VISIT:
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 can happen to anyone who deals with Windermere. It could happen to you.
Of all real estate companies in the United States, the most unethical, dishonest, culturally toxic and predatory company is Windermere Real Estate. Windermere is truly AMERICA'S CRIMINAL REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISE because it deliberately and continually profits on brokers and agents that it already affirmatively knows have committed fraud, are unethical and dishonest. Even more criminal, when the victims of these corrupt Windermere brokers and agents—many of whom have had their entire lives ruined by Windermere fraud—complain publicly, and truthfully, about their Windermere experience, Windermere falsely sues the victim for libel and defamation to shut them up. Then Windermere makes illegal, intimidating and coercive attempts at getting the victim to sign away their constutionally protected speech rights in a "dark clause" settlement agreement, which requires the victim to be forever silent about Windermere's fraud.
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. Through an expensive and emotionally distressing roller coaster ride with Windermere's nasty, arrogant and predatory Demco lawyers, the victim is told they will be taken all the way to trial on the trumped-up charges, and if they don't sign the dark clause, their life and future will be ruined. But in truth, when trial draws near and the victim refuses to sign, Windermere runs away and voluntarily dismisses its own lawsuit—but only after costing the victim thousands to defend against it. All this distress and hassle IN ADDITION TO the victim's ORIGINAL Windermere fraud damage. Windermere is despicable, abusive, and corrupt; a chauvinistic corporate dinosaur bully.
Windermere is headquartered in Seattle, at franchiser Windermere Services Company. It is one our country's largest real estate firms with annual residential transactions in the multi-billions. Windermere was founded by John W. Jacobi, 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 called the Windermere Cup. But those are the disingenuous and cynical sideshows created by an adept market manipulator, shown only 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, and it will even stall settlement of 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 guarantee; an express and implied warranty in sales documents and on the internet, which 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 legal and internet strategy.
Effective reportage can often be indelicate when recounting facts, and it must be said, in consideration of all the Windermere victims listed here, who truly sought Windermere's vaunted honesty and integrity, that Windermere Services CEO Geoffrey P. Wood is a patent liar when he states his company's utterly 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 surely doesn't do what he says he's going to do—be committed to uncompromising honesty and integrity. He's IN the real estate business and his word is absolutely no good at all. He sues victims of Windermere fraud for trade libel and defamation to shut them up, and then he tries to use the legal system to suppress victims' speech rights when they ask him to ACTUALLY DO what he says 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 fraud and 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.
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.
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, Sued
for Fraud in Mysteriously Appearing “2nd Listing” Case
(Above L to R) Nate Scott, Windermere Anacortes Owner who says on his Windermere webpage "My dad stayed in Mount Vernon and continued running that office until last year when my brother Josh took over the reigns there, together we co-own and operate the two offices." Windermere Anacortes Sales Manager Colleen Craig says on her Windermere webpage "From first time buyers to large scale investors, we want to make sure you are well informed. This means more accurate pricing and no more throwing darts at a board." Windermere Anacortes Realtor Meredith Laws was also an alleged Exclusive Listing Agent for the subject Dunlap property.
Plaintiff Wendelin Dunlap of Skagit County, single mother of an autistic, special needs five year-old; and a Natural Spa & Body Care Products entrepreneur, filed a Complaint in NO: 09-2-00178-5 Skagit County Superior Court, against Windermere Real Estate / Anacortes; and Regal Hospitality, LLC, and naming as Defendants:
Nathan Scott, a licensed Washington State real estate broker; Owner and Branch Manager of Windermere Real Estate / Anacortes Properties / Terra Corp; Scott also co-owns Windermere Mt. Vernon, and;
Colleen Craig of Windermere Real Estate / Anacortes Properties, a licensed Washington State real estate salesperson, Windermere Anacortes Properties Sales Manager and;
Meredith Laws of Windermere Real Estate / Anacortes Properties, a licensed Washington State real estate salesperson, and;
Regal Hospitality, LLC, a Washington State limited liability company, 419 Commercial Ave., Anacortes, WA 98221; original borrower and seller of 401 Commercial Avenue, Anacortes, WA 98221, and;
Guy Davidson, Registered Agent of Regal Hospitality, LLC; and original Windermere Anacortes listing agent of 401 Commercial Avenue, Anacortes, WA 98221.
The Causes of Action In Dunlap’s Complaint, are:
FRAUD “… The Defendants, or their agents or employees, represented that they would sell the property composed of Seven Thousand Five Hundred (7,500) square feet as understood by Plaintiff. This was a representation of an existing material fact that the Defendants knew was false, that was in fact false, and that the Defendants, intended the Plaintiff to rely upon, knowing full well that the Plaintiff was not aware of the truth of the matter.”
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT “… During the course of their operation of the business, defendants, Scott and Davidson, engaged in an unfair or deceptive act or practice by representing to Plaintiff and by continuously failing to inform Plaintiff that the property did not include Three Thousand (3,000) square feet of the Seven Thousand Five Hundred (7,500) square feet the Plaintiff understood would be included in the transaction, and as per the listing.”
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) “… The Defendants failed to disclose to the Plaintiff that the property did not include Three Thousand (3,000) square feet of the Seven Thousand Five Hundred (7,500) square feet that the Plaintiff understood would be included in the transaction, knowing that the Plaintiff would be induced to to purchase the property.”
BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTIES PURSUANT TO RCW 18.86 et seq. AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE. “… Defendants Laws, Craig and Scott were negligent and breached their fiduciary duties of care owed to plaintiffs, including but not limited to the duty to exercise reasonable skill and care and to deal honestly and in good faith, and disclose material in violation of applicable common law and stautory duties.”
BREACH OF CONTRACT (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) "...Defendant Regal Hospitality, LLC is liable to the Plaintiff for breach of contract."
A Dream to Prosper and Grow in a Restored,
Classic Old Anacortes Building...
In her well-crafted 401 PRESENTATION.pdf that we recommend you download and read, Ms. Dunlap writes: “Preserving Old Town Anacortes — One Building at a Time. I purchased 401 Commercial with a dream… Finance an amazing architectural project saving one more original 1900’s building from destruction.” Dunlap was going to operate her rising products operation and produce rental income from the historic, old Anacortes edifice she purchased through Windermere Anacortes.
But, as it is in so many other cases of Windermere Real Estate’s dishonest and predatory conduct, Dunlap’s entire own financial freedom, investment bankroll, credit, health and bright future in business have been ruined by Windermere’s primary predatory tactic—commit the crime, unethical misconduct or misrepresentation FIRST, and then FORCE the damaged, unsuspecting Windermere client to sue and spend literally EVERYTHING they have chasing Windermere crooks through endless legal maneuvers and the bankrupting cost of civil dispute litigation. Through her ordeal, Dunlap has experienced serious health complications and the loss of funding for her autistic child’s special needs therapy. And if you’ve ever used our dysfunctional legal system, you’ll know that the unyielding stress associated with constant, emotionally grueling legal disputes will manifest in serious, personal health events.
Dunlap’s articulate and detailed evidentiary 401 Presentation recounts an elaborate and convoluted scheme to defraud her—after the actual purchase—out of 3,000 square feet from a commercial building transaction in which she thought she legally purchased a total of 7500 square feet. There are questions about Chicago Title’s role in the controversy, as well.
In July of 2008, Dunlap offered on a commercial listing by Windermere Anacortes Realtor Guy Davidson, at 401 Commercial Avenue in downtown Anacortes. Dunlap had previously done business with Defendants Nathan Scott, Colleen Craig, and Meredith Laws of Windermere Anacortes Properties, and “…trusted their level of professionalism so did not question when the Commercial Purchase and Sale Agreement (CIREPSA) did not contain a copy of the listing to initial.” She received a commitment for title insurance from Chicago Title and compared it with Skagit County Public Records, which agreed on both descriptions. She commissioned a survey of the property based on the commitment for title insurance and the Skagit County Public Records for her tax parcel, and the parcel she intended to buy was clearly staked by a surveyor. The survey was then provided to Windermere agents Laws/Craig, and Chicago Title during feasibility. The survey identified an encroachment of .12 to .10 inches onto Seller/Windermere Realtor/Regal Hospitality Agent Guy Davidson’s adjoining Majestic Inn property; and it also encroached the adjoining city owned property.
Ms. Dunlap received an easement prepared by Windermere Anacortes Agents Laws/Craig, Chicago Title, and the Owner/Seller/Windermere Commercial Realtor Guy Davidson. The purchase closed at the Chicago Title office on August 22nd of 2008, but on August 26th, Dunlap found cars parked on her property.
In an email, she notified Scott, Craig and Laws that “… Somebody might want to alert the Majestic that the property they sold for 550k is no longer theirs.” She was then informed for the first time that the advertised listing that prompted her offer was “…not supposed to be posted” and was ‘…supposed to have been removed from Windermere’s Commercial Web Site in 2007.” Yet the listing had still not been removed 5 days after her own closing. Windermere Anacortes’ Nate Scott confirmed that the listing had indeed been live [on the internet], but said it should have been cancelled. In what appears a ridiculous, gobbledygook, Realtor agglomeration dance of meaningless mumbo-jumbo, Nate Scott replied in the email, “Yes, the listing on that site, not controlled by us, was a listing of that property from 2006, cancelled in mid-2007. The new listing, WHICH ALSO SHOWED UP (Editor’s emphasis added.), was listed in early 2008 and had 4,500 sq ft, and was the listing that showed on any other site out there. We don’t know why the old listing didn’t come off that site, but have asked them to explain.” Scott concluded his email to Dunlap with, “…I understand this isn’t a great moment for you…”
Dunlap has proof that property owner/seller Guy Davidson was managing a CBA listing for the property on 1/24/08, with an expiration date of 9/30/08. In fact, there is also evidence that Davidson updated the listing on 8/26/08 to reflect its having been sold on 8/22/98. Yet Guy Davidson denied under oath to having managed the listing at all. Dunlap was further informed that the word “partial” was inserted after the tax parcel number in the Purchase Agreement Legal Description, and was intended to inform her that the tax parcel would be subdivided upon closing to convey 3,000 square feet less than was advertised. In her presentation, Dunlap states “I was Informed for the 1st Time that: 3. Allegedly a ‘Revised Commitment for Title Insurance’ was created on July 14th 2008 to correct errors I found 8 DAYS BEFORE I RECEIVED THE PRELIMINARY COMMITMENT.” (Editor’s emphasis added.)
In a questionable Declaration—the unsworn Declaration being one of Windermere’s most dubious, murky tools—Chicago Title’s Mary Mansfield spontaneously and mysteriously declares, “The legal description in that Preliminary Title Commitment was in error and was subsequently corrected.”
Dunlap found Chicago Title’s amended commitment lacked several components. And Interestingly, the amended Second Commitment For Title Insurance was signed not by the prior Title Officer, Kauleen Shelton—who signed Dunlap’s initial Commitment For Title Insurance—but by an individual about whom Dunlap was later told by Chicago Title Escrow Officer Mary Mansfield, did not work there anymore—Mansfield told Dunlap she could not divulge the mystery individual’s contact information because it was none of her business and not part of her sale; Mansfield said that the employee had been terminated and there was no contact information available.
Dunlap’s closing agreement and escrow instructions made no mention of a Second Commitment for Title Insurance, but instead referenced the Preliminary Commitment for Title Insurance. She was then presented with a SUPPLEMENT to the closing agreement and escrow instructions on August 27th, 2008—five days after closing—and the supplement only referenced the Preliminary Commitment for Title Insurance. So the obvious question arises: Why, at that late date, wouldn’t the supplement reflect the alleged Second Commitment for Title Insurance which was created on July 14th, 2008?
Sellers and Dunlap were both required to initial provision 3, specifically reiterating that the contract was based on the Preliminary Commitment for Title Insurance. Also on August 27, 2008, Dunlap was informed for the for the first time that her Windermere agents Meredith Laws and Colleen Craig were alleged to be the “Exclusive Listing Agents for the Property"—dual agency requiring disclosure by law, but not disclosed to Dunlap. Windermere Anacortes Realtor and Majestic/Regal Registered Agent Seller Guy Davidson was represented as the listing agent on all advertisements Dunlap had ever seen. In research, she established that Laws/Craig had an on-and-off history with the property in question. Evidence shows that a 2006 listing of the 401 Commercial property was listed with Laws/Craig, and then apparently transferred to Nate Scott the same day.
Also on August 27, 2008, Dunlap says she was informed that her Purchase Agreement was allegedly drafted from a “2nd LISTING FOR THE PROPERTY (CONTAINING 4500 SQ FT LESS LAND) (Editor’s emphasis added.) even though it was never represented to me before closing, not included as part of the Purchase Agreement & not made available to the public.” No copy of the listing, copy of the deed, or official representation was included as part of her purchase agreement.
In a Memorandum in support of her claims filed with the court, Ms. Dunlap states “Chicago Title has refused to honor the Title Insurance citing the creation of a fraudulent ‘Second Commitment for Title Insurance’ allegedly created on July 14th 2008 because of the error I discovered on Augiust 21st 2008 — which seems physically impossible without the aid of time travel.”
Time travel or not, Windermere and Demco Law will no-doubt trek all the way up to the state supreme court, in an effort to prove H. G. Wells’ Time Machine is a real contraption of which Windermere Real Estate / Anacortes Properties, Chicago Title, and Guy Davidson have all availed themselves of while dealing with Wendelin Dunlap of Skagit County. To really understand this complicated Windermere case, we again recommend Ms. Dunlap’s 401 Presentation. Litigation is ongoing in this case, and Dunlap lists her total damages at $1,346,121.86.
Just by forcing an unsuspecting, victimized Windermere client through our expensive, unjust, and corrupt legal system, Public Predator Windermere Real Estate has interrupted and ruined yet another innocent individual’s happy and healthy life. Windermere personnel intially strike unsuspecting consumers first by committing these outrageous schemes and ethical crimes, while the victims are then forced by Windermere to chase their crooks through the courts for years. Then Windermere goes right on collecting commissions and fees from those very agents, brokers, and franchise owners which it already knows affirmatively are unethical and dishonest real estate people.
Don’t let it happen to you. If your're currently doing business with Windermere through any office in any state where Windermere operates, protect your life and assets by cancelling or not renewing your Windermere listing. If you're considering doing business with Windermere at any time in the future, consider very, very carefully. (Back to top.)
_____________________________________________________
Windermere Freeland Agents Saul and
Gabelein’s Abuse of a Vulnerable Adult
(Above L to R) Onetime Windermere Freeland Agents Samantha Saul, Linda Gabelein, and Windermere Freeland Broker Barbara Mearing , about whom... "The court gives Ms. Mearing's testimony little weight."
What follows here is perhaps the single most despicable example of Windermere Real Estate’s shamelessly persistent and egregious contempt for the justice system, human decency, and not to mention, 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 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..."
(Above L to R) Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group Realtor Mary Liese is alleged to have made "discriminatory statements" like "we prefer people 55 and over" to an IFHC tester (Intermountain Fair Housing Council), and then specifically pointed out "...that the complex does not have a playground." Ms. Liese's Windermere web page says "Mary Liese knows from firsthand experience the "good" and the "bad" of buying and selling real estate. Having moved several times from state to state and going through numerous real estate transactions..." Windermere Capital Group's President and Broker Steve Osburn says on his Windermere web page, "The interesting thing about choosing a real estate agent is unlike almost any other industry-you don`t pay extra for quality. In fact, you pay less. Think about it: The agents who cost you money are the ones who aren`t up to date on the latest laws and market trends, the ones who don`t maximize your money and honor the emotion you pour into your home, the ones who treat real estate like a part-time job." WindermereWatch can't help but pinpoint an obvious question that Mr. Osburn's promotion evokes: Isn't his VERY OWN agent, Mary Liese, one of those costly agents who who isn't quite up to date on the latest laws—like the Civil Rights Act of 1968? And speaking about being "...up to date on the latest laws," Mr. Osburn and the Windermere Capital Group are also being sued by the State of Idaho Industrial Commission.
Windermere Real Estate, the nation’s most corrupt, predatory and consumer-abusive real estate company, has been sued for violating the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act is Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap. (Access the Complaint here.)
The Complaint was filed in United States District for the District of Idaho on October 15, 2009, by the Intermountain Fair Housing Council, Plaintiff; against Orchards at Fairview Condominium Association, Inc., and Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group, Inc., Defendants.
Under “NATURE OF THIS ACTION” the Complaint in states:
“1. This is an action brought by the above-named Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, permanent injunctive relief and damage on the following bases:
a. Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. (hereinafter “FHA’), and in particular:
i. Discrimination in the sale or rental, or otherwise made available, a dwelling because of “familial status” and “handicap”, 42 U.S.C. §3604;
ii. Discriminatory terms, conditions or privileges in the sale or rental of a dwelling because of “familial status” and “handicap”, 42 U.S.C. §3604;
iii. Making, printing or publishing a notice or statement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates a preference, limitation or discrimination based on “familial status” and “handicap”, 42 U.S.C. §3604; and
vi. Interference, coercion or intimidation, 42 U.S.C. §3617.
b. Fair Housing Regulations, 24 C.F.R. §100 et seq.”
Under “PARTIES” the Complaint in part states:
1. The Defendant Orchards at Fairview Condominium Association, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Orchards”), is a business organized under the laws and doing business in the State of Idaho. Its principal place of business is 6855 Fairview Avenue, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83704. The Defendant Orchards is the condominium association which manages and maintains the Orchards at Fairview Condominiums (hereinafter “the Subject Property”), the real property that is the subject of this proceeding and which is located at 1530 North McKinney Lane, Boise, Idaho 83704.
5. The Defendant Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Windermere”) is a business organized under the laws and doing business in the State of Idaho. Its principal place of business is 501 Front Street, Boise, Idaho 83702. The Defendant Windermere is the real estate firm which handled the sale of units at the Subject Property.”
Under “GENERAL ALLEGATIONS” the Complaint in PART states:
“15. Richard Mabbutt, Executive Director of the Plaintiff, was contacted by Michael Dixon, agent for the Defendant Orchards, who requested a meeting to discuss the matter. Mr. Mabbutt met with Mr. Dixon and his associate Mary Givens at 802 West Bannock, Boise, Idaho on or about the 6th day of December, 2005. At said meeting, Mr. Dixon asserted that the use of the term “empty nester” in the Idaho Statesman newspaper article was the reporter’s choice of words. Mr. Dixon explicitly stated that the Subject Property is not intended to be an age-restricted community and that it will be open to families with minor children. He claimed that the Subject Property will contain a playground, although it was observed that the site plans did not contain any such fixture. Mr. Mabbutt explicitly warned the representatives of the Defendant Orchards present at the meeting that the use of the word “adult” in their advertising and other materials will violate the FHA. Said meeting lasted approximately one hour.
16. On or about the 14th day of May, 2007, Mr. Mabbutt observed a sign at the Subject Property which described the property as an “active adult condominium community”.
17. The Plaintiff began testing the Subject Property to determine whether there continues to be a pattern of discriminatory conduct with regards to said real property. On or about the 16th day of May, 2007, an IFHC tester met with Mary Liese, an agent for the Defendant Windermere, at the Subject Property. Ms. Liese made discriminatory statements to the IFHC tester, such as “we prefer people 55 and over” and specifically pointed out that the complex does not have a playground. Ms. Liese provided to the IFHC tester a document entitled “Commonly Asked Questions on Condominium Ownership”, which describes the rules of the Subject Property. Said rules expressly prohibit swing sets, unaccompanied minor children using the pool, and children and teenage parties at the community center.
18. On or about the 23rd day of May, 2007, the Plaintiff sent another tester to the Subject Property. Said IFHC tester was provided with the same materials as the first IFHC tester. In addition, the second IFHC tester requested and received from the Defendant Windermere a copy of the “Condominium Declaration and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the McKinney Condominiums” (hereinafter “Condominium Declaration”) (which expressly provides that said condominiums are “commonly referred to and known as ‘The Orchards at Fairview’ ”). Said Condominium Declaration contains discriminatory statements, including the prohibition of “group homes. . .or any similar type of lodging, care or treatment facility.” The Defendant Windermere has continued to disseminate discriminatory materials regarding the Subject Property and the Defendant Orchards failed to rescind the discriminatory statements contained in said Condominium Declaration.”
The Complaint Charges the Defendants with:
“COUNT ONE—DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF “FAMILIAL STATUS”
21. The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-20 above.
22. The Defendants have discriminated in the terms, conditions and privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, and the provision of services and facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of “familial status”. 42 U.S.C. §3604(b). Such conduct is willful and intentional.
COUNT TWO—DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF “HANDICAP”
23. The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-22 above.
24. The Defendants have discriminated in the sale or rental of, and otherwise made unavailable and denied, a dwelling on the basis of “handicap”. 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(1). Such conduct is willful and intentional.
25. The Defendants have discriminated in the terms, conditions and privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling, and the services and facilities in connection therewith, on the basis of “handicap”. 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(2). Such conduct is willful and intentional.
COUNT THREE—DISCRIMINATORY NOTICE OR STATEMENT
26. The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-25 above.
27. The Defendants have made, print or published a notice or statement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates a preference, limitation and discrimination on the basis of “familial status” and “handicap”. 42 U.S.C. §3604(c). Such conduct is willful and intentional.
COUNT FOUR—INTERFERENCE, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION
28. The Plaintiff realleges and herein incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-27 above.
29. The Defendants have engaged in coercion, intimidation or interference in the exercise or enjoyment of rights granted by 42 U.S.C. §§3603 and 3604.”
_____________________________________________________
Windermere Real Estate Capital Group, President Steve Osburn, Sued by State of Idaho Ex Rel Industrial Commission
The public record reports on June 8, 2010, a New Case Filed – Other Claims; Complaint Filed; (2) Summons Filed in Case: CV-OC-2010-11422; brought before Judge Patricia Young.
Defendants: Osburn, Steven A Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group Inc.
Plaintiffs: State Of Idaho Ex Rel Industrial Commission
The State of Idaho Industrial Commission is responsible for:
• Regulating workers’ compensation activities in Idaho, including companies licensed to issue workers’ compensation policies. • Settling disputes between injured worked and insurers. • Deciding appeals for unemployment decisions from the Idaho Department of Labor. • Ensuring that employers have workers’ compensation coverage as required by law. • Providing compensation to innocent victims of crime through the Crime Victims Compensation Program.
Ex Rel, the abbreviated form of "ex relatione" means "upon relation or report." Legal proceedings which are initiated "ex rel." are brought in the name of the state but on the information and at the instigation of a private individual with a private interest in the outcome.
The Complaint will be posted here when obtained. (Back WindermereWatch top)
_____________________________________________________
Windermere Real Estate Capital Group's President Steve Osburn, Federal Tax Lien of $254,170.96
The Idaho Business Review Blog has reported in part that under FEDERAL TAX LIENS-Week of 6/14/10, in Ada County (Idaho):
"Listed are filed Federal Tax Liens. Listings include individual or business, address, amount, file number.
OSBURN, Steven, 501 Front St, Boise, $254,170.96, 110043933"
_____________________________________________________
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.
(Above L to R) Lying, concealing Windermere Northeast Thief and Rathouse peddler George Rudiger; some of the envidentiary rats Rudiger was hiding; Windermere Northeast Broker-Owner Joan Whittaker photo unavailable. Rudiger and Whittaker are both still generating commissions for Windermere Services Company.
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 and 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, or from 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."
JEFFREY C. MIRSEPASY (LEFT) PRESSES FOR MORE MONEY JUST BEFORE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, THEN REFUSES TO APPEAR FOR THE MOTION AT ALL, AND QUITS HIS CLIENT ENTIRELY—AFTER TAKING $40,000! HIRE MIRSEPASY AND YOU'RE CUTTING YOU'RE OWN LEGAL THROAT...
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. The Complaint Kruger bought from Mirsepasy was so slapdash and poorly written that it did not contain any of Windermere's statutory violations, and it had never even been amended to include the subsequent fraudulent misrepresentation of Rudiger/Whittaker/Windermere lies and denial. Ironically, if Mirsepasy just had the loyalty—and decency, AFTER TAKING $40,000 —to appear and defend the one, single, twenty-minute motion which would’ve forced Wndermere to trial, Kruger’s future and finances might have been saved. In the end, Mirsepasy deliberately ruined his own client's case out of greed and lack of humanity. 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 they 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 Real Estate/East (aka Windermere Bellevue West), and its agent Maria Danieli, Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties and Negligent Misrepresentation in multi-parcel, water access case
(Above) Windermere Real Estate East's agent Maria Danieli, who says on her Windermere web page, "Let Maria's commitment and expertise help you to achieve your own, personal real esate goals!"
A COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND TO QUIET TITLE was e-filed in King County Superior Court on June 1, 2010, in case number 10-2-19549-1, by REDMOND-FALL CITY LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and ELAINE COLES, a single individual, Plaintiffs; against MARIA DANIELI, INC., a Washington corporation; MARIA DANIELI, individually, and the marital community composed of MARIA DANIELI and JEFF KRUEGER; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/EAST, Inc., aka WINDERMERE BELLEVUE WEST, a Washington corporation; MICHAEL S. and JILL M. PHILPOTT, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof; and ROBERT J. and SHARMA L. BOSTWICK, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Defendants.
Under “I. PARTIES” the Complaint states in part:
1.3 Maria Danieli, Inc., (“MDI”) was at all times relevant to this action a EWashington corporation engaged in providing real estate brokerage services and with its principal place of business in King County, Washington.
1.4 Defendant Maria Danieli was at all times relevant to this action a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Washington working for and/or under the auspices of MDI and Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc. Ms. Danieli is married to Jeff Krueger and resides in King County, Washington. All of Ms. Danieli’s acts or omissions alleged herein were undertaken on behalf of herself individually, her marital community, MDI, and Windermere Real estate/East, Inc.
1.5 Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc., aka Windermere Bellevue West (“Windermere”), was at all time relevant to this action a Washington cor[popration engaged in providing real estate brokerage services and with its principal place of business at 11100 Main Street, Suite 200, Bellevue, King County, Washington, 98004.
1.6 Ms. Danieli, MDI and Windermere are collectively referred to herein as “the Windermere Defendants.”
Under “III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS” the Complaint in part continues:
3.3 When RFC owned the entire Property, a water line originating at SE 40th Street ran north across Parcel 4 onto Parcel 3 and then angled onto Parcel 2 to supply water to Parcel 2.
3.4 After Ms. Coles met Ms. Danieli, Ms. Danieli portrayed herself as an experienced expert in acreage parcels, country estates, equestrian facilities and other luxury properties. Ms. Danieli claimed to have experience and expertise in subdividing and parceling off larger properties like RFC’s and in selling off the resulting parcels. At the suggestion and urging of Ms. Danieli, Ms. Coles and RFC agreed to sell of the westmost parcel of the property (“Parcel 1”) to the Cowens on or about August 31, 2006. Ms. Danieli served a dule-agency role in that transaction, acting a both seller’s agent and buyer’s agent.
3.5 After the Cowen sale, Ms. Danieli encouraged Ms. Coles and RFC to sell off more of the Property. Ms. Dabieli told Ms. Coles that $850,000 was good price for Parcel 3 and that $350,000 was a good price for Parcel 4. Ms. Danieli brought Ms. Coles an offer from the Philpotts for those two parcels at those prices. When Ms. Coles expressed reservations, Ms. Danieli assured Ms. Coles that the proposed Purchase and Sale Agreements were only place-holders to allow negotiations to continue, that there were plenty of contingencies and that she (Ms. Coles) could get out of the deals if she wanted to.
3.6 In Light of and in reliance on Ms. Danieli’s assurances and other representations, Ms. Coles executed Purchase and Sale Agreements with the Phillpotts for Parcels 3 and 4 for $850,000 and $350,000, respectively, on or about June 5, 2007. UNBEKNOWNST TO RFC AND MS. COLES, MS. DANIELI HAD ATTACHED AN INCORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL 3, THE PROPOSED PURCHASE PRICES WERE TOO LOW AND RFC AND MS. COLES WERE NOT ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE DEALS. (Editor’s emphasis added) The Philpotts closed their purchase of Parcel 4 on or about August 28, 2007.
3.7 By an Addendum/Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated September 21 and 25, 2007, the Philpott’s rights and obligations under the Purchase and Sale Agreement to purchase Parcel e for $850,000 were assigned to the Bostwicks.
3.8 Throughout these transactions, Ms. Danieli continued to act as dual agent to buyer and seller. Ms. Danieli knew and acknowledged that Ms. Coles and RFC intended to keep Parcel 2 and subdivide and develop it. Ms. Danieli also knew that access to water was necessary for development of Parcel 2 and that such access needed to be preserved. Nevertheless, in advising Plaintiffs and serving as seller’s agent, Ms. Danieli failed to ensure that a water easement was expressly reserved in the relevant documents and failed to advise Plaintiffs to obtain other counsel or expertise regarding water access.
3.12 On information and belief, the Phillpotts and Bostwicks subsequently reached an agreement pursuant to which the Philpotts moved the then-existing water line but continued to provide water to the Bostwicks on Parcel 3. The new water line does not provide water to Parcel 2.
The Complaint’s Causes of Action state in part:
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION —THE WINDERMERE DEFENDANTS’ BREACHES OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
4.2 As licensed real estate salespeople, agents and brokers, by state statute (RCW 18.86) and by common law, Ms. Danieli, MDI and Windermere owed fiduciary duties as seller’s agents to Plaintiffs. In her acts and omissions as dual agent in the sales of Parcel 3 and Parcel 4 to the Philpotts and the Bostwicks, respectively, Ms. Danieli, individually and as a representative of MDI and Windermere, fell beneath the standard of care for real estate licensees in the State of Washington and breached the Windermere Defendants’ fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs.
V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION—THE WINDERMERE DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
5.2 Through Ms. Danieli’s acts and omissions described above, on her own behalf and on behalf of MDI and Windermere, the Windermere Defendants are guilty of negligent misrepresentation towards Plaintiffs.
Readers are reminded that a civil complaint is an allegation only, and in no way establishes guilt or innocence of any party.
_____________________________________________________
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 L to R) Windermere Defendant Dan Dennis says on his Windermere web page, “By providing reliable and reputable customer service we are committed 100% to YOU,” and “Teaming my business with Cheryl Crutcher, we have committed to operating our business on the basis of outstanding service…” AMERCO’S Complaint states, “Dan Dennis supplied false information to AMERCO…” ; John A. Tidwell, Manager, Owner and Designated Broker of Windermere West Campus doesn’t post his picture on his Windermere web page, opting for this trust-inspiring anonymous silhouette-head instead, but Tidwell nonetheless states “Our agents far exceed the industry norm with more years in the profession…” and “We deliver knowledgeable, current, accurate service to each and every client all the time.” Perhaps the “current and accurate service” Mr. Tidwell’s AMERCO client got was just a tad out of whack.
A Complaint was filed on November 7, 2007, in the United States District Court For The Western District Of Washington At Seattle, by AMERCO REAL ESTATE COMPANY, Plaintiff, against The Estate Of Harvey L. Grohs and Wilma J. Grohs; Larry L. Grohs; Riva Grohs Bjorklund; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE WEST, INC., and DAN DENNIS, as an individual and as an agent of Windermere Real Estate/West Campus, Inc., Defendants. (Access the Complaint here.)
Under “IV. FACTS” the Complaint in part states:
12. AMERCO Real Estate Company (“AMERCO”) functions as the real estate arm of its parent company AMERCO (“AMERCO Parent”), also the parent of U-Haul International, Inc..
14. In early February of 2007, AMERCO made an offer to purchase one parcel of real property and acquire the right of first refusal on another parcel of real property owned by the Sellers.
15. The purpose of AMERCO’S effort to acquire the real property was for the construction of commercial facilities for U-Haul storage and truck rentals and retail sales.
16. Windernere Real Estate/West Campus, Inc. and Dan Dennis served as Sellers’ agents in the transaction for the property at issue.
17. Defendants were aware of AMERCO’S intended use of the property.
21. Prior to the parties entering into the Agreement, Sellers and their agents represented to AMERCO, orally and in writing, that the real property at issue was located within the City of Kent.
22. The Agreement entered into by the parties describes the real property at issue as located within the City of Kent.
23. Pursuant to the Agreement, AMERCO conducted due diligence regarding the property at issue including, but not limited to, title commitment, Alta survey, environmental assessment, site plan development, and a review of the DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY DEFENDANTS. (Editor’s emphasis added)
24. The documents provided by Defendants for AMERCO’S review indicate that the property at issue IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF KENT. (Editor’s emphasis added)
26. On July 5, 2007, the Feasibility Expiration Date set forth in the Agreement, AMERCO approved a portion of its earnest money deposit, in the amount of $100,000 to be released to Sellers. An additional $100,000 of AMERCO’S earnest money deposit remains in escrow.
27. The Agreement was amended by the parties on August 13, 2007,
28. On August 14, 2007, during a Pre-Application meeting with the city of Kent, AMERCO’S representative was informed—for the first time—that a portion of the property at issue IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF DES MOINES (Editor’s emphasis added) rather than within the City of Kent as represented by Defendants.
30. City of Kent officials informed AMERCO’S representative that TWO OTHER ENTITIES HAD PREVIOUSLY ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE (Editor’s emphasis added) from Sellers and had abandoned their purchase attempts, in part due to intra-jurisdictional issues.
31. City of Des Moines officials have informed AMERCO that the proposed use of the property for storage facilities WILL NOT BE APPROVED AND THAT THE CITY OF DES MOINES WILL DENY A VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THAT USE.
32. City od Des Moines officials have informed AMERCO that they previously met with Harvey Grohs to discuss difficulties he or future purchasers of the property would face in developing it.
35. On October 30, 2007, AMERCO terminated the Agreement based on Seller’s breach of representations and warranties in the Agreement and demanded return of the earnest money deposit, including the portion released to Sellers. SELLERS HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THIS REQUEST. (Editor’s emphasis added)
Causes of Action are:
V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Concealment of Misrepresentation of Material Term and Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
(As to Sellers)
38. Sellers knew or should have known that a portion of the property was within the City of Des Moines.
VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
(As to Sellers)
45. Sellers AND THEIR AGENTS (Editor’s emphasis added) represented to AMERCO. both orally and in writing, that the property at issue was located in the City of Kent. SELLERS’ AGENTS MADE WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS on Sellers’ behalf that the property at issue was located in Kent in at least two letters conveying counter-offers to AMERCO’S letters of intent in February 2007. Sellers made further representations that the property at issue was located in Kent in the Agreement itself.
48. Sellers AND THEIR AGENTS KNEW THAT THE REAL PROPERTY WAS LOCATED IN BOTH THE CITY OF KENT AND THE CITY OF DES MOINES. (Editor’s emphasis added)
VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(As to Sellers)
55. Sellers will be unjustly enriched if they are permitted to retain funds released to them in reliance on their misrepresentations.
VIII FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(As to Windermere Real Estate/West Campus, Inc. and Dan Dennis)
58. In the course of their business or employment and with a pecuniary interest in the outcome, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/WEST CAMPUS INC. AND DAN DENNIS SUPPLIED FALSE INFORMATION TO AMERCO IN ITS BUSINESS TRANSACTION, (Editor’s emphasis added) and caused AMERCO pecuniary loss due to its justifiable reliance on that false information. Windermere Real Estate/West Campus, Inc. and Dan Dennis further failed to exercise reasonable care in communicating the information to AMERCO.
The Parties filed a STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL on February 7, 2008. (Access the Windermere Answer here.)
_____________________________________________________
Windermere Agent Recommends Rookie
Inspector Who Misses Toxic Mold
(Above) Judy Bigelow, agent for Windermere Real Estate / West Sound, Silverdale. Bigelow was the agent in the McCormick case below, and still represents Windermere
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
(Above) Now gone but not forgotten: Lance Miller from Windermere Real Estate/Allen & Associates
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 Pelascini’s
Foreclosure Rescue Ripoff Scam
(Above) Windermere Bellevue Commons Associate Broker Dick 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 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 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 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 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. (Read the Court's opinion here.)
______________________________________________________
The Starbucks Coffee / Windermere Real Estate Relocation Rape Case:
Court Declares that Windermere "...condoned a rape by a business colleague..."
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 and the courts to avoid any legal responsibility.
Windermere CEO Geoff Wood (left) is listed as a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation. 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 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.
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. (Back to top.)
______________________________________________________
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 abureaucrat 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?
______________________________________________________
Windermere SCA Realtor Paul Stickney’s
Hidden Conflict of Interest
(Above) Windermere SCA Conflict of Interest Hider Paul Stickney
Mark and Carol DeCoursey of Redmond, Washington, have also been recipients of Windermere’s Dark Clause, including the outrageous, speech-suppressing language “The DeCourseys agree that they shall not communicate with any person about their dispute with Windermere unless asked, and if asked, will state only that they have resolved their claim to their satisfaction.” (DeCoursey Dark Clause here.)
The DeCourseys were shopping for a home in Washington just as the market was really heating up in 2003. In April of 2004, they began dealing with Windermere Real Estate/SCA Realtor Paul Stickney. Stickney formulated a home purchase and renovation combo deal, and connected DeCourseys with a construction company whose work he had known of for years, and contended was “…the best.” Stickney did not inform DeCourseys just how well acquainted he actually was with the construction company’s president; that his knowledge of the company’s expertise was limited to light remodeling, like carpet and paint; or that Stickney himself was a 20% shareholder in the company and its registered vice president. Stickney was also indebted for over $150,000 on a land speculation venture with the construction company’s president, and they were behind in payments. Their renovation receipts were often used to keep the loan current.
Because of the contractor’s incompetence and Stickney’s undisclosed conflict of interest, the DeCourseys’ home and finances were irrevocably damaged. Along with myriad other blunders, a bathtub had been electrified with enough voltage to cause death—110 VAC. The DeCourseys have testified that without all of Stickney’s stealthy misrepresentations, they would never have purchased the home. Windermere wouldn’t resolve DeCourseys’ dilemma affably, of course, and insisted that they sue or go away, so years of litigation commenced, further jeopardizing DeCourseys’ home and financial future. In a convoluted legal action, DeCourseys were cast as defendants, cross-claimants, and third party plaintiffs. A trial court found in their favor and against Windermere, awarding them $1.03 million in damages and legal expenses. Windermere appealed the decision, disputing facts established by a jury, so it argued that Stickney’s actions were permitted by law; and also that the trust DeCourseys originally placed in Stickney was their own error. The appeal is pending, and if Windermere does not get the favorable decision it seeks, the case will likely go to the supreme court.
Meanwhile, Windermere still profits on Conflict of Interest Hider Paul Stickney.
______________________________________________________
Washington State Representative Marcie Maxwell was a Windermere Associate Broker who never revealed her knowledge of a home’s septic system defects…
(Above) Washington State Representative and Windermere Associate Broker Marcie Maxwell
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.
From the Parry complaint:
“STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. On January 16, 1995, plaintiff executed a purchase and sale agreement for the purchase of a residence located at 7618 S. Langton Road in Seattle. She was represented by Marcie Maxwell, an associate broker employed by defendant Windermere.
5. At the time that plaintiff executed the purchase and sale agreement, she was provided with a disclosure form (PSMLA Form No. 17) which had been completed by the seller, indicating that the residence was condemned “prior to 1979” due to a failure of the septic system but that there had been no further problem following the installation of a large interceptor trench. The disclosure form also indicated that the septic system, including the drainfield, was located entirely within the property upon which the residence was located.
6. The purchase and sale agreement provided that the septic tank serving the property would be “inspected by King County prior to closing and at seller’s expense”.
7. Plaintiff’s purchase of the residence closed on or about February 20, 1995. She never received confirmation that the septic system had been inspected by the County, as provided in the purchase and sale agreement.
8. Plaintiff began noticing offensive odors emanating from the ground surrounding her home in the spring of 1995.
9. In July, 1997, plaintiff hired a septic tank contractor to pump the septic tank and evaluate its condition. She was informed that the existing system could not be repaired.
10. Plaintiff commissioned a proposed design for a replacement septic system, but the proposed design was rejected by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health on August 25th, 1997. According to the notice of rejection, “[g]iven the site constraints of the steep slope, the reported natural springs and the limited area for a ‘repair’, it is not possible for a system to meet current code requirements.”
11. Meanwhile, in the process of investigating the matter with the Department of Health, plaintiff discovered that an inspection of the septic system had been performed by the County on December 13, 1994—a full month prior to her offer to purchase the residence. The inspection report revealed that:
12. At the time that the County inspection report was completed in December 1994, a copy was provided to the previous owner of the residence. On information and belief, additional copies of the report were provided to the seller’s real estate agent, to plaintiff’s lender, and to defendant Windermere.
13. Despite defendant Windermere’s notice of the County inspection and report, and despite defendant’s actual possession of a copy of that report, plaintiff never received a copy from defendant.
14. Because of the failing septic tank system, plaintiff must now bear the expense of having the septic tank serviced, on average, once every other month. The value of her residence is severely diminished, and she has been informed that her home may be declared unfit for habitation.”
As has been reported elsewhere, when Parry sued, the summons and complaint were served on a Windermere brokerage at its correct physical address, and then conveyed to the Demco Law Firm. As the case went forward, Matthew Davis timely signed a joinder form stating that “all parties have been served.” He cunningly proceeded through discovery activities and other court functions relative to the case to make it appear he was conducting earnest representation. Davis then moved for summary judgment just weeks before trial, alleging that the defendant had not been properly served. The court reviewed evidence demonstrating that in the period of time between Parry’s home sale and the serving of process, Marcie Maxwell’s Windermere brokerage, Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc., had moved away from the address of service, and another Windermere brokerage, Windermere Real Estate/Renton had newly occupied the very same address. The court dismissed Parry’s case on summary judgment, despite Davis/Windermere’s earlier joinder claim that “all parties have been served.” During the interim, the statute of limitations for proceeding against THE CORRECT Windermere brokerage had expired. In an appeal, the dismissal was affirmed, and the supreme court refused to review the case.
But—as in so many Windermere cases—none of those technicalities and legal shenanigans change the facts of Representative Marcie Maxwell’s concealing conduct in concert with Windermere. Meanwhile, Maxwell is still hawking "Seller Representation...Buyer Agency...Relocation...Investments" (cached) with Lisa Lam.
copyright by: windermerewatch.com
If you have a Windermere story, question or comment, please email:
windermerewatch@aol.com