"We are committed to: The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." —The Windermere Mission Statement "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." —Windermere CEO Geoff Wood's Public Affirmation
________________________________
Windermere-Demco Never Settles…
Csaba Kiss at Windermere Real Estate/East (aka Windermere Bellevue West) was “…far more inclined to let a court decide” the Popchois warranty rights “than to spend money to settle” the Popchois warranty claim."
(Above) Windermere Real Estate East Associate Broker Csaba Kiss.
YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT A WINDERMERE ASSOCIATE BROKER MIGHT BE DOING...
This taken straight from No. 07-2-08247-6 SEA "Defendants Popchois' Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims and Third Party Claims"
D. THIRD PARTY CLAIM
1. THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF. Ivan G. Popchoi and Varvara M. Popchoi, husband and wife, purchased the real property legally described in Exhibit A to this Third Party Complaint from Csaba Kiss, pursuant to a Statutory Warranty Deed.
2. THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT. Third Party Defendant Csaba Kiss is a single person who sold the real property to the Popchois legally described in the Exhibit A to this Third Party Complaint, by Statutory Warranty, dated May 4, 2006. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Csaba Kiss has been a sophisticated, professional real estate sales person.
3. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIRD PARTY CLAIM.
3.1 On May 4, 2006, Csaba Kiss conveyed the real property legally described in Exhibit A to this Third Party Complaint to Ivan and Varvara Popchoi by Statutory Warranty deed, which stated, in part, that Csaba Kiss “conveys and warrants” the legally described property to Ivan G. and Varvara M. Popchoi. At the time that he signed the Statutory Warranty Deed, Csaba Kiss knew from the sale negotiations that the Popchois purchased the property to build a new home on it, then to sell the property after a year.
3.2 The real property that Csaba Kiss warranted and conveyed to Ivan and Varvara Popchoi includes the real property to which Plaintiffs Edmondson claim ownership by adverse possession.
3.3 To satisfy City of Bellevue requirements for developing the real property, the Popchois had their property surveyed and had the surveyor stake the boundaries at the corners. On August 18, 2006, shortly after the surveyor had completed staking the corner boundaries of the lot, the Edmondsons’ attorney, Joshua Sundt, notified the Popchois by letter that the Edmondsons’ claimed ownership by adverse possession of a portion of the property that Csaba Kiss had conveyed to the Popchois’ by Statutory Warranty deed.
3.4 The Popchois retained attorney David Paul Williams to advise them concerning the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim and to assert their rights under the Statutory Warranty Deed. Mr. Williams promptly notified Csaba Kiss of the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim by letter, dated August 31 2006, a true and correct copy of which is attached to this Third Party Complaint as Exhibit B. The letter was sent to Mr. Kiss by first class mail, and also by certified mail, return receipt requested.
3.5 Mr. Wlliams’ August 31, 2006 letter to Csaba Kiss advised Mr. Kiss that time was of the essence in eliminating the Edmondsons’ claim because the foundation of the Popchois’ new residence was scheduled to be poured the following week. Mr. Williams’ letter urged Mr. Kiss that, under warranty, Mr. Kiss would be liable for the Popchois’ attorneys fees in responding to the adverse possession claim and requested that Mr. Kiss keep attorney Williams apprised of Mr. Kiss’s efforts to resolve the Edmondsons’ claims so that the Popchois’ attorneys fees may be kept to a minimum.
3.6 By letter dated September 6, 2006, Mr. Williams notified Csaba Kiss that the Popchois had delayed pouring the foundation for the residence to September 11, 2006 to allow Mr. Kiss additional time to resolve the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim. Mr. Williams further stated that “no further delays can be expected as every day of delay costs my clients money. All consequences of any failure to act on your part rest solely with you.”
3.7 Csaba Kiss failed to respond to David Williams’ letters, so Mr. Williams personally undertook negotiations with Joshua Sundt, the Edmondsons’ attorney, to reach a negotiated resolution of the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim. By letter to Csaba Kiss dated October 6, 2006, Mr. Williams notified Mr. Kiss that the Edmondsons had been unwilling to accept any of Mr. Williams’ offers to resolve their adverse possession claim by agreement and that the Popchois were asserting claims against Mr. Kiss for “Breach of one or more warranties given when you conveyed the property to my clients.” Mr. Williams’ letter urged Mr. Kiss once again to retain an attorney to take steps to cure his breaches of warranty and title by purchasing whatever property rights the Edmondsons claim. Mr. Wlliams reminded Mr. Kiss that the Popchois “intend to complete construction of their new home and sell it within a year at which time they must be able to convey clear title to their purchaser.” Mr. Williams requested a response to his letter by October 16, 2007.
3.8 On October 17, 2006, Melanie A. Leary, an attorney with the Demco Law Firm, P.S., sent Mr. Williams a written response to his October 6, 2006 letter. Ms. Leary advised Mr. Williams that she represented Mr. Kiss and relayed Mr. Kiss’s position that the Popchois were not entitled to the protection of the warranties provided by the Statutory Warranty deed executed by Mr. Kiss. Ms. Leary’s letter notified Mr. Williams that Mr. Kiss was “far more inclined to let a court decide” the Popchois’ warranty rights “than to spend money to settle” the Popchois warranty claim.” (Editor’s note: bold emphasis added.)
Windermere Real Estate East Associate Broker Csaba Kiss got what he wanted, and a court did indeed decide:
1. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Ivan G. Popchoi and Varvara M. Popchoi and against Csaba Kiss in the total amount of $44,885,39, comprised of:
A. $30,281.90 in fees and costs that the Popchois to defend their title against the Edmondsons’ adverse possession claim,
B. $10,993.63 that the Popchois paid Csaba Kiss for land that the Edmondsons owned by adverse possession,
C. $3,609.86 in interest on the $10,993.63 payment, calculated from May 4, 2006, the date of payment to January 23, 2009, plus with $3.628 additional interest accruing each day after January 23, 2009 until the date that Judgment is entered.”
Csaba Kiss was garnished to satisfy the Judgment against him, and is still working for Windermere.
Vestus Foreclosure Group, Windermere Real Estate East, Windermere Sales Associate and "Foreclosure Expert" Christopher Hall, Sued for Negligent or Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Violation of the Consumer Protection Act; Violations of RCW Chapters 18.85 and 18.86; RCW Chapter 19.86
COMPLAINT ALLEGES: "Vestus, LLC is also and trade name for Defendant Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc." ...
... "The Defendants hold themselves out as experts in the purchase of foreclosing property, and facilitate the financing and acquisition of foreclosing properties." ...
... "Vestus advertises that it gathers "real time market data" on foreclosing properties, "mines" the data, physically drives to the properties in order to ensure the accurate analysis of each property, and rigorously and carefully analyses the information it has collected." ...
... "The Defendants did not disclose the [foundation] settling problem..."and the Plaintiff was "...compelled to repair the foundation problems at great expense."
(Left to right) Chelle Nelson, Managing Broker, Windermere Real Estate East, who says on her Windermere web page "I hope you'll consider me a valuable educator and resource for all your real estate questions and needs." Lew Mason, Branch Manager of Windermere Real Estate East; and Windermere Real Estate East Manager/Broker, Dennis Baum, who states on his Windermere web page "As the Broker/Manager of Bellevue East, I am committed to providing our clients with the highest level of real estate service and expertise. Over my 30 years of experience, in an ever changing real estate market, I can provide a valuable resource for both clients and agents so that you receive the experience you deserve with one of the most important decisions of your life."
DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
Hartley McGrath
Plaintiff,
VESTUS LLC; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/EAST, INC., and CHRISTOPHER HALL and JANE DOE HALL and the Marital Community of CHRISTOPHER
AND JANE DOE HALL,
Defendants.
NO. 12-2-08537-4 SEA
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Hartley McGrath, by way of Complaint, alleges
1. Hartley McGrath at all times material is a resident of Seattle, King County, Washington.
2. Defendant Vestus, LLC ("Vestus") is a Washington limited liability corporation doing business in King County Washington. Vestus, LLC is also a trade name for Defendant Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
3. Defendant Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc. ("Windermere") is a Washington corporation doing business in King County Washington. Vestus LLC is a trade name for Windermere.
4. Christopher Hall ("Hall") and Jane Doe Hall and the marital community of Christopher and Jane Doe Hall are residents of King County Washington. The acts of Christopher Hall concerning the subjects of this Complaint were for the benefit of the marital community.
5. Vestus, Windermere, and Hall (“Defendants") acted in concert and the separate acts of each complained of herein were acts for the benefit of all.
6. The acts of Defendants complained of herein occurred in King County Washington making jurisdiction proper in King County.
7. Defendants provide real estate brokerage services as defined by RCW 18.85.011, by counseling, consulting, and advising buyers and acting for buyers in connection with real estate transactions.
8. Windermere and Hall are real estate licensees as defined by RCW 18.85.011. Vestus holds itself out as a licensee.
9. The Defendants hold themselves out as experts in the purchase of foreclosing real property. Defendants provide training and information on purchasing foreclosing property, and facilitate the financing and acquisition of foreclosing properties.
10. Vestus advertises that it gathers "real time market data" on foreclosing properties, "mines" the data, physically drives to the properties in order to ensure the accurate analysis of each property, and rigorously and carefully analyses the information it has collected.
11. Vestus promises to make all the information it has compiled available to its Client.
12. Vestus requires persons who utilize Defendants' services to execute a Compensation/Confidentiality Client Agreement ("Client Agreement"). The Client Agreement provides for a payment of a commission to Vestus for its services.
13. Hartley McGrath executed the Client Agreement on March 22, 2011 relying upon Vestus' advertised expertise and diligence, and upon its promise to provide her with accurate and complete information.
14. On the evening of April 7, 2011, Hartley McGrath met with Christopher Hall to discuss properties scheduled for foreclosure auction the next day. Hall provided McGrath information and recommendations on properties. Based upon Hall's recommendations, McGrath selected four properties for bidding.
15. On the morning of April 8, 2011, Hall bid on the properties selected by McGrath. His bid on the Property was the successful bid.
16. McGrath discovered after the purchase that the foundation of the building on the Property was cracked and settling.
17. Evidence of foundation movement was observable from public property outside the Property. A reasonably competent observer driving by the property for Vestus would have seen the settling issues.
18. Information readily available to real estate professionals, but not to the public, included agents' remarks that the foundation of the Property had settling issues.
19. The Defendants did not disclose the settling problems to McGrath.
20. But for Defendants' failure to disclose settling issues, McGrath would not have purchased the Property.
21. McGrath was compelled to repair the foundation problems at great expense.
22. The actions of Defendants violate the Client Agreement between Vestus and McGrath.
23. The actions of Defendants violate the laws intended to protect parties in real estate transaction, including Chapters 18.85 and 18.86 RCW.
24. The actions of Defendants constitute either negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation.
25. The actions of Defendants violate the Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW.
Wherefore Hartley McGrath prays for the following relief against Defendants:
1. For an award of all damages caused by Defendants' failures;
2. For her attorneys fees and expenses;
3. For increased damages as provided in RCW 19.86.090; and
4. For such further relief as law and equity warrant.
DATED: March 12, 2012
REAUGH OETTINGER & LUPPERT, P.S.
By: ____________________________
Sylvia Luppert, WSBA 14802
Attorneys for Hartley McGrath
DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE
_____________________________________________
Windermere Real Estate/East files complaint for money due against its own Windermere broker/agent Gregory M. Gransberry, also known as Greg Gransberry, and Kathy E. Goldstein, husband and wife
(Left) Windermere East broker and agent Gregory M. "Greg" Gransberry.
The complaint states in part under:
“I. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
1.4 Upon information and belief, defendants Gransberry and Kathy E. Goldstein are, and at all times material to this action were, husband and wife. This allegation is based upon statements made by defendant Gransberry and supported by his representation that he resides at 1031 Evergreen Drive, Bellevue, Washington 98004, which public records identify as being owned by defendant Kathy E. Goldstein.
Complaint continues in part under:
“II. Contract and breach thereof
2.1 On September 18, 2001, plaintiff and defendant Gransberry signed a Broker/Sales Associate Agreement (the “Agreement”) under which plaintiff provided Gransberry certain services and materials and the right to use the Windermere name as a real estate agent, in return for which Gransberry promised to pay plaintiff certain agreed fees and charges.
2.2 As of May 2, 2011, Gransberry owed and was in arrears to plaintiff for charges and fees in the total amount of $63, 546.75, not including interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.
2.3 Plaintiff’s counsel mailed Gransberry a demand letter dated May 3, 2011. Gransberry has not responded to the demand letter, and the charges and fees, plus additional charges and fees, are now due and owing
2.4 The amounts owing were liquidated and certain and therefore bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2.5 Upon information and belief, Gransberry entered into the the Agreement for the benefit of himself and his marital community, and with the knowledge and consent of his wife Kathy E. Goldstein, who has realized benefits from the Agreement. Accordingly, the amounts owed are owed by Gransberry and the marital community composed of Gransberry and Kathy E. Goldstein.”
The complaint asks for relief in an estimated amount of $66,000 for purposes of pleading, and is signed by Demco Law Firm Attorney Phillip T, Mattern, WSBA #16986.
Download a copy of the complaint here.
____________________________________
CASE UPDATE: Order Dismissing Windermere Defendants
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.
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 Washington 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 corporation 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 dual-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. Danieli 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.
Read the Defendants Windermere-Danieli-Krueger Answer in the case here.
Read the Defendants Philpott and Bostwick Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim in the case here.
CASE UPDATE: Order Dismissing Windermere Defendants from this case.
________________________________
The 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.
(Above L to R) Windermere CEO Geoff Wood (far left) is currently listed as a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation. Peggy Scott (second from left), also a current Governing Person of Windermere Relocation, "... did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint or any follow-up interview with Little." Windermere General Counsel, attorney Paul Drayna (third from left) is listed as the registered agent of RELO LLC, the current entity name of Windermere Relocation. Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi (fourth from left) along with Gayle Glew (far right) are listed as Governing Persons of Windermere Relocation during the Little case. Glew told Ms. Little he did not want any "clouds in the office," and subsequently, after she would not accept a pay cut, that she should clean out her desk.
All citizens who abhor such treatment of women in the workplace should recall Maureen Little v. Windermere Relocation when choosing real estate services. WindermereWatch visitors will also want to read the United States District Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit's Order and Amended Opinion from the Little case.
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 rehearing, but "...the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
________________________________
WINDERMERE: AMERICA'S PREDATORY REAL ESTATE ENTERPRISE
Consumer advocates, legal experts and elected lawmakers all agree that the American real estate industry demands greater regulation to protect consumers from the human disaster of real estate fraud perpetrated by unethical realtors employed at companies like Windermere Real Estate. Windermere manipulates our clogged, inundated courts and the justice system to stall, wear down and financially exhaust victimized consumers, many of whom are wiped-out by the cost of pursuing civil justice in a process where innocent victims must CHASE perpetrators of real estate fraud through the courts AFTER a fraudulent offense has been committed. Acts of fraud are so common and widespread throughout the Windermere real estate network, that the defense of real estate fraud has become has become just another bottomline expense on the Windermere balance sheet. And the litigation nightmare of real estate fraud can happen to anyone who deals with Windermere Real Estate. It could happen to you. Windermere is by far the most unethical, deceitful, and culturally toxic real estate company operating in the United States. Windermere knowingly, deliberately, and unabashedly profits on corrupt franchise owners, brokers and agents with proven histories of fraud and ethical misconduct, many of whom are profiled in the pages of WindermereWatch.com. Despite Windermere's well-documented assault on victim speech rights, more and more unconscionable cases of Windermere fraud continue emerging.
Windermere is headquartered in Seattle, at franchiser Windermere Services Company. It was founded by John W. Jacobi, and he has kept the company a private, family-owned enterprise, eluding the transparency and ethical accountability 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 college rowing competition which opens Seattle's boating season—the Windermere Cup—irresponsibly promoted by, and in conjunction with, the University of Washington. 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.
FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES' MANAGEMENT TEAM AND DESIGNATED GOVERNING PEOPLE: EXPERTS IN MARKETING FRAUD, ABUSE OF THE LEGAL PROCESS, AND AT COERCING DAMAGED WINDERMERE CLIENTS INTO SILENCE BY SUPPRESSING THEIR SPEECH RIGHTS
The shameless greed and repugnant ethics of Seattle's Jacobi family, deliberately profiting on the loss and suffering of Windermere victims through commissions on the fraudulent home deals and unlawful misconduct of dishonest Windermere agents, brokers and franchise owners. Forget human decency, commercial reputation or social responsibility—it's all about the money.
Before turning the business over to his children and son-in-law, Windermere founder John W. Jacobi (left) simply ignored any complaints of fraud from Windermere victims, sending them straight to the lawyers. Yet despite claims of retirement, Jacobi is still indeed quite active at franchiser Windermere Services Company:
In Complaint 10-2-36192-8 SEA, filed in King County Superior Court on October 12, 2010, Windermere Services Company has sued former Windermere Puyallup Canyon Road owner Joe Maxwell for default on an “Unconditional Guaranty of Payment” promissory note. The Maxwell Answer and Counterclaims state that the “Plaintiff's [Windermere Services Company] claims are barred by Plaintiff’s fraud, duress, and unclean hands,” and alleges $4,000,000 in damages and violation of Washington's Franchise Investment Protection Act; and also that "The alleged Note and Guarantee are unconscionable and unenforceable." Maxwell's Counterclaims state "6. The WPCR Operating Agreement contains a provision granting Jacobi a special veto power which among other things, states that the company shall conduct its business and manage its affairs in accordance with the directions of Jacobi and all management decisions are subject to Jacobi’s review," and "13. In early 2006, WSC and Jacobi decided to open another WSC office in the territory in which WPCR was operating, despite the objections of Maxwell. As a result of the opening of this new WSC office, WPCR lost a significant number of its real estate agents and revenue that transferred to the new office in Graham, Washington," and "14. As a direct result of these actions taken by WSC and Jacobi, WPCR was left with a large debt burden and overhead, and WPCR’s revenue was significantly reduced... 22. On September 14, 2010, Maxwell heard from a real estate agent working at WPCR that the agent had received and email from WSC notifying him WPCR’s franchise had been terminated. This notice was sent to WPCR’s real estate agents before Maxwell learned of the termination of WPCR’s franchise." Read the complete report on this case here.
Jacobi's Washington Loan Company is also currently being sued for Intentional Misrepresentation—read that report here. And the Windermere affiliated service company, Commonwealth Land Title Company of Puget Sound, has recently been found negligent by a jury who awarded the third-party plaintiffs $1,190,000. Read the Commonwealth report here.
Current Governing Person and Windermere Services Company CEO Geoffrey P. Wood (left) is married to John W. Jacobi's daughter, Jill Jacobi-Wood. Wood is the chief architect of Windermere marketing fraud, inducing business volume through—among other fraudulent promotion—an express warranty of "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity." When called upon to honor his company's warranty, Wood instructs Demco lawyers—led by Matthew F. Davis–to sue vocal victims for libel and defamation. Wood is also a Governing Person of Windermere Relocation, the subject enterprise of Windermere's employee rape case. He was briefly a real estate sales person in 1994, but that license was CANCELLED in 1995, and Wood currently has no real estate license of any kind that WindermereWatch can find.
Governing Person Jill Jacobi-Wood (left), Windermere Services President, is a licensed real estate broker in Washington State, and as such is subject to the statutory condition of RCW 18.86.030 "(d) To deal honestly and in good faith." For her part in Windermere's marketing fraud and malfeasance, Jacobi-Wood's RE license should be cancelled by the Washington State DOL's real estate division. By promoting honesty and integrity—while in reality—she is suing and coercing Windermere victims to shutup about their Windermere experience, Jacobi-Wood is hardly dealing honestly and in good faith.
Governing Person John O'Brien "OB"Jacobi (left) is General Manager of franchiser Windermere Services Company and also has many Windermere realty brokerage offices. He's a licensed real estate broker who is also called upon by statutory law to "Deal honestly and in good faith." But John "OB" Jacobi instead promotes fraudulent claims of honesty and integrity, and falsely sues victims of Windermere misconduct for libel and defamation to intimidate them and coerce their silence. Then this junior Jacobi runs away and voluntarily dismisses his own mendacious lawsuit when a victim refuses to sign Windermere's dark clause settlement agreement that has cost the victimized party so much distress and money and to defend.
Windermere Services Governing Person and attorney—WSBA# 26636—Paul Drayna (left) has even more stringent ethical requirements placed upon him through his collateral professions of Lawyer and Notary Public; and Drayna is also bound by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. But Mr. Drayna is not just practicing marketing fraud at Windermere. As Windermere in-house counsel, Drayna oversees Windermere's legal strategy of abusing process by falsely suing victims for libel and defamation, and then attempting to intimidate and coerce those victims out of their speech rights and into Windermere's Dark Clause silence agreement. When victims WON'T sign the Windermere Dark Clause, Drayna runs away too, and voluntarily dismisses his own company's lawsuit under Civil Rule 41—but only after first costing the victim thousands to defend the phony lawsuit. Drayna is even copied on the mendacious, Demco-authored settlement documents meant to quash speech rights and be signed by Windermere victims.
WINDERMERE'S DEMCO LAW FIRM: ESCHEWING ETHICS and DOING WHAT OTHER LAWYERS JUST WON'T DO
Attorney and multi-office Windermere broker John Demco (left) is the ethically-elastic Windermere kingpin lawyer who operates Demco Law, Windermere’s in-house legal firm, whose primary job is to stall and outspend small fry consumers damaged by dishonest Windermere brokers, agents and franchise owners. When an innocent real estate consumer has the misfortune to suffer one of Windermere’s many bad apples, Demco Law Firm 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—standard Windermere operating procedure.
WindermereWatch has compiled voluminous evidence that Windermere-Demco attorney Matthew F. Davis (left), WSBA# 20939, is the kind of lawyer about which jokes are coined. Davis is franchiser Windermere Services' frontline bully—the guy in the legal trenches actually wrecking lives, making threats, and suing victims who speak out. When Shakespeare was recommending "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," in Henry the Sixth, Part 2, he was talking about egomaniacal lawyers like Matt Davis.
Attorney Matt Davis of Windermere's Demco Law Firm is so unethical, so deceitful and intimidating, that he's famous in law circles. As Windermere-Demco's lead attorney, Matthew F. Davis is renown for his dishonesty, dubious legal tactics, lack of decency and disrespect for the rules of professional conduct. He will do absolutely anything to win—without regard for truth or justice. He will lie to courts and opposing parties. He will file fallacious and erroneous documents with the court. He will email opposing parties telling them not to hire a lawyer when he has just served them a lawsuit. He will call a judge's chambers and request more time without informing the opposing party. He will file orders for a bench trial when he knows a jury trial has been demanded and paid for. He will trick, stall, coerce, menace and threaten. He will invent and extend mendacious Windermere litigation and abuse the legal process for no other reason than to exhaust an opponent’s pocketbook. If he can, he will get YOUR attorney to quit—a favorite tactic.
Windermere, Davis and Demco Law will push a $5 cat poop case all the way to the state supreme court just to avoid paying damages—because it’s all in the Windermere operating budget. And in the end, Windermere and Davis will try to coerce silence about your Windermere experience by trying to make you sign a "settlement" agreement that terminates your speech rights, so you can't ever inform the public about your Windermere debacle. What if you DON'T sign that you'll shut up, and then SPEAK UP instead? Windermere-Demco's Matt Davis will sue you for libel and defamation, then run away and dismiss his own lawsuit on the eve of trial—because after all—you're telling the truth.
Windermere's Clear and Overt Marketing Fraud:
"THE HIGHEST ETHICAL STANDARDS. UNCOMPROMISING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY."
—The Windermere Real Estate Mission Statement
Windermere widely promotes its deceptive express 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, Windermere 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..." Mr. Wood claims absolute dominion over both Windermere legal and internet strategy, making him chief architect of Windermere marketing fraud.
Effective reportage can be harsh in recounting facts, but it must be said in consideration of all the Windermere victims profiled here who truly sought Windermere's vaunted honesty and integrity, that Windermere Services CEO Geoffrey P. Wood is simply lying when he states his company's utterly false and fraudulent commitment to honesty and integrity. He both lies and deceives 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 clearly doesn't do what he says he's going to do—be committed to uncompromising honesty and integrity. Wood himself is indeed IN the real estate business and his word is absolutely no good at all. He sues victims of Windermere misconduct 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 perform on the warranty he promotes. As this website proves, Mr. Wood does anything BUT what he says he's gonna do. Far from providing victimized Windermere customers a commitment to high ethical standards, honesty and integrity, Wood and Windermere run away and hide behind their lawyers when innocent consumers are ruined by their Windermere experience.
John W. Jacobi, Geoff Wood, his wife Jill Jacobi-Wood, and governing cohorts John O'brien "OB" Jacobi and attorney Paul Drayna have gone to the absolute ends of the earth in stonewalling, ignoring, denying and fleeing any and all responsibility for Windermere wrongdoing 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 at all—but independent contractors. As the legally-designated Governing People and top managers of the Windermere empire who drive policy, ethics and market promotion, it demands repeating that John W, Jacobi, Geoff Wood, Jill Jacobi-Wood, John OB Jacobi and attorney Paul Drayna are all clearly lying when they promise high ethical standards and uncompromising honesty to the public and consumers of real estate services.
Protect your life, home, family and future by cancelling or not renewing your Windermere listing. Don't risk doing business with Windermere Real Estate, the brand built on lies, fraud and ruined lives. Refuse to fund public predator Windermere Real Estate with commission from the sale of your home.
________________________________
Is WindermereWatch.com of social benefit to consumers and the public? You decide:
Windermere Real Estate is one of our country’s largest real estate companies and widely promotes a fraudulent express warranty that states “We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity.” The definition of an express warranty from Black's Law Dictionary is: "A warranty created by the overt words or actions of the seller. • Under the UCC, an express warranty is created by any of the following: (1) an affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer relating to the goods that becomes the basis of the bargain."
But when customers are victimized by dishonest Windermere brokers and agents, and complain in writing through legal counsel to franchiser Windermere Services Company, it is absolutely silent in the face of clear and convincing evidence, and forces the customer to sue or go away. In many cases, unsuspecting consumer lives are thrown into complete chaos through costly litigation; and also because the subject homes may actually be uninhabitable or unserviceable for reasons about which Windermere knew and had a legal obligation to disclose—but did not. For some victims, the long and expensive litigation forced upon them even results in bankruptcy and homelessness. Despite their clear evidence, many victims go on to lose in court because they can't afford attorneys or have no legal experience, and Windermere exploits those impediments to endless advantage—lives, homes, and personal finances are ruined forever. And Windermere expects those victims to just go away without their lives and homes, merely for buying a house through Windermere Real Estate, innocently.
Although such irrefutable evidence of Windermere broker/agent misconduct has been presented to franchiser Windermere Services Company, it knowingly continues collecting commissions from dishonest agents and brokers by deliberately passing them on to other unwitting consumers. Just one example is Windermere S.C.A. Redmond's Paul Stickney, who received a $522,200 court judgment for not disclosing a conflict of interest, but is still producing commissions for his Windermere SCA franchise, and Windermere Services Company. Is that the "Highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity?" You may want to search and visit more websites about Windermere's predatory business conduct.
When victims use the media to report their Windermere experiences honestly, Windermere sues them for libel and defamation through false lawsuits to intimidate, silence, and hush bad PR—read one of those lawsuits here. It then tries to coerce victims into signing a “dark clause settlement agreement” that permanently terminates their speech rights—read some of those "settlement" agreements here. Through an expensive and emotionally distressing roller coaster ride with Windermere's nasty Demco lawyers, a victim of Windermere fraud is told they will be taken all the way to trial on trumped-up libel and defamation charges, and if they don't sign the dark clause, their life and future will be ruined. When a victim persists in refusing to sign, Windermere voluntarily dismisses its own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41, just before trial, after costing the victim years and yet thousands more to defend against the false action. This predatory legal tactic is known as abuse of process or malicious prosecution. In one example cited below, franchiser Windermere Services Company served an outspoken victim a lawsuit for libel and defamation, and then immediately sent them an email instructing that they "...need not hire an attorney," and further stating, “…we will try to resolve this directly and outside the legal system.”
Every Windermere office in every state is legally tied to franchiser Windermere Services Company's fraudulent express warranty, false advertising, predatory conduct and policies through privity and its pecuniary franchise agreement. Some legal observers believe that Windermere's conduct has RICO and Civil Rights violation implications. If you have recently purchased a Windermere franchise without having been disclosed Windermere's falling brand value, PR decline, and its adverse website problems, click here for its duty of disclosure under Federal Trade Commission rules. Proof that Windermere Services Company knew about WindermereWatch.com in March of 2007 is in this document.
Windermere Real Estate is a textbook corporate predator who operates franchises in Washington State, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii and British Columbia. Windermere repeatedly makes the false claim that it has offices in Wyoming, but it does not. If you’re buying or selling property through ANY Windermere office, a percentage from your transaction will be used by franchiser Windermere Services Company to silence and financially ruin innocent parties who’ve encountered Windermere fraud. Windermere won't pay legitimate damages or acknowledge wrongdoing, and will stall settlement of cases all the way to state supreme courts, a legal strategy that Windermere routinely employs to bankrupt victims and exhaust their resources.
We believe the information presented here is of profound social benefit to consumers and the community, and we are dedicated to providing it.
THROUGH FEES AND COMMISSIONS PAID TO FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY, EVERY WINDERMERE NETWORK OFFICE IN EVERY STATE IS AN ENTHUSIASTIC PARTNER AND KNOWING ACCESSORY TO WINDERMERE MARKETING FRAUD AND ITS PREDATORY POLICIES