not comprised of ONE INDIVIDUAL FROM EACH REAL ESTATE COMPANY DOING BUSINESS IN WASHINGTON STATE?
Doesn't that seem eminently more fair?
copyright by: gmk/windermerewatch.com
If you have a Windermere story, question or comment, please email:
windermerewatch@aol.com