"Corporate realty fraud is a tragic American business scandal, forcing victims into years of distress and litigation with giant real estate companies—AFTER the damage is done—as government is silent and often complicit. WindermereWatch.com is the internet journal of corporate realty fraud and malfeasance named for Windermere Real Estate, whose brand has become synonymous with deceitful sales promotion, predatory business tactics, greedy incompetence and routine unethical misconduct in local realty transactions. Ethical Realtors think twice about showing a Windermere listing, and potentially exposing their clients to such catastrophic financial jeopardy. WindermereWatch.com is an indispensable news, opinion and legal resource that provides hard evidence why consumers, agents and prospective realty franchisees should avoid Windermere Real Estate at all costs...

...The Windermere Real Estate brand is no longer worth what franchise owners and home sellers are paying for it.”

 

WINDERMERE CORPORATE CONDUCT CASE HISTORY:  Appeals Court Declares that Windermere "...condoned a rape by a business colleague..."

WINDERMERE ELDER ABUSE: Now bdhomes.com, Former Bennion & Deville Windermere SoCal Coachella Charged with Elder Abuse, Fraud and Deceit

WINDERMERE SUED FOR UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES BY CALIFORNIA INDIAN CASINO: Now bdhomes.com, Former Windermere Bennion & Deville Charged in $30 Million-Plus Deal

 

 

A public service consumer advocate reporting clear, compelling evidence of America's most dangerous and unethical corporate predator, Windermere Real Estate. When your home is listed for sale by Windermere, the resulting commission will fund Windermere's predatory legal strategies against other Windermere customers damaged by unscrupulous Windermere brokers, agents and franchise owners. Protect your life, home, family and future by cancelling or not renewing your Windermere listing. Don't risk doing business with Windermere Real Estate, the brand built on lies, fraud and ruined lives.

Windermere Real Estate perpetrates illegal suppression of defrauded customers' speech rights through aggressive coercion tactics including false website hosting takedown letters, and mendacious lawsuits filed by Windermere to silence, bully, bankrupt and intimidate the many victims of Windermere unlawful misconduct.

Comment, Case Tip or Local Windermere Complaint? Email WindermereWatch.

REGIONAL MEDIA CASE COVERAGE:

The Seattle Times: Windermere, big former franchise owner fight in court

 

 

CONSUMERS ARE URGED TO EXERCISE CAUTION IN THEIR SELECTION OF REAL ESTATE SERVICES...

What everyone who is currently doing business with Windermere Real Estate—or what anyone who is CONSIDERING doing business with Windermere Real Estate—should know about this predatory and consumer-abusive company:

In most cases, your home is the single biggest and most important investment you will ever make. Your ability to afford a home, and your home itself, are at the core of your happiness and human survival. If you can, just imagine for a moment what it would mean to lose your home; or what it would mean to lose the financial resources you’ve toiled so hard to earn—that allow you to own a home. This website is about the many individuals who have actually lost their homes or financial resources—or both—because they had the misfortune to deal with public predator Windermere Real Estate. And the cases presented here are only the ones we KNOW about—we’re finding more all the time. Please consider this next information VERY carefully, for how diligently you consider it may determine if you are willing to risk losing EVERYTHING you have ever worked for, including your home itself.

There are plenty of deceitful Realtors out there, Realtors who are willing to ruin your whole life just to make a buck. Have you ever thought about what might happen if something goes wrong with your home transaction? Most of the national brand real estate companies have policies in place to address agent or broker misconduct, but not Windermere Real Estate—it’s privately held by a single family, with no stockholders.

After all, your home is not a shirt from Macy’s you can return under a well-mandated return policy. It’s true that most home sales and purchases go smoothly, but have you ever asked yourself… “Who will be responsible if I end up with a crooked real estate agent who lies, or who doesn’t disclose something awful they know about the property I’m buying? Who will be responsible if I’m dealing with some agent who’s running a financial scam they’re not revealing? Who will be responsible if my agent is in cahoots with a dishonest seller, or is conspiring with an inspector who looks the other way at serious problems so the agent will recommend him again?”

The answer is, in most cases, it’s the franchise owner and/or the broker to whom the agent is licensed, that is responsible for agent malfeasance. And nobody would be willing to buy a Windermere franchise, or be a Windermere broker, if they’d actually end up being legally responsible for all the damage a dishonest Realtor will cause, because that damage is not done to a simple shirt from Macy’s that you can return: THAT DAMAGE IS DONE TO SOME INNOCENT AND UNSUSPECTING HUMAN BEING’S HOME, LIFE and FINANCIAL FUTURE.

If you're a buyer and some variety of agent misconduct has occurred, the subject property may not be habitable for various reasons, which will turn your life upside down, fast. There’s enormous money and emotional distress at stake. And there will be lawyers, lots of lawyers. Windermere Real Estate employs and profits on so many corrupt franchise owners, brokers and agents, that it maintains its own fulltime, in-house legal services, the Demco Law Firm. If you think for one moment that when your Windermere home deal goes bad, your Windermere broker or franchise owner is going to run over, apologize, and ask what they can do to help you, you’ve got another, very serious think coming. When your Windermere agent crosses over the Realtor code of ethics line, YOU AND YOUR HOME BECOME THE ENEMY.

That broker and/or franchise owner are legally on-the-hook for their agent’s misconduct, and the Windermere Legal War Machine will come down on you like a supersonic ton of bricks. If Windermere did not provide its franchise clients such hardcore legal resources, nobody would even BE a Windermere broker or franchise owner—the exposure is too great. And make no mistake, Windermere will do nothing—and spend nothing—to settle your problem amicably, no matter what indecency the agent or broker has committed. Windermere will force you to sue. Windermere's much-ballyhooed and heavily promoted commitment to "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," is nothing but a marketing lie designed to induce business volume.

Windermere's Demco Law Firm is so unethical, so deceitful and intimidating, that it’s famous in law circles. Its lead attorney, Matthew F. Davis, is renown for his dishonesty, dubious legal tactics, lack of decency and disrespect for the rules of professional conduct. He will do absolutely anything to win—without regard for truth or justice. He will lie to courts and opposing parties. He will file fallacious and erroneous documents with the court. He will email opposing parties telling them not to hire a lawyer when he has just served them a lawsuit. He will call a judge's chambers and request more time without informing the opposing party. He will file orders for a bench trial when he knows a jury trial has been demanded and paid for. He will trick, stall, coerce, menace and threaten. He will invent and extend costly, mendacious Windermere litigation and abuse the legal process for no other reason than to exhaust an opponent’s pocketbook. If he can, he will get YOUR attorney to quit—a favorite tactic.

Windermere, Davis and Demco Law will push a $5 cat poop case all the way to the state supreme court, just to avoid paying damages, because it’s all in the Windermere operating budget—while your legal expenses will be coming out of your savings, retirement account, home equity or credit cards, if you even have those resources. And in the end, Windermere/Davis/Demco will try to coerce silence about your bad Windermere experience by forcing you into signing a legal "settlement" agreement that terminates your speech rights, so you can't ever tell anybody or inform the public about your Windermere debacle. When you sign, they'll let you out of the bogus lawsuit.

Don't be fooled when your particular local Windermere office says "Oh... OUR Windermere franchise doesn't work that way." Every Windermere franchise in every state pays a portion of every commission to franchise policy-maker Windermere Services Company, and its legal war chest. If you are dealing with Windermere Real Estate, you are unwittingly being duped into funding Windermere's financial genocide against other damaged Windermere customers.

If anything does indeed go wrong with your Windermere home transaction—like it has for so many—you may never recover. When these profoundly devastating problems occur, the resulting irreversible human toll of precious time, money and brutal emotional distress will forever ruin your life and future. If you are considering doing business with Windermere Real Estate, think VERY carefully about doing so.

REMEMBER: IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH YOUR WINDERMERE DEAL, IT'S FAR EASIER—AND CHEAPER—FOR WINDERMERE LAWYERS TO STALL AND SLOWLY WASTE YOUR ENTIRE NET WORTH ON LITIGATION, THAN IT IS FOR WINDERMERE TO STEP UP AND MAKE YOU WHOLE.

Listings are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate as individuals may have changed offices or company affiliation; or may have left the real estate industry entirely since listings were posted.

Windermere Entiat
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/NCW 14754 Highway 97 A
Entiat, WA 98822

Office: (509) 784-9016
Email: shildahl@windermere.com
Steve Hildahl,
Cell/Direct:(509) 994-0462
Email: shildahl@windermere.com

Jackie Blanchfield
Cell/Direct:(509) 670-4679
Email: Jackie@JackieBlanchfield.com
Website:JackieBlanchfield.com

Office Coordinator
Cell/Direct:(509) 784-9016
Email: entiat@windermere.com

Claudia Hildahl
Cell/Direct:(509) 994-9312
Email: claudia@windermere.com

Windermere Enumclaw
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Enumclaw
2744 Griffin Ave
Enumclaw, WA 98022

Phone: 360-825-6505
Fax: 360-825-0350
Email: enumclaw@windermere.com

Paula Anderson
Helen Boisjolie
Angelena Bowen
Timi Brooks
Anita Carlson
Annette Howells
Todd Huizenga
Doug Johnson
Jan Johnson
Ken Johnson
Laurie & Tom Kittelman
Tom & Laurie Kittelman
Linda Matson
Brian McIntosh
Steve Parker
Mary Richards

Windermere Ephrata
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Central Basin LLC
1133 Basin SW
Ephrata, WA 98823

Phone: 509/754-1168
Fax: 509/754-0524
Email: ephrata@windermere.com
Website: www.ephrata.windermere.com

Debra Adams
Scott Adams
Roger Attleson
Staci Faw
Terri Hunter
Susie Johnson
Gema Powers
Melodie Symington

Windermere Everett South
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/M2, LLC
9502 19th Ave. SE Ste. A
Everett, WA 98208

Phone: 425-338-0600
Fax: 425-338-9600
Email: everett@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereEverett.com

Cheri Bartelheimer
Marilyn Beck
Kent Becraft
Debi Bloomquist
John Boyden
Robert Boyden
Laura Burton
Nick Cason
Charles E David
Nell Del Ciello
Cheryl Durham
Firm Email
Carole Falleen
Pete Falleen
Brianne Field
Debbie Finch
Melody Foreman
Tyler Gardner
Paula George
Jessie Grandpre
Laura Gumnick
Dan Gunderson
Steve Halvorson, E-
Sharon Harriss
Steve Harriss
John Headley
Jennifer Hudson
Inde Indridson
Lola Jacobson
Mark Kirshner
Jeff Larkin
Denise Leestma
Robin Lessley
Debbie Long
Greg Love
Alison Maider
David Maider
Todd Marshall
Jan McWherter
Everett South Office
Linda Perez
Tom Pittsenbarger
Rene' Porubek
Casey Price
Rob & Sandy Racz
Sandy & Rob Racz
Kim Ratliff
Leska Ratliff
Nanette Scharbach
Shelia Simmons
Elly Smith
Michael Sorenson
Shirley Sorenson
Pam Spampani
Cindy Stach
Miao Sui
Brianna Taylor
Amy Townsend
Amy Trout
Leilani West
Michael West
Jason Zwicker

Windermere Federal Way
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/South Sound, Inc.
33405 6th Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003

Phone: 253-838-8900
Fax: 253-838-8975
Email: fedwaycontracts@windermere.com
Website: www.federalwaywindermere.com

Chad Beckwith
Bryan Bell
Kathy Callahan
Katie Criddle
Maureen Donhauser
Jennifer Dovey
Bill Drew
TIM EVANS
Cindy Freed
Marylyn Gates
Debbi Hart
Helen Hendricks
Marge Hering
Graceland Heruska
Mingrey Hildebrandt
Ann Kirrmaier
Debra McGlothlen
Molly McNeil
Jenna Milne
Marvin Pinkis
Jeanette Pop
Cheryl Presleigh
Libby Ristau
Ronda Sims
John W Song
Alexandra Torres
John Ulrich
Federal Way Windermere

Windermere Federal Way West Campus
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/West Campus, Inc.
33310 1st Way South Suite 200
Federal Way, WA 98003

Phone: 253-838-7900
Fax: 253-838-9909
Email: fedwaywc@windermere.com

Susan Afalava
Linda Bellisario
Jenny Bemis
Mickael Berg
Monique Bloedel
Wendy Burney
Laurel Butler
Thomas Cameron
CJ Campbell
West Campus
Harry Carrick
Karen Carrick
West Campus Contracts
Deanne DeVries
Sheila Elwell
Al Franzen
Tanya Franzen
Tim Gavranich
Delia Gregg
Carol Haley
Sandra Harbert
Joy Heritage
Monica Hilliard
Kris Holden
Kris Huber
Stephen Janho
Bruce Johnson
Kristy Johnson
Michelle Karns
Ryan Karns
Diane Kawell
Dondi Koester
Mike Kollar
Cindy Kourkos
Bret Lane
Alec Lang
Marcy Lang
Linda Letney
Ivan Leung
Corinne Lombardo
Nichole Lombardo
Shannon Lombardo
Cory McGraw
Tracie Minkler
Kris Naylor
Beth Porter
Diane Renner
Abby Santos
Lee Santos
John Siridakis
Kathy Siridakis
Tayler Sloboda
Boots Swan
Marisa Thorson
John A. Tidwell
Tanner Tinney
Kris Verdi
Michelle Walden
Heidi Wiren
Allie Wobbrock

Windermere Franchise
Office Address:
Windermere Franchise
5424 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105

Phone: 206-527-3801
Fax: 206-527-3801
Email: franchise@windermere.com

Office Admin
Francis Franchise

Windermere Gig Harbor
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Gig Harbor
5801 Soundview Drive, Suite 101
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Phone: 253-851-7374
Fax: 253-858-6753
Email: gigharbr@windermere.com
Website: www.realestategigharbor.com

Kyongi Allaway
Gloria Babb
Kathy Barker
Susan Boyer
Victoria Burgess
Paul Butler
Constance Cassell
Matt Chittick
Internet Coordinator
Nancy Forsythe Corsi
Sue Davis
Bonnie Daybell
Mike Diaz
Linda Dodds
Chris Dowd
Molly DuPuy
Sandi Eddy
Joan Fiano
Patricia Gilmore
Lella Hamilton
Trish Harrison
Christianne Helland
Carole Holmaas
John Holmaas
John Holmaas Jr
Jennifer Ivester
Dale Johnson
Penny Jones
Kari Knapp
Amy Long
Cheryl & Daryl Main
Marty Marcum
Chris Miller
Carl Miraldi
Melissa Moller
Toni Monzon
Matt Morgan
Douglas B. Murphy
Don & Laura Musgrave
Fax Office
Shannon Patterson
Stacy Paul
Morrie Pedersen
Sue Rand
Jeremy Ritchie
Barb Roe-Trochim
Steve Skibbs
Bill Striegel
Mike Tinder
Sean L. Watson
Allison Welch
Stuart Yellowlees

Windermere Gig Harbor- Builder's Choice
Office Address:
Windermere Builder's Choice
2727 Hollycroft, Suite 110
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Office: (253) 514-8294
Email: builderschoice@windermere.com
Website: windermerep-c.com

Michael Robinson
Cell/Direct:(253) 219-1932
Email: michaelr@windermere.com
Website:michaelrobinson.my-windermere.com

Ed Aro
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-2241
Email: edaro@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Team Aro
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-2241
Email: teamaro@windermere.com

Jesse Cedarland
Cell/Direct:(253) 225-5738
Email: jessec@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Office Coordinator
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-0294
Email: builderschoice@windermere.com

Lindsay Emery
Cell/Direct:(253) 225-3777
Email: lindsay-e@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Brian Esparza
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-2022
Email: brianesparza@windermere.com
Website:www.brianesparza.com

Natasha Gray
Cell/Direct:(253) 565-1189
Email: natashagray@windermere.com

Gay Hartman
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-8294
Email: gay-hartman@windermere.com

Maria Kalafatich Cell/Direct:(253) 376-5559
Email: mariakalafatich@windermere.com Website:
MariaKalafatich.withwre.com

Cheryl Larriva
Cell/Direct:(253) 651-3644
Email: clarriva@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Cindy Marchand
Cell/Direct:(253) 514-8294
Email: cmarchand@windermere.com

Jenn Milstead
Cell/Oirect:(253) 298-8811
Email: jenniferm@windermere.com
Website :www.ed-aro.com/

Sandy Simpson
Cell/Direct:(253) 470-6499
Email: sandy simpson@windermere.com

Alison Ybarra Cell/Direct:(253) 988-1887
Email: alisonybarra@windermere.com

 

Windermere Gig Harbor- Downtown
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Gig Harbor
3111 Harborview Drive, Suite 200
Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Phone: (253) 851-9134
Fax: (253) 851-7196
Email: gigharbordowntown@windermere.com
Website: www.gigharborrealty.com/

Lavina Buckmaster
Roger Cipolla
Internet Coordinator
Carolyn Craft
Kirsten DeWitt
Sandy Jones
Margaret Martin
Rob Mitchell
Joan E Mitton
Paul Redal
Kris Reddin
Allison Skibbs Welch
Lee Smith
Terry Weller
Billie Jean Winter-Hirko

Windermere Gig Harbor- Key Peninsula
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Key Realty
11615 State Route 302 NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98329

Phone: 253-857-3304
Fax: 253-857-4425
Email: keypen@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerekeypen.com

John Barelli
Donna Dilger
Robert Home
Bob Knudson
Tony Lindsay
Dottie Mazza
Key Peninsula Office

Windermere Granite Falls
Office Address:
Windermere Granite Falls
103 S. Granite Ave./ PO Box 1559
Granite Falls, WA 98252

Phone: 360-691-7377
Fax: 360-572-0499
Email: cheryld@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeregranitefalls.com

Cheri Bodine
Internet Coordinator
Cindy Craig
Kristi Everett
Jennifer Haverfield
Shana Hoople
Josh Hopp
Les Howards
Cheryl Munn-Desrosier
Bob Norlin
Kimberlee Sappington
Donna Wilson

Windermere Hood Canal
Office Address:
Windermere Hood Canal
31 Brinnon Lane PO Box 770
Brinnon, WA 98320

Phone: 888.796.3450 / 360.796.3450
Fax: 360.796.3122
Email: brinnon@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerehoodcanal.com

William Barnet
Forms Brinnon
Internet Coordinator
Jillian Greenwood
Doug Hixson
Mary Kowalczyk
Valerie Schindler
Kimberlee Talbott
Tim Talbott
Jerry Wright

Windermere Insurance & Benefits
Office Address:
Windermere Insurance & Benefits
PO Box 1060
Duvall, WA 98019

Phone: 425-844-9955
Fax: 206-774-6078
Email: wmmurray@windermere.com

401k Plan Insurance and Benefits
Healthplans Insurance and Benefits
Insurance Insurance and Benefits
Retirement Insurance and Benefits
Bill Murray

Windermere Issaquah
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
1810 15th Place NW, Suite 100
Issaquah, WA 98027

Phone: 425-392-6600
Fax: 425-392-0558
Email: paremski@windermere.com
Website: www.issaquah.windermere.com

Jane Agent
Todd Baxter
Julie Bergman
Lou Bergman
Alan Berkwitt
Heather Boll
Paula Chambers
Lonnie Child
Tim Church
Bruce Clouse
Internet Coordinator
Tom R. Covello
Jim "Scoop" Cox
Cheryl Crane
Yvonne Dalke
Kathi Davis
Issaquah Email
Bill Emert
Jeanne Erdahl
Erin Etchemendy
Issaquah Fax
Issaquah Files
James Fisher
Phil Frost
Stephanie Frost
Kim Gervasoni
June Griffiths
Russ Haire
Jenna Hansen
Terri Hermes
Windermere
Issaquah
Darren Jaeggi
Debbie Kinson
Jeff Kissick
Jeff Klosterman
Dorothy Lange
Katlin Lee
Diane Lind
Jan Lipetz
Ron Loos
Valerie MacKnight
Teresa Matches
Michelle McDonald
Cathy McKenzie
Denise McNeal
Brian McRae
Larry Miller
Sara Miller
Joe Muscat
Wendy Oliver
Don Oster
Kelly Pangborn
Dave Paremski
Darcy Perea
Joan Probala
Dale Reardon
Caitlin Reardon Miller
Bob Richards
Beth Salazar
Josh Sanford
Paula Sanford
Cathy Santiago
Allyn Schinski
Kirk Singleton
Issaquah Staff
Alicia Terry
Catherine Thom
Roy Towse
Renee Vanous
Kevin White
Laura White
Melissa Wieser
Susan Witherbee
Lance Woodruff
Shari Woodruff
Beverly Yoneyama

Windermere Kelso/Longview
Office Address:
Windermere Kelso/Longview
209 West Main, Ste. 200
Kelso, WA 98626

Phone: 360-636-4663
Fax: 360-636-0941
Email: emailus@windermere.com
Website: www.longview-kelso.windermere.com/

Judy Allen
Jeanette Almos
Cheryl Ballard
Verla Barker
Darla Brown
Diane Buckner
Kevin Campbell
Tami Cheatley
Internet Coordinator
JoAnn Crayne
Shannon Crayne
Sonja Denson
Demetrio Flores
Lynne Frost
Joni Geier
Venancio Gonzalez
Tara Granger
Donna Hammond
Timi Harris
Shay Howsmon
Thomas Johnson
Jayme King
Sue Lantz
Kristina Mack
Kellie McIvor
Gregg Myklebust
Celinda Northrup
Christine Schott
Victoria Sturm

Janell Wilson

Windermere Kent
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/PSK, Inc.
441 Ramsay Way, Suite 103
Kent, WA 98032

Phone: 253-854-8900
Fax: 253-854-4682
Email: kent@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

James Bell
Brandi Cook
Randy Dehaan
Kathryn L. Enlow
Julie Fontanez
Ronnie Fontenot
Judy Freed
Ken Freed
Meagan Freed
Susan Garlock
Melanie Goodwin
Larry Hansen
Robin Johnson
Stacey Johnson-Litzenberger
Evelyn Kegler
Evelyn Kegler
Ron Linebarger
Tara Linebarger
Tim McEwen
Becca Mullins
Kent Office
Takondwa Pangalala
Russell Peterson
Laura Pitts
Dusty Pruitt
Francine Romero
Karen Ruhl
Micheal Smith
Cathy Wahlin
Don Wetter
Renee Williams
Jerry Yates

Windermere Kettle Falls
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Kettle Falls
250 East 3rd /P.O. Box 437
Kettle Falls, WA 99141

Phone: (509) 738-6521
Fax: (509) 738-2448
Email: kettlefalls@windermere.com
Website: kettlefalls.withwre.com

Debbie Baker
WINDERMERE KETTLE FALLS
Nancy Moore
Allen Palmanteer
Kandis Palmanteer
Marty Schroeder
Anadee Snyder
Ronald Snyder
Dane Warner

Windermere Kingston
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/West Sound, Inc.
26569 Lindvog Road NE
Kingston, WA 98346

Phone: 360-297-2661
Fax: 360-297-2980
Email: kingston@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereKingston.com

Alana Adler
Janet Olsen & Alma Hammon
Scott Anderson
Catherine Arlen
Brianna Belger
Tana Belger
Kim Brown
Christy Dagsaan
Carter Dotson
Tori Dotson
Catrice Elms
Sherri Galloway
Doug Hallock
Cammie Hamal
Alma Hammon
Linda Henry
Rental Inquiry
Admin Kingston
Cathy Morris & Lorna Muller
Sherri Galloway & Sacha Mell
Pat Miller
Cathy Morris
Dave Muller
Lorna Muller
Megan O'Dell
Janet Olsen
Mike Pitts
Kim Poole
Melanie Poole
Monika Riedner
Steve Smaaladen
Chris Todd & Susan Tyson
Christine Todd
Susan Tyson
Jet Woelke

Windermere Kirkland
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Central Inc
737 Market Street
Kirkland, WA 98033

Phone: (425) 823-4600
Fax: (425) 820-6318
Email: kirkland@windermere.com
Website: www.kirklandwindermere.com

Erica Abel
Dana V. Adams
Dawn Armstrong
Betsy Bayley
Bill Blanchard
Cathy Boorman
Mary Boyd
Laura Brodniak
Diane Charouhas
Lynda Coccione
BJ Connolly
Mike Connolly
Van Cooper
LaRhonda
Cronquist
Heather Dannels
Kirkland Docs
Clive Egdes
Sheree Everson
Catherine Ferrera
John Fiala
Marcea Galindo
Melissa Gatdula
Elizabeth
Gibbons
Leslie Goulden
Kathy Gray
Mitika Gupta
Charlene Hanson
Malia Hass
Leslie Heinz
Peggy Hill
Lisa Hjorten
Cathi Howland
Kelli Hughes
Cheri Ingram
Jamila Iraqui
David Janssens
Nathan Knopf
Suzanne Kohl
Beth Kovacevich
Rick & Carol
Kreeger
Dorae Lande
Hilary Long
Kristi
Macpherson
Marsha Matchett
Chip McBroom
Derek McCallum
Kirk Mitchell
Mike Moghaddas
Cheryl Nygaard
Lisa O'Brien
Kirkland Office
Christi Packard
Cheri S. Parris
Holly Paul
Kathryn Paulson
Karin Peterson
David Pope
Rebecca Raney
Jan Riley Carroll
Sabrena Smith
Shelley Stalwick
Peter Steinke
Joanne Stewart
Travis Stewart
Laurie Topness
Scott Wiklof
Kelly Zuger

Windermere Kirkland-Northeast
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Northeast Inc.
11411 NE 124th St #110
Kirkland, WA 98034

Phone: 425-820-5151
Fax: 425-821-9483
Email: kirklandne@windermere.com
Website: http://kirkland-northeast.windermere.com/

Ron Ball
Loa Barber
Julie Billett
Roger Bintner
Roger Bintner, Jr
Ray Bosko
Jason & Tracy Chester
Tracy & Jason Chester
Cindy Clarke
Paul Conley
Patricia Cook
Christy Crissinger
Wayne Curtis
Kristi Dodge
Kevin Donovan
Mike Gallanar
Kelly Goodwin
Jeanne Gorder
Tami Grayevsky
Roger Gregorich
Bradley Gregory
Chris Guzzardo
Wesley Harrison
Brian Harwood
Scot Henderson
Debbie Hensley
Mel Hester
Gayle Hickey
Peter Hickey
Gayla Hocker
Dave Hopkins
Connie Huff
Matthew Hurley
Jill Jaccard
Jason Jarvie
Samantha Jarvie
Jennifer Johnsen
Linnea Jones
Brian Kayler
Windermere Kirkland Northeast
Stacey Lange
Ivan Lanham
Stephanie Lentz
Chris Linnerooth
Sue Linnerooth
Amanda Lloyd
Jim Lloyd
John Logue
Joe Loutsis
Bryan Loveless
Nick Loveless
MaryLou MacKay
Angela Marks
Kyla McAdams
James McCarthy
Mike McGoorty
Carmen & Ernie Meier
Ernie & Carmen Meier
Tony Meier
Sara Miller
Aimee Mills
Jerry Mooberry
Surekha K. Murthy
Chloe Nash
Irene Nash
Ken Nash
Michael Nash
Tom Navarre
Barry Parducci
Greg Perry
Jeanyne Quanz
Jamie & Sarah Reece
Sarah & Jamie Reece
Pat & Rick Reimer
Rick & Pat Reimer
Jennifer Reyer
Lisa Rhodes
Calendar Ripp
Debbie & Jerry Rippeteau
Jerry & Debbie Rippeteau
Dave Rodland
George Rudiger
Stacy Rus
Bill Rynd
Heather Scalia
Brandy & Richard Senecal
Richard & Brandy Senecal
Aimee Shriner
The Key Team
Kirkland Trasaction
Theresa Tuengel
Debbie Turner
Dennis and Tammy Wallick
Tammy and Dennis Wallick
Darrell Whittaker
Joan Whittaker
Daniel and Shauna Willner
Shauna and Daniel Willner
Kim Witzig
Sarah Wolverton

Windermere Kirkland-Yarrow Bay
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
3933 Lk Washington Blvd NE, Suite 100
Kirkland, WA 98033

Phone: (425) 822-5100
Fax: (425) 827-3400
Email: lewmason@windermere.com
Website: www.kirkland-yarrow-bay.windermere.com

James Alavekios
Bill Badgley
Jim Badgley
John Barker
Dennus Baum
Brooks Beaupain
Tabitha Beaupain
Sharon Berry
Jess Beyers
Bryon Bosch
Natasha Bosch
Thomas Bosch
Ron Branch
Jennifer Braun
Daniel Breilh
Heidi Bright
Steve Burk
I C
Amy Cagle
Lynly Callaway
Ann Carson
Scott Carson
Lauri Cass
Lauri Cass
Keith Childress
Lynette Chu-Hirai
Cindy Coakley
Joe Coakley
Laurel Crisafulli
Diana Curneen
Erik Daley
Tamara Dean
Michael DeDonato
Amy Dedoyard
Patricia Deveny
Cheryl Eastwood
Cheryl Eastwood
Amber Eckert
Rondi Egenes
Trish Englund
Cara Erdman
Yarrowbay Fax
Yarrowbay Files
Leanne Finlay
Skeets Fletcher
Peter Freet
Jonathan Garber
Craig Gaudry
Lydia Geline
Dianne Girard
Carol Goddard
Brian Green
Kathryne Green
Steve Green
Bruce Gunnels
Charlie Hall
Christopher Hall
Julie A. Hall, MBA
Joyce Hardy
Beverly Harris
Ivana Hill
Steve Hiller
Andrea Holmqvist
Steve Holton
Feng Hong
Laurie Hope
Laurie Hope
Nan Humble
Annie Hyatt
Paul Isenburg
Stan Isenhath
Fara Jaberi
Michelle Jewell
Maureen Kelly
Renee Kimes
Karishma Kiri
Julia Krill
Mark Krill
Julia Krill Forum
Brit Kuhnke
Jodi LaBow
Dana Landry
Susan Lemaire
David Liddle
Carrie Lord
Sonja Lui
Kathy Magner
Margo Mansfield
Lew Mason
Patricia Mason
Sarah McGrath
Sarah McGrath
Gary McLean
Amir Medawar
Jim Melgard
Jim Merritt
Tammy S. Miller
Robin Myers
Pearl Nardella
Chelle Nelson
Dawn Neu-Rupp
Anna Novikoff
Judie O'Brien
Tim O'Brien
Pat O'Grady
Nancy Olmos
Wendy Paisley
Nick Pallis
Jennifer Perkins-Johnson
Kay Plimpton
Callaway Polt
Joy Polt
Laura Polt
Vicki Powers
Karen Prins
Nikki Provost
Wolfgang Puls
Sheri Putzke
Randy Reeves
Stephanie Reeves
Ky Reichle
Jeff J. Reynolds
Anna Riley
Dan Riley
Erena Rombakh
Max Rombakh
Emo Rowe
Team Sabrina
Lynn Sanborn
Carlene Sandstrom
Danielle Sanine
Jane Lindsay Scott
Joel Scott
Colette Seley
Debra Sinick
Jean Smith
Sabrina Smith
Hugh Stewart
Roya Tabatabai
Lori Tanaka
Susan Taylor
Sinick and Beaupain
Rayme Teders
Chip Tilley
Marion Tilley
Dorothy Tropp
Carol Vandenberg
Ann Wahl
Dave Wahl
Dave Wahl
Pat Wenzel
Pat Wenzel
Betsy Weyer
Lynn Winchester
Kay Zatine

Windermere Lake Chelan
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lake Chelan
115 East Woodin Avenue/ PO Box 2382
Lake Chelan, WA 98816

Phone: 509-682-4211
Fax: 866-661-6964
Email: Chelan@windermere.com
Website: lakechelanrealestate.com

Office Admin
Steve Brown
Lake Chelan
Joe Collins
Josh Collins
Valerie Conrad
Rosemary Easley
Mary Flood
Tim Flood
Kimberly Johnson
Kari Kollmeyer
Tony MacMillan
Vickie McKenney
Brian Merrill
Jim Northrup
Renee Peterson
Morgan Picton
Kara Schell
Craig Stimson
Keith Wells
Arturo Zavala

Windermere Lake Stevens
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lake Stevens Inc
9327-4th St. NE, Suite #3
Lake Stevens, WA 98258

Phone: 425-335-4666
Fax: 425-335-1838
Email: lakestevens@windermere.com
Website: www.lakestevensrealestate.com

Office Administrator
Office Administrator
Gina Akins
Vic Chaloupka
Bob Chapman
Leah Crombie
Christina Dow
Kelly J. Dykstra
Kim Filion
Meg Griswold
Heather Herdt
Meribeth Hutchings
Elizabeth Jentzsch
Nikki Jutte
Joshua Koffler
Tracee Kosters
Christine Larson
Leanna Lopez
Catherine Martin
Elena Moore
Julie Pearson
Nicole Perez
Gary Petershagen
Jane Reynolds
Vicky Rhodes
Jeff Sax
Sherry Schublom
Jim Solemsaas
Michael Thompson
Tami Tuck
Cindy Welk
Corrina Westermann
Laura White
Jill Woolsey

Windermere Leavenworth
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/NCW
11779 Highway 2, Suite 106
Leavenworth, WA 98826

Phone: (509) 548-4663
Fax: (509) 662-2656
Email: Leavenworth@windermere.com

Julie Averill
Office Coordinator
Geoff Ford
Claudia Hildahl
Steve Hildahl
Momi Palmieri
Geordie Romer
Allyson Zacharko Romer

Windermere Long Beach
Office Address:
Windermere/Pacific Land Company
1410 St Route 101 / PO Box 1577
Long Beach, WA 98631

Phone: (360) 642-5600 (866) 970-5600
Fax: 360-642-5611
Email: longbeach@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerelongbeach.com

Cindy Colley
Internet Coordinator
Marketing Coordinator
Kent Easom

Windermere Lopez Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Lopez Island
182 Lopez Rd/ P.O. Box 27
Lopez Island, WA 98261

Phone: 360/468-3344
Fax: 360/468-3632
Email: wrehome@wrelopez.com
Website: www.wrelopez.com

Annie Albritton
Beth Andrewes
Jim Gorton
Mitty Huntsman
Dianne Pressenda
Roy Richmond
Terry Tuszynski

Windermere Lynden
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whatcom Inc.
8071 Guide Meridian, Unit 105
Lynden, WA 98264

Phone: 360-354-4455
Fax: 360-354-7788
Email: beckylee@windermere.com
Website: www.lyndenrealestate.mywindermere.com

Keith Bouma
Ron DeBoer
Brady DenBleyker
Sharon Engels
Jessica Hanon
Jason Heutink
Wynden Holman
Jim Huleatt
Becky Lee
Sid Mellema
Lynden Office
Darrel Timmer
Karen Timmer
Mike Vail
Marv Van Mersbergen
Loren VanCorbach
Bonnie VanderYacht
Duane VanderYacht
Lester VanMersbergen
Tresie Wiersma

Windermere Lynnwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/North, Inc.
4211 Alderwood Mall Blvd Suite 110
Lynnwood, WA 98036

Phone: 425-776-1119
Fax: 425-776-5680
Email: lynnwood@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere-north.com/

Samantha Arango
Leah Arnold
Melody Benton
Jen Bowman
Ben Buehler
Greg & Janet Buehler
Casey Bui
Marcia Chamberlin
Jin Chang
Barbara Clark
Lynnwood Contracts
Front Desk
Robin Downie
Jenny Eglian
Douglas Everett
Aranka Fruehauf
Kasia Giron
Elizabeth Hagen
Michele Hagen
Kim Harman
Linda Hauanio
Brian Hayter
Lynette Hensley
Jim & Judy Hopper
Judy & Jim Hopper
Melissa Huddleston
Nancy Hunter-Miller
Joel Johnson
Joel Johnson - Commercial
Shelly Katzer
Steve Kemp
Steve Kemp
Karen Kibbey
Michele Kimes
Barbara King
Steve Larsen
Property Management
Nancy Marsh
Molly Martin
Stefanie A. Massie
Lena Maul
Claudette Meyer
Windermere Real Estate/ North
Katherine O'Neill
Shawn Perry
Chris Royer
Jan Taylor
Pat & Tonya Tye
Tonya & Pat Tye
Laurie Vandermay
Liz Warren
Andrea Wetzel
Cori Whitaker
Bernice Whitney
Lynnwood Windermere Property
Management
Mark Winslow
Cathy Wood
Elliott Wood
Cristina Zalavarria

Windermere Maple Valley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Maple Valley
22017 S.E. Wax Road, Suite 102
Maple Valley, WA 98038

Phone: 425-569-6900
Fax: 425-569-6901
Email: maplevalley@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremaplevalley.withwre.com

Trisha Adams
Arnie (Rick) & Julie Arnevick
Kellie Batali
Shannon Brannon
Pam Brossard
Carla Clark
Michelle Constantine
Cara Currey
Chris Currey
Shane Davies
Susie Davies
Kerry Dean
Sherri Goodwin
Kristen Greenlaw
Desi Heikell
Sean Henderson
Jule Johnson
Dawn Johnston
Claire Kindley
Meridith Kohn
Trena Kupper
Janet Lewis
Melody Mann
Alissa McCord
Tia O'Dell
Tia S O'Dell
Maplevalley Office
Cheryl Pederson
Cindy Sizemore
Greg Skagen
Roberta Smith
Petrina Snodgrass
Butch Soomann
Leslie Stoecker
Joanna Tift
Cindi Williams

Windermere Marysville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/JS
801 State Ave.
Marysville, WA 98270

Phone: 360-653-2509
Fax: 360-653-5003
Email: marysville@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremarysville.com

Debbie Barger Smith
Debbie Barger Smith
Rachel Blanton
Shannon Brooks
Nora Chess
Dave Clark
Jean Cory
Lisa Y. Davis
JoAnn Donohue
Karen Eckerson
Tom Estabrook
Del Fazzone
Kay Frederickson
Robin Hammond
John Hartman
Diana Hauge
Mary Jane Hendry
Kym Johnsen
Larry Johnson
Karen King
Deirdre Kvangnes
Bud Laird
Maloree McCulla
Laurie McKenzie
Laurie McKenzie
Gretchen Muldowney
Barbara Nyland
Marysville Office
Lars Oquist
Brooke Orcutt
Dan Orcutt
Suzanna Owen
Aimee Patton
Pamala Perez
Dan Peterson
Larry Peterson
Heidi Ramos
Connie Redden
Barbara Rowley
Jeff Rowley
Jim Rowley
Kim Siemer
Natalee Thurston
Lois Tuengel
Juli Freeman Wampler
Kaitlin Watson
Kathy West
Shannon Woodward

Windermere Mazama
Office Address:
Windermere Methow Valley
42 Lost River Road
Mazama, WA 98833

Phone: (509) 996-6562
Fax: (509) 996-6563
Email: methow@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereMethow.com

Anabel Andres
Leverett Hubbard
Mary Lockman
Delene Monetta
Robert Monetta
Alexis Monetta Port
Nicola Zahn

Windermere Mercer Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Mercer Island
2737 77th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040

Phone: 206-232-0446
Fax: 206-236-6038
Email: MercerIsland@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereMercerIsland.com

Jay Agoado
Van Anderson
Ina Bahner
Julie Barrows
Lis Brown
Kathryn Buchanan
Wendy Chan
Denise Coe
Jennifer Craven
Robert Craven
Nicole Demers-Changelo
Claire Dion
Lisa Dong
Daphne Donovan
Terry Donovan
Erin Ewing
Cindy Galante
Sharon Glatz-Scott
Megan Hand
Kristopher Herrell
Allen Hovsepian
Andrea Iverson
Andrew Jackson
Valarie Kaye
Anne Kaye-Jewett
James Laurie
Nancy LaVallee
Cherrie Lee
Michael Lee
Kathryn Lerner
Susan Lettengarver-Stowell
Lisa Lewis
Daniel Marinello
Doug McKiernan
Windermere Mercer Island
Molly Neary
Marianne Parks
Seamus Pelan
Tom Poole
Mary Lou Putman
Emily Roberts
Brian Rosso
Michelle Rubin
Bonnie Sanborn
Cynthia Schoonmaker
Peni Schwartz
Karin Spencer
Paul Tiscornia
Andrea Victor
Kelly Weisfield
Larry Williams
Julie Wilson
Sandy Yin
Anni Zilz

Windermere Methow Valley
Office Address:
Windermere Methow Valley
313 E. Highway 20 Box 1088
Twisp, WA 98856

Phone: (509) 997-6562
Fax: (509) 997-8342
Email: methow@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereMethow.com

Office Admin
Anabel Andres
Leverett Hubbard
Mary Lockman
Windermere Methow
Delene Monetta
Robert Monetta
Alexis Monetta Port
Nicola Zahn

Windermere Mill Creek
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Mill Creek, Inc.
18323 Bothell Everett Hwy, Suite 210
Bothell, WA 98012

Phone: 425-481-6666
Fax: 425-481-9353
Email: millcreek@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremillcreek.com

Shellie Adolfson
Anne Allen
Barbara Athanas
Kim-Ho Barnes
Russell Brenneke
Brett Bunn
Theresa Burkhart
Cynthia Caffrey
Mike Cheesman
Michelle Cooper
Tammy Davis
Lyla Derosier
Ron Einstein
Jessica Griffin
Toni Griffin
Deb Hall
Jack Herzog
Chris Hill
Chris and Diana Hill
Diana Hill
Vern Holden
Sue Hounshell
Windermere/Mill Creek, Inc.
Tom Isenhart
Brooke Jaeger
Pam Jensen
Vic Johnson
Preston Kallshian
Knute Korshaven
Jennifer Kuhlman
Kevin Kuhlman
Shari Landrie
Dean Larson
Shawna Matthews
Patricia McCormick
Deanna McCulloch
Todd McElroy
Keith D McKinney
H.R. Butch Mears
Dave Miles
Pamela Mullen
Darren Munson
Gwen Munson
Crystal Nybo
Rachelle Oster
Thea Pellegrino
Robert Purser
Ron Reeder
Michael Roland, Jr.
Donna Rorvik
Shawna Matthews & Russell Brenneke
Dominique Ruybal
Roxanne Santiago
Frank Sargent
Marilyn Scott
Joanne Shattuck
Lisa Sleister
Alan Stevens
Beth Tanner
Lynette Thomas
Windermere Mill Creek Town Center
Joe Valenta
Bob Williams

Windermere Mill Creek Town Center
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Mill Creek, Inc.
15418 Main Street, Suite M103
Mill Creek, WA 98012

Phone: (425) 481-6666
Fax: (425) 481-9353
Email: millcreek@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremillcreek.com

Shellie Adolfson
Anne Allen
Barbara Athanas
Kim-Ho Barnes
Russell Brenneke
Brett Bunn
Theresa Burkhart
Cynthia Caffrey
Mike Cheesman
Michelle Cooper
Tammy Davis
Lyla Derosier
Jessica Griffin
Toni Griffin
Deb Hall
Jack Herzog
Chris Hill
Chris and Diana Hill
Diana Hill
Vern Holden
Sue Hounshell
Tom Isenhart
Brooke Jaeger
Pam Jensen
Vic Johnson
Preston Kallshian
Knute Korshaven
Jennifer Kuhlman
Kevin Kuhlman
Shari Landrie
Dean Larson
Shawna Matthews
Patricia McCormick
Deanna McCulloch
Todd McElroy
Keith D McKinney
H.R. Butch Mears
Dave Miles
Pamela Mullen
Darren Munson
Gwen Munson
Crystal Nybo
Rachelle Oster
Thea Pellegrino
Robert Purser
Ron Reeder
Michael Roland, Jr.
Donna Rorvik
Shawna Matthews & Russell Brenneke
Dominique Ruybal
Roxanne Santiago
Frank Sargent
Marilyn Scott
Joanne Shattuck
Lisa Sleister
Alan Stevens
Beth Tanner
Lynette Thomas
Joe Valenta
Bob Williams

Windermere Monroe
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
800 West Main
Monroe, WA 98272

Phone: 360-794-3777
Fax: 360-794-5731
Email: monroe@windermere.com
Website: www.monroewindermere.com

Karen Akers
Micah Broker
Internet Coordinator
Susan Davis
Dave Demarest
Monica Dexter
Micki Engel
Monroe Fax
Hank Fresonke
Linda Gates
Crystal Hanson
Shirley Hudson
OB Jacobi
Bronn Journey
Kathleen LeFebvre
Kristine Nicholls
Amanda Norseen
Monroe Office
Mary Parsons
Melissa Reule
Marlene Rouleau
Jenell Steltz
Trudi M Terletter
Matt Wheadon

Windermere Mortgage Services
Office Address:
Windermere Mortgage Services
601 Union Street, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98101

Phone: 1-800-867-1337
Website: www.windermeremortgageservices.com/

Jennifer Dunham
Chris Erickson
Cheryl Fry
Lee Gill
Erik Hand
Jill Walker

Windermere Moses Lake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate K-2 Realty LLC
2900 West Broadway
Moses Lake, WA 98837

Phone: 509-765-3337
Fax: 509-765-0435
Email: Hjadkinson@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremoseslake.com

April Adams
Heather Adkinson
Sierra Becken
Kandi Bersanti
Walt Bumgarner
Internet Coordinator
Sandy Eslick
Lisa Garmon
Lynn Garza
Tammy Garza
Lisa Hanley
Norman & Lisa Hanley
Jay Kincaid
Lois Kincaid
Ralph Kincaid
Barry Lawson
Susan McMillan
Vivian Richard
Pat Wold
Tiffany Zemke

Windermere Mount Vernon
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Skagit Valley
1030 E. College Way
Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Phone: 360/424-4901
Fax: 360/424-8715
Email: skagit@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereskagit.com

Karine Anderson
Karen Beckner
George Bellos
Warren Bingham
Internet Coordinator
Lee Ann Dean
Jenna Dellinger
Skagit Docs
Linda Eastman
Margy Furst
Jim Glackin
Ellen Hankins
Skagit Info
Rita Ingram
Sherry Johansen
Kim Kelley
Balisa Koetje
Jake Koetje
Jim Koetje
Bill and Jannette Krieger
Jannette Krieger
Jeri Lee
Nathan Loeb
Robin Lee Luif
David Mani
Bob Masterman
Elizabeth Miller
Travis Miller
Sarah Minton
Dick Nord
Megan O'Bryan
Harry Ota
Dave Patterson
Kelly Peacock
Spencer Roozen
Donna Rowell
Carol Schweigert
Jim Scott
Josh Scott
Julie Scott
Windermere Real Estate/ Skagit Valley
Cindy Sullivan
Lindsey Weaver
Jamie Yantis
Shanayla Yantis
Tasha Zahlis

Windermere Mukilteo
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/GH LLC
12003 Mukilteo Speedway, Ste 101
Mukilteo, WA 98275

Phone: 425-348-5960, 866-912-3954
Fax: 425-353-3134
Email: mukilteo@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremukilteo.com

June Bigelow
Casey Bowers
Dora Carelli
Rick Carlson
Tina Chun
Mukilteo Compliance
Marlene Dawsey
Terri DelMaestro
Kristen Ellington
Abby Foote
Scott Garbarino
Greg Hoff
Hugh Hoff
Alex Johnson
Evan Johnson
Jessica Jorgensen
Jeana McDonald
Bruce W. McKinnon, MBA
Mike Miller
Sandy Morton
Linda Nelson
House of Success
Mukilteo Office
Tracey Rodrigue
Jim Rosenberger
Kristi Rosenberger
The Rosenberger Team
Don Scorgie
Judy Scorgie
Laura Smith
Randi Szakaly
Dave Tribble
Kelly Wedin

Windermere Northport
Office Address:
Windermere Colville
412 Center Avenue
Northport, WA 99157

Phone: (509) 732-6269
Fax: (509) 732-1611
Email: john@newarealestate.com

Internet Coordinator
John Corcoran
Heidi Murphy

Windermere Ocean Shores
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Ocean Shores
PO Box 1568, 837 Pt. Brown Ave NW
Ocean Shores, WA 98569

Phone: (360) 289-3373
Fax: (360) 289-2825
Email: oceanshores@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereoceanshores.com

Kristi Beitzel
Linda Benson
Patrick Brunstad
Julie Dessert
Jim Donahoe
Jim Donahoe-COMM
Tracy Finsterbusch
Dave Granlund
Nancy Granlund
David Granlund - COMM
Dave Granlund - Seabrook
Donna LaShance
Richard LaShance
Richard LaShance - COMM
Office Manager
Jana Mobray
Ocean Shores Office
Tom Quigg - Commercial
Tom Quigg- Residential
Lynn Sebastian
Lorna Valdez

Windermere Olympia
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Olympia
2312 Pacific Ave Suite A.
Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: 360-943-7839 1-800-848-7022
Fax: 360/943-5625
Email: windoly@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereolympia.com

Floor Agent
Jane Ames
Internet Coordinator
Stephanie DeForest
Larry DeRoux
Barbara Dugaw
Alan Fuller
Steve Garrett
Woody Hill
Dave Kamenz
Charity Kirk
Louie Kiser
Dawn Lord
Denise Luikart
Kathy Madsen
Michelle Mewhinney-Angel
Gregory Moe
Connie Nicholas
Ray Noorassa
Tranactions Olympia
Stephanie Parsons
Andrea Peters
Janet Connell Sallee
Pam Stonefelt
Rod Swisshelm
David Uhlemann
Julie Weist
Cheryl Wiatrak
Office Admin Windoly
Bev Wood Back

Windermere Omak- Okanogan
Office Address:
Windermere Methow Valley
540 Riverside Ave. (P.O.Box 3817)
Omak, WA 98841

Phone: (509) 826-5906
Fax: (509) 826-5908
Email: omak@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereOmak.com

Jeff Daigneau
Kristine Gaffney
Billie Holden
Brian Lowary
Robert Monetta
Mary Niemeyer
Joanne Talmadge
Nicola Zahn

Windermere Orcas Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Orcas Island
18 Haven Road / P.O. Box 310
Eastsound, WA 98245

Phone: 1-800-842-5770
Fax: 1-360-376-5637
Email: orcas@windermere.com
Website: www.orcas-island.com

Mariah Buck
Mariah Buck
Gwyneth Burrill
David Douglass
Peter D Drape
John Dunning
John D. Dunning
Terri Gilleland
Cat Gilliam
Wally Gudgell
Wally Gudgell
Gary Harper
Laura Hasselman
Linda Hume
Wreoi Island 2
Lynne Ann Johnson
Duffy King
Reba MacLeod
Tom Maiuro
Lydia Miller
Windermere Orcas
Windermere Orcas Island
Jaylin Peacock
Suzana Roach
Bob Shipstad
Becky Smith
Stu Stephens
Elyse Van Den Bosch
Michael Whellams
Diane Whitley

Windermere Oroville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Oroville
1408 Main
Oroville, WA 98844

Phone: 509-476-3378
Fax: 509-476-3384
Email: oroville@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Dan Coursey
Doug Kee
Kathy Noel
Ron Peterson
Sandy Peterson

Windermere

Windermere Port Angeles
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Port Angeles
711 E. Front Street
Port Angeles, WA 98362

Phone: 360-457-0456
Fax: 360-452-2304
Email: windermere@olypen.com
Website: www.portangeles.com

Alan Barnard
Michaelle Barnard
Quint Boe
Holly Coburn
Internet Coordinator
Thelma Durham
Jennifer Felton
Helga Filler
Glenn Franko
Jennifer Holcomb
Kelly Johnson
Linda Kepler
Terry Neske
Doc Reiss
Harriet Reyenga
Christine Wilson

Windermere Port Orchard
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Port Orchard
1200 Bethel Ave.
Port Orchard, WA 98366

Phone: (360) 876-9600
Fax: (360) 876-9644
Email: portorch@windermere.com
Website: www.PortOrchardRealEstate.com

Kt Arthur
Kim Bartell
Luke Bentson
James Bergstrom
Johan Bester
Jennifer Connelly-Delay
Robert Contreras
Donna Cryder
Barry Jones
Leann Knight
Terry Knowlton
Mark McColgan
Port Orchard
Bryan Petro
Mike Rochon
Dana Soyat
Beth Sturdivan
Daryn Swisher
Joan Wardwell
Andrew Welch
Linda Yost

Windermere Port Townsend
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Port Townsend
1220 Water Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368

Phone: 360-385-9344 800-776-9344
Fax: 360-385-9345
Email: wrept@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereporttownsend.com

Designated Broker
Kevin Burgler
Holley Carlson
Paul Constantine
Steve Crosland
Suzanne DeMasso
Mark Dembro
Jim Fox
Dave Garing
Jan Garing
Marty Gay
James Graf
Chuck Hynden
Gina Johnston
Linda Livingston
Rian Lopeman
Susan Wilson Miller
Teri Nomura
Christine Ota
Sue Ramage
Marta Ray
Michelle Sandoval
Susan Scott
Angela Wilkinson

Windermere Poulsbo
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/West Sound, Inc.
18570 Hwy 305
Poulsbo, WA 98370

Phone: 360-779-5205
Fax: 360-779-9549
Email: poulsbo@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerepoulsbo.com

Amy Allen
Liz Bailey
Annita Baze Hansen
Ida Bear
Julie Bray-Larsen
Christine Brevick
Terry Burns
Bonnie Chandler
Harborside Condominiums
Internet Coordinator
Carter Dotson
Tori Dotson
Norma Foss
Rebecca Gore
Romelle Gosselin
Kevin Hannah
Jim P. Harris
Sheenah Hellmers
Barbara Huget
Catherine Jones
Joni Kimmel
Moira McDonough
Casey McGrath
Chris Moyer
Kelly Muldrow
Marleen Nighswonger
Noelle Osborn
Wayne Paulson
Mike Pitts
JoAnn Polley
Sharla Pugliese
Mary Richards
Jim Robb
Jay Robertson
Sandie Rumble
Poulsbo Scan
Jeannette Schanbeck
Elaine Tanner
Pam Taplin
Randy Taplin
Kasi Taylor Martinez
Tim Thompson
Bill Touchette
Brittany Vander Pol
John West
Chris Wurden
Irene Wurden
Bridget Young
Kimmel & Young

Windermere Property Management- Bellevue
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/Lori Gill & Associates
700 112th Ave NE Ste 203
Bellevue, WA 98004

Phone: (425)455-5515
Fax: (425)455-5537
Email: wpme@windermere.com
Website: wpmnorthwest.com

PM Accounting
Tracey Adams
Pete Anderson
Aaron Arnold
Erica Bartram
Kristina Blair
Jessica Blake
Michele Braa-Heidner
Cory Brewer
Internet Coordinator2
Deanna De Valk
Brianne Diebner
Eric Dworkis
Colleen Sheridan Gasca
Rob Gasca
Kristin Gill
Lori Gill
Hilary Gilman
Stephanie Heimbigner
Lacey Hiersche
David Hogan
Laurie Hoskins
Aaron Hundtofte
Camey Jenson
Mary C. Joyce
Tori Kolytiris
Julie Leary
Cyndi Lenay
Elizabeth Lybecker
Lily McGuire
Theo Montgomery
Katie Phan
Manny Ramos
Josh Randall
Elizabeth Roberts
Heather Rochester
Kelley Rose
Buck Sater
Jennifer Shepperd
Tia Simmons
Jennifer Spence
Linda Stephenson
Monica Stomner
Erin Strobel
Tony Strobel
Anne Tabert
Kirstin Tamminen
Paul Tollner
Jenna Weinstein
Shannon Williamson

Windermere Property Management- Bellingham
Office Address:
Windermere Management
541 W. Bakerview
Bellingham, WA 98226

Phone: 360-733-7944
Fax: 360-733-7969
Email: rwashburn@windermere.com
Website: Rentalsbywindermere.com

Jay Baklund
Teresa Bosteter
Zena Boyko
Terry Brown
Internet Coordinator
Karey Jones
Sandi Jones
Liesa Krause
Patricia Reese
DeeAnn Richstein
Lindsey Shields
Jen Vander Meulen
Jessica Wheeler

Windermere Property Management- Edmonds
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/Lori Gill & Associates
146 3rd Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98020

Phone: (425) 672-2000
Fax: (425) 672-2005
Email: wpme@windermere.com
Website: www.wpmnorthwest.com

Ann Ashford
Jessie Brown
Toni Campbell
Internet Coordinator
Laura Gallagher
Jessica Garin
Rosie Gray
Breezy Maxim
Debbi Olsen
Laurie Rohrich
Jenn York

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

Phone: 425-348-7368
Fax: 425-355-9512
Email: office@wpmnw.biz
Website: www.wpmnw.biz

Arin Becker
Jamie Booth
Margie Clifton
Jody Dahl
Sandy Delaney
Michele Dillon
Brinda Faux
Lori Hundhausen
Virginia Kiesel
Karen Raybould
Geri Scott
Cathy Staehnke
Courtney Thompson
Heidi Thompson
Ronald E. Thompson
Twila Toomey
Becky Wright
Scott Young

Windermere Property Management-Kirkland
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management JMW
12801 NE 85th St.
Kirkland, WA 98033

Office: (425) 213-1300
Email: propertymanager@windermere.com

Amber Anderson
Cell/Direct:(206) 621-2037
Email: AmberAnderson@windermere.com

Office Coordinator
Cell/Direct:(425) 213-1300
Email: cassieh@windermere.com
Website :www.Windermere-PM.com

Christian Dema
Cell/Direct:(206) 391-3297
Email: christiandema@windermere.com

Jay LaBrie
Cell/Direct:(206) 550-8712
Email: jaylabrie@windermere.com
Website :www.WindermereSeattlePM.com

Mandy Lane
Cell/Direct:(206) 276-3202
Email: mandylane@windermere.com
Website:www.WindermereSeattlePM.com

Christy Rice, Property Manager
Cell/Direct:(206) 391-3297
Email: christy@christyricepm.com
Website :www.christyricepm.com

Jennie Ugaitafa
Cell/Direct:(206) 229-5224
Email: jennie@windermere.com
Website :www.WindermereSeattlePM.com

Windermere Property Management- Olympia
Office Address:
Windermere/Olympia Property Management
2413 Pacific Avenue, Suite C
Olympia, WA 98501

Phone: 360-943-4189/800-943-7543
Fax: 360-705-3129
Email: rpm@windermere.com
Website: windermereolympiapm.com

Debbie Arnold
Maggie Balagot
Monica Dana
Jodi Dillashaw
Randy Parker
Olympia PMCoordinator
Catherine Tenuth

Windermere Property Management- Port Orchard
Office Address:
Windermere Paramount Properties
1200 Bethel Ave.
Port Orchard, WA 98366

Phone: (360) 876-9600
Fax: (360) 876-9644
Email: portorch@windermere.com

Windermere Property Management- Pullman
Office Address:
Windermere Pullman Moscow
1125 NW Nye St., Suite B
Pullman, WA 99163

Phone: (509) 338-4653
Fax: (509) 338-9134
Email: myrentals@windermere.com
Website: myrentals.withwre.com

Marina Hawn
Lynn Kramer
Beth Semingson
Alise Smith

Windermere Property Management- Puyallup
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/South Sound
12114 104th Ave E
Puyallup, WA 98374

Phone: (253) 445-0166
Fax: (253) 845-0166
Email: brokersupport@windermere.com

Office Coordinator
Helen Hardie
Beth Salmon
Tammy Woodward

Windermere Property Management- Seattle
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/ JMW
615 Eastlake Ave E
Seattle, WA 98109

Phone: (206) 621-2037
Fax: (206) 382-3561
Email: PropertyManager@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermereSeattlePM.com

Alan Bonaci
Rebecca Farmer
Kimberlee Farvour
Catherine Hardesty
Andrea Jacobi
Tricia Jacobs
Bruce James
Kathy Langenegger
Wendy Lindell
Edelisa Munar
Property Management Seattle Office
Accounting Staff
Office Staff
David Steinmetz
Gary Vasseur
J. Michael Wilson

Windermere Property Management- Seattle North
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/Lori Gill & Associates
819 NE 65th Street
Seattle, WA 98115

Phone: (206) 527-0400
Fax: (206) 527-3499
Email: wpme@windermere.com
Website: www.wpmnorthwest.com

Eric Anderson
Gino Araki
Brenda Brynildsen
Rachel Bucher
Nicki Callahan
Internet Coordinator
Kelly Coulibaly
David Drake
Candice Feldman
Cassie Walker Johnson
Stacy Jost
Nicole Meiser
Marta Morris

Windermere Property Management- Silverdale
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management West Sound
9939 Mickelberry Rd NW, Suite B
Silverdale, WA 98383

Phone: (360) 516-6243
Email: kitsappm@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereforrent.com

Bobbi Alger
Office Coordinator
Patrice Holland
Chelsey May
Bobbi Neal
Tim Roche

Windermere Property Management- South
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management/WPM South, L.L.C.
15215 SE 272nd Street, Suite 204
Kent, WA 98042

Phone: 253-638-9811
Fax: 253-638-0437
Email: wpmsouth@windermere.com
Website: www.wpmsouth.com

Rodney Bishop
Alison Bonaci
Kymberlee Bruton
Kim Clifton
Internet Coordinator
Sarah Devine
Elaine Dial
Dawnette Fletcher
Shawn Fletcher
Laura Gordon
WPM South HOA
Paris Johnson
Kay Joyner
Jacquelyn Kleebauer
Linda Larson
Zhanette Litvinchuk
Cinda McClure
Cinda McClure
Kira McRae
Chantelle Mitchell
WPM South Office Email
Carrie Roods
Lynn Sutherland
Shelly Tarica
Ron Thompson
Melissa Tuck
Bob Ustanik
Austin Verdi
Austin Verdi
Daytin Verdi
Edward J. Verdi
Charity Williams

Windermere Property Management- Spokane
Office Address:
Windermere Equity Brokers, LLC
8601 N. Division
Spokane, WA 99208

Phone: (509) 467-2202
Fax: (509) 468-2028
Email: timz@windermere.com
Website: www.wrents.com

Office Administrator
Suzie Carney
Suzie Carney
Robin Catterton
Front Desk
Mindy Ohmann
Lani Richards
Lani Richards
Tim Todd
Tim Todd
Tim Zoesch

Windermere Property Management- Tacoma
Office Address:
Windermere Professional Partners Property Management
2209 N Pearl St Suite 200 A
Tacoma, WA 98406

Phone: (253) 830-5160
Fax: (253) 830-3500
Email: MarkMelsness@windermere.com
Website: WPPPM.com

Chambers Bay
Jennifer Coursey
Fenny Friis
Jeri-Kay Lerew
Mark Melsness
Client Services

Windermere Property Management- Walla Walla
Office Address:
Windermere Property Management Walla Walla
20 E Poplar, Ste 204-B
Walla Walla, WA 99362

Phone: (509) 526-7368
Fax: (509) 529-0728
Email: wallarent@gmail.com
Website: www.windermerewallawalla.com

Bud Campbell
Internet Coordinator
Susan Frers
Tina King
Jason Oldridge
Doug Ralph
Betty Simcock
Manford Simcock
Nicki Simcock
William Teepe
Windermere Property Management Walla Walla

Windermere Property Management- Yelm
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Yelm WA
709 Yelm Ave E
Yelm, WA 98597

Phone: 360-458-5120
Fax: 360-458-1806
Email: yelm@windermere.com

Windermere Pullman
Office Address:
Windermere Pullman Moscow
1125 NW Nye Street, Suite B
Pullman, WA 99163

Phone: (509) 334-3530
Fax: (509) 338-9134
Email: pullman@windermere.com
Website: pullmanmoscowhomes.com

Chris Clark
Contracts Coordinator
Technical Coordinator
Jacob T Davis
Lynn Kramer
Windermere Pullman-Moscow
Jeri Rainer
Jess Rainer
Beth Semingson
Alise Smith
Mindy Vance
Amy Wang

Windermere Puyallup
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Puyallup Inc.
12114 104th Ave. E.
Puyallup, WA 98374

Phone: 253-845-5900
Fax: 253-845-0113
Email: jnichols@windermere.com
Website: www.WindermerePuyallup.com

Cindi Allison
Shannon Armstrong
Matthew Avila
Larry Bargmeyer
Chuck Brockway
Rose Corey
Erin Dobrinski
Tony Dressor
Puyallup Fax
Fred Goehler
Carolyn Graham
Dana Grant
Annie Halko
Tim Hermansen
Kylee Hill
Ed Hock
Lori Holman
Brenda Holmes
Rob Holmes
Mike Hurter
Steve Hurter
Melanie Imber
Windermere Real Estate/Puyallup, Inc
puyallup Info
Kelly Inman
Vickie Jennings
Jennifer Jones
Von Karl Inman
Justin Kenney
Mark Kitabayashi
Mark Kitabayashi
Jason Mendel
Jeanne Merola
Gary W Miller
Seth Miller
Cathy Morris
Jessica Mustain
Jane Nichols
Allison OKere
Rob Pollard
RJ Preisser
Josh Prieur
Mary Richard
Hector Rios
Donna Rudebaugh
Jaryd Ruffner
Ryan Sand
Stacy Schwartz
Gina Short
Stacy Skoog
Carol Tedrick
Alex Torres
Kirsta Trombley
Office Website
Jami Wilson

Windermere Quincy
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Central Basin, LLC
503 S. Central Ave
Quincy, WA 98848

Phone: 509-787-4536
Fax: 509/787-8707
Email: quincy@windermere.com
Website: www.quincy.windermere.com

Debra Adams
Kelly Field
Pam Marquis
Daja Mayfield
Quincy Office
Tom Parrish
Linda Ray

Windermere Realty Group-Vancouver
Office Address:
Windermere/Realty Group
237 Chkalov Drive #215
Vancouver, WA 98684

Phone: (360) 823-0404
Fax: (503) 675-8268
Email: lakeoswegowest@windermere.com

Yousef Abraha
Internet Coordinator
Joeseph Daiker
Robin Denburg
Kristin Duyn

Windermere Redmond
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc.
7525 166th Avenue NE, Suite D210
Redmond, WA 98052

Phone: 425-883-0088
Fax: 425-885-7210
Email: redmond@windermere.com
Website: www.redmond.windermere.com

Ivonne Allen
Robyn Ayala
Lisa Brand
Jim Brown
Lara Brown
Kara Deak
Jason Decker
Jason Decker
Do Not Delete
Joel Dugan
Bill Ebert
Tricia Ebert
Shelley Elenbaas
Kim Gallert
Brandi Gibson
Eldon Guerrero
Buck Hoffman
Corky Irvin
Corky Ivrin
Amy Maggio
Dianne Masaoka
Pat McDonnell
Jennifer Mix
Cindy Nelson
Danyelle O'Neal
Jan Patton
Lisa Pearson
Autumn Reid
Jutta Roehrig-Strainer
Derek Rothe
Alan Saturay
Broker Services
Nate Short
David Simpson
Shirley Sterner
Jodi Stull
Redmond Transactions
Kristi Vellema
Maggie Vreeburg
Tim Vreeburg
Mike Watts
Sarah Weinold
Samantha Ying

Windermere Relocation and Referral Services
Office Address:
Windermere Relocation
301 N.E. 100th Street, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98125

Phone: (866) 941-3936 (206) 526-7730
Fax: (206) 258-3048
Email: Relocation@Windermere.com
Website: www.windermererelocation.com

Lisa Cox, CRP, CNE
Rose Hardiman
LaMonica Hummel, CRP, GMS-T
Cauline Osenbach
Chip Painter
Admin Relocation
Debbi Russell, RCC, WRS
Kathy Serrato
Relocation Services
Maureen Stern

Windermere Relocation- Mountain West
Office Address:
Windermere Services Mountain West
25 W. Cataldo, Ste. A
Spokane, WA 99201

Phone: 509-468-9410
Fax: 509-468-3203
Email: spokane@windermere.com

Rebekah Singer
Janet Weldon

Windermere Renton
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Renton, Inc.
3800 NE 4th Street
Renton, WA 98056

Phone: 425-235-7777
Fax: 425-226-0130
Email: renton@windermere.com
Website: www.windermererenton.com

Joan Addington
Sandra Bolden
Mindy Brady
Chelsea Brown
Heather Buckles
Lisa Contreras
Cheryl Coupens
Larry Crim
Official Delivery
Mira Demireva
Mark Follmer
Bill Grover
Teresa Grover
Jana Gustafson
Jenn Hammermaster
Sue Hammermaster
Len Holston
Linda Howe-Bristow
Tom Huxtable
Renton, Inc.
Darlene Johnson
Lisa Lam
Ian Lunsford
Sue Lunsford
Heather Maddox
Erin Maxwell
Marcie Maxwell
Jason Moore
Michelle Moore
Mika Peart
Cyd Phillips
Dan Phillips
Jennifer Rodgers
Ed Ruth
Bimal Sandhu
DeeDee Shirkey
Julie Sinclair
Stacey Stuart
Stacey Stuart
Jeff Taylor
Caren Tobolski
Timothy Tran
Danny Tseng
Linda Wagner
Jody Warren
Michelle Woo
Brad Yeager

Windermere Renton-Tukwila South
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/PSR, Inc.
3900 E Valley Rd, Suite 200
Renton, WA 98057

Phone: 425-277-5900
Fax: 425-277-6099
Email: RentonSouth@Windermere.com
Website: rsoffice.withwre.com/

Mark Barron
Joe Bernasconi
Kacee Bilbrey
Debbie Boyett
Dori Brashear
Scott Cannon
Beth Clement
Jennifer Clukey
Internet Coordinator
Caprice Y. Davis
Jimm Elliott
Mike Elliott
Sharon Gentry
Kim Grinolds
Christina Clymer Jarvis
Janet Jassen
Larry Jassen
Pat Larkin
Justin Laukala
Candace Legg-Cadigan
Roger Maggio
Tim McCormick
Travis Monen
Jason Moore
Darla Morton
Summer Nieto
Robbin Ott
Aaron Peterson
Charles Peterson
Sarah Peterson
Renton PSR, Inc.
WRE PSR, Inc.
Darleen Rasmussen
Carole Saffell
Roger Schluter
Kay Storhoff
Deborah Taylor, Assoc. Broker
Anne Thoreen
Nate Thornton

Windermere Republic
Office Address:
Windermere Republic
728 S. Clark Ave
Republic, WA 99166

Phone: 509-775-3004
Fax: 509-775-0235
Email: bjb@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Team Baldwin
Cynda Bragg
Bill J. Baldwin
Windermere Republic

Windermere San Juan Island
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/San Juan Island
50 Spring Street, P.O. Box 488
Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Phone: 360-378-3600/ 800-262-3596
Fax: (360)378-5916
Email: info@windermeresji.com
Website: www.windermeresji.com

Mary Jane Anderson
Samantha Bryner
Bette Cantrell
Tim Daniels
Debbie Dardanelli
Kathryn Farron
Gary Franklin
Bill Giesy
Sue Gordon
Bruce Hall
Thalya Harvey
Rebecca Hughes
Greg King
Denece Kost
John Lackey
Lisa Lawrence
Michael Linehan
Sybil Mager
Property Manager
Vail McClure
Annette McCullough, Property Manager
Linda McMahon
Robert Nieman
Pat O'Day
Helene Picone, Property Manager
Jacoba Porter
Meichelle Roberts
Windermere San Juan Island
Richard Sandmeyer
Zita Sandmeyer
Annette Schaffer
Rent Sji
Monica Van Appel-Percich
Tamara Weaver, Office Manager

Windermere Seattle-Ballard
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
2636 NW Market Street
Seattle, WA 98107

Phone: 206.789.7700
Fax: 206.782.4166
Email: ballard@windermere.com
Website: windermereballard.com

Arline Abrams
Cheri Adams
Breanna Albert
Ken Balter
Marilynn Balter
Julie Beall
Tom Bernard
Steve Blackbourn
Kelly Blake
Lynn Blind
Mary Bond
Robert Boyd
Ingrid Brinkley
Robert Brittingham
Andrea Brown
James Coleman
Internet Coordinator
Lance Cormier
Alexis Deneau
Keith M. Donaldson
Mary Durkan
Mary Durkan
Bonnie Ellsworth
Ballard Fax
Ballard Files
Jenny Frey
Darci Gillespie
Daniel Greenfield
Christopher Grimm
Gunnar Hadley
Laura Hanson
Bob Hedlund
Patti Hill
Melissa Homer
BG Hook
Gloria Jackson
Jonathan Jacobs
Jane Johnson
Janel Johnson
Aaron Kahn
Robinson Kahn
Don Kenney
Daniel Kessler
Irene Kristjanson
Nicole LaChasse
Loretta Larson
Greg Lewis
Leslie Manchester
Jacqueline Marloe
Megan McKibbin
Sara Medford
Bob Melvey
Tom Moorman
Jessica Morsley
Muna Muraisi
Dane Murphy
Dane Murphy
Ballard Office
Sylvia Olsby
Jamie Pauley
Karen Peterson
Sulcer And Ward Real Estate
Christine Olsen Reis
Susan Robinson
Brent Sanders
Leslie Sanders
Georgia Selfridge
Michelle Shafagh
Robin Sheridan
Paul F. Simpson
Kelly Souder
Darlene Sozinho
Kristine Springer
Greg Stamolis
Hailey Steiner
Ben Stigler
Cari A. Sulcer
Michael Tade
Erica Topel
Kirk Turnell
John Turosak
Everett Tyler
Sam Ward
Beth Ann Warner
Lee Whalen
Tim Wong
Mike Woods
Stacie Youngblood

Windermere Seattle-Capitol Hill
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Capitol Hill, Inc.
1112 19th Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98112

Phone: 206-324-8900
Fax: 206-328-1716
Email: caphill@windermere.com
Website: www.homeinseattle.com

Ada Alvarado
Ted A. Bash
Julie Bosa
Julie Bouscaren
Sandy Brown
Matt Bryan
Matt Coats
Matt Coats
Internet Coordinator
Stacey Cross
Sarah Cushing
Linda Daniel
Beth Dennis
Derek DeWolf
Heather Dolin
Deirdre Doyle
Philip Farrar
Rachel Findlay
Tom Fine
Diane Ginthner
Kristopher Ginthner
Cortney Greene
Patrick Grimm
Paul Grimm
Mark Hanses
Matt Hanses
Marlow Harris
Michael Harris
Stan Hartmann
Erick Hazelton
Philip Heier
Samuel Hilbert
Brad Hinckley
Chris Ho
Gregg Jackson
Diane Ginther & Kris Ginthner
Loren Kronen
Marco Kronen
Diane Lancaster
Kai Larrabee
Wendy Leung
Paul Levold
Margaret Lyles
Monica McCormick
John McKenna
Joseph Walker Milby
Colby Miller
Felice Molitor-Hudson
Joe Nabbefeld
Stacey Nice-McCannel
Peter Olive
Jim Paddleford
Jeff Parker
Joe Pascual
Jim Patterson
Mary Kay Perrigo
Jackie Leone Pleasant
Erin Porter
Ian Porter
Casey Rosenberg
Clancy Small
Casey Smith
Greg Smith
Jeff Smith
Sara Stephenson
Scott Strodel
Office Submit
Don Taufen
Tracy Treseder
Dustin Van Wyck
Lisa Visintainer
Sally Welch
Yami Williams
Jeremy Witham
Pat Woodley
Margie Zech

Windermere Seattle-Eastlake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
214 East Galer St., Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98102-3707

Phone: 206-448-6000
Fax: 206-623-6533
Email: eastlake@windermere.com
Website: windermere.com

Ted Alton
Jeannette Ault
Ashley Azeltine
Mark Besta
Penny Bolton
Darcy Breene
Scott Burdette
Ben Carr
Liz Chalmers
Internet Coordinator
Pat Craft
Patrick Curry
John Daniels
Jeff Davies
Jim Dickinson
Patti Dudley
Elspeth Espinueva
Rebecca Evans
Eastlake Fax
Caitlin Finley
Julie Finstad
Steve Foss
Peggy Frasse
Kevin Gaspari
Carmen Gayton
Lyle George
Charlotte Graham
Mary Granen
Dina Harvey
Kimberly Hobbs
Kevin Hoover
Ob Jacobi
Erik Johnson
Jeremey Johnson
Monte Johnson
Padraic Jordan
Tracy Joshi
Robyn Kimura-Hsu
Jeff Kinney
Laura Ko
Heather Lavin
David Ledingham
Danny Lee
Jackie Lee
Shawn Lovell
Jacqueline Malloy
Gerry McBarron
Tracie McGovern
Mimi McHugh
Reilly McHugh
Chris McQuillan
Linda Moline
Michael D. Nelson
Keith Nyberg
Cricket O'Neill
Lindy Oden
Shane Petersen
Erika Peterson
Lars Peterson
Bruce Phares
Fiore Pignataro
LeAnne Quinn
Penny Bolton Rebecca
Rena Ritchey
Todd Roehl
Joy Rothrock
Rachel Schindler
Jan Selvar
Jeff Severns
Donovan Shelton
Laurie Shields
Tadashi Shiga
Terri Smith
Elise Spencer
Monte Swears
Andre Taybron
David Updike
Sol Villarreal
Mike Walker
Lise Wang
Carol Yamamoto
Dustin Ziegelmann

Windermere Seattle-Green Lake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
7300 East Green Lake Drive North
Seattle, WA 98115

Phone: (206) 957-9441
Fax: (206) 957-9446
Email: greenlake@windermere.com
Website: seattle-green-lake.windermere.com

Randy Anderson
Emily Barr
Leanne Becker
Brenda Biernat
Kelly Chinn
M. Patrick Chinn
Patrick Chinn
Heidi Christiansen
Internet Coordinator
Mike Curry
Kristin Frosaker
Garret Grob
Mike Gusick
Samuel Harris
Joyce Hollenbeck
Tyler Jones
Shannon Laskey
Paul Lavrinec
Amanda McGowen
B.J. Mellema
Kristin Munger
Helen Pinel
April Rauch
Eileen Rumpf
Reilly Schanno
Jamie Silbaugh
Jason Smith
Evan Wyman
Tiffany Yurovsky

Windermere Seattle-Greenwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Greenwood
311 N. 85th
Seattle, WA 98103

Phone: 206-527-5250
Fax: 206-527-3804
Email: greenwood@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeregreenwood.com

Jody Baker
Bruce Barnum
Juliet Beard
Craig Brooke-Weiss
Debra R. Brownell
Coni H. Butler
Beth Bylund
Matthew Carroll
Mark DeSpain
Julie Eidson
Gary Everist
Leslie Fox
Richae Fox
Dan Fresonke
Sharon Giampietro
Jeff Green
Mija Hamilton
Patti Hennessey
Diana Hoang
HAL and JEFF Homes
Phinney Ballard Homes
Blaine Hooper
Dave Hynden
Adrian Jensen
Linda Juliano
Heidi King
Marguerite Knutson
Vera Koch
Steve Laevastu
Byron Lawrence
Inger Lawrence
Kirk Levandoski
Brent D. Lumley
Maggie Mallett
Michelle Markwood
Kathy Moeller
Christian Moulin
Stephani Nelson
Stephani Nelson
Rick Nimmer
Sharon O'Mahony
Greenwood Office
Derek R. Olson
Kimber Parker
Blair & Jan Paul
Julie Polkinghorn
Jackie Proteau
Hal Rappaport
Robin Reed
Eva Richards
Peter Richmond
Renee Roberts
Jan Robinson
Kyle Rose
Diana Russell
Melinda Ryen
Wendy Saddler
Jeff Saeger
Pieter Salverda
Gregory Sciborski
Gene Seguin
Kurtis Sellers
Molly Shutes
Scott Shutes
Tara Silicio
David Sligar
Suzanne Spano
Diane Lembo Talley
Liz Talley
Jeffrey Valcik
Mick Walls
Scott Waterman
Kim Wesselman
Jayne Williamson
Bonnie Wyatt
Roberta Zook

Windermere Seattle-Lakeview
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
1920 North 34th Street
Seattle, WA 98103

Phone: (206) 527-5445
Fax: (206) 526-7652
Email: lakeview@windermere.com
Website: seattle-lakeview.windermere.com

Catherine Adams
Shawna Ader
Patty Allen
Bob Bennion
Heather Berger
Laura Bollard
Joanie Brennan
Carol Burns
Tamara Canero
TallyAnn Carroll
Susie Carter Johnson
Lesly Chapman
Erica Clibborn
Sarah Clifton
Javila Creer
Chet Crile
Bob Deville
Ann Dover
Jennings Doyle
Michael Doyle
Christina Economou
Joe Everyagent
Kathleen Farrar
Julie Friedman
John Gilbert
Mark Hobbs
Atiya Hollyer
Ob Jacobi
Charlotte Killien
Alex Knuckey
Lori Knuckey
Steve Leland
Chantel Lester
Christine Lewis
Tamara Marson
Kelly Martinsen
Bailey McCann
Laurie McLennan
Shelley Miller
Lynn Murphy
Lakeview Office
Emily Oldfield
Don Parker
Ashlyn Pawlak
Kenna Pearson
Anne Marie Peterson
Gary Peterson
Liz Petrillo
Cindy Rach
Devereux Riddell
Shane Ristine
Rosie Rothrock
Lucy Short
Robin Short
Brittany Spaziani
Cassandra Stoneberg
Lisa Strain
Linda Tallahan
Cliff Tanner
Diane Terry
Theresa Truex
Rene Villanueva
Dan Wilcynski
Larry Wilcynski
Max Wurzburg
Stacey Zorzi

Windermere Seattle-Madison Park
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
4015 East Madison
Seattle, WA 98112

Phone: (206) 324-0000
Fax: (206) 324-1525
Email: madisonpark@windermere.com
Website: www.madisonpark.withwre.com

Aubin Barthold
Laura Bethel
Robin L. Black
Jeanine Burke
Barbara A. Cahill
Judy Striker Curran
Phoebe Day
Shauna Dean
Fedva Dikmen
Shane Doran
Tim Feeman
Shannon Gardner
Bill Garrison
Jim Gram
Michael Griffin
Dave Hale
Kimberly Striker Hall
Jonathan Himschoot
Kathryn Hinds
OB Jacobi
Jane A. Johnson
Pam Johnson
Cheryl Jones
Shavic Jones
Cheryl Jones-Donoso
Darcy LaBelle
Alyson Lapan
Michele Layton
Scott Malatos
A. Carol McDaniel
Lilly Milic
Kate Morgan
Kevin O'Doherty
Madison Park
Scott Perret
Amy Sajer
Susan Sellin
Marilyn Smith
Mary P. Snyder
Hoady Spencer
Susan Stasik
Susan Stocking
Liz Suver
John Swofford
Kim Thomas
Lincoln Thompson
Debra Thompson Harvey
Nick Upshaw
Shannon Vincent

Windermere Seattle-Magnolia
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Wall St., Inc.
3214 W McGraw Street, Suite 102
Seattle, WA 98199

Phone: 206-284-8989
Fax: 206-284-2184
Email: magnolia@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere-magnolia.com

Office Account
Charlie Allen
Gratzi Anderson
Lilia Blomgren
Bill Calhoun
Claudia Case
Internet Coordinator
Patricia Corbin
Jackie DiGangi
Bridget Firsov
Doug Gehrke
Joan and Doug Gehrke
James Goodman
Patty Groesbeck
Veronica Hapgood
Michele Harps
Marli Iverson
Barbara Jones
Russ Katz
Matthew L Koenig
Cindy Lange
Colleen McCann
Brianna McTee
Sherry Moody
Karen Paulsen
John Petrov
Michael Plunkett
Eileen Quackenbush
Greg Shaw
Angela Siderius
Aaron Spring
Karen Stern
JR Torres, J.D.
John Wellman
Tom Wilbanks

Windermere Seattle-Mount Baker
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Northwest, Inc.
4919 South Genesee Street
Seattle, WA 98118

Phone: (206) 725-7255
Fax: (206) 725-0971
Email: mountbaker@windermere.com
Website: WindermereMtBaker.com

Cabby Albright
Samson Asfaw
Simone Bouterse
Virginia Calvin
Daisy Casillas
Nancy Chapin
Nick Chicka
Susan Cole
Internet Coordinator
Sabranie Coyne
Susan Davidson
Ted Dietz
Dorothy Driver
Buy Dwell
Joe Easterday
Warren Farmer
Brian Flora
E.J. Gong
Steven Gorecki
Su Harambe
Monique Harris Jones
Cherie Hasson
Debbie Heard
Serena Heslop
Al Johnson
Don Koonce
Andrew Lee
Freda Leomiti
Leslie Lowe
Carolyn Mollot
Claire Newman
Ken Nicholas
Heather O'Malley
Beverly Powers
Laurie Samuelsen
Rhonda Smith
Erik Stanford
Steven Sterling
Dolly Tokunaga
Steven Wayne
Infax windermere
MountBaker windermere
Outfax windermere
Jeff Wolfe

Windermere Seattle-Northgate
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
301 NE 100th St, Suite #200
Seattle, WA 98125

Phone: 206-526-5544
Fax: 206-526-7613
Email: northgt@windermere.com
Website: northgate.withwre.com/

Frank Airey
Marshall Airey
Phyllis Allison
Ted Allison
Scott Anderson
Tyler Anderson
Myles Armstrong
Barrick Benson
Michael Bill
Pamela Blessing
Dick Carruthers
Betsy Chamberlin
Cathy Cowan
Charlie Cowan
Thomas Cowan
Shelby Cramer
Karen Dawson Fortier
Daniel Dittmann
Northgate Fax
Andrew Fortier
Holly Garwood
Aaron Harrington
Jay Harrison
Stefan Hoerschelmann
Carolyn Holm
Bryan Howdeshell
Jason Howdeshell
Jarrett Johnson
Kiley Koehler
Bill Lemcke
Fran Lilleness
Donna Lindsay
Lisa Long
Marshall Longtin
Adrienne Loop
Julie Manolides
David Marcoe
Carol Cole McElroy
Nan Menard
Alison A. Moceri
Paul Myers
Northgate Office
Anthony Pagones
Elaine Pagones
Sandra Pappas
Kippie Pasowicz
John Pettas
Bentley Pugh
Michael Ravenscroft
Leslie Reed
Maria Rippee
David Rush
Ria Scott
Steve T. Senescall
Julie Shefts
Sasha Shefts
Ken Shiovitz
Brian Steiner
Irma Suntay
Everett Talvo
Peter Tang
Scott Thiessen
Carl Thorgerson
Matthew Townsend
Roger Turner
Jason Viydo
Dan Wallace
Scott Whaley
Marilyn Wick

Windermere Seattle-Northlake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
17711 Ballinger Way N.E.
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155

Phone: 206-364-8100
Fax: 206-364-2614
Email: northlake@windermere.com
Website: windermerenorthlake.withwre.com

Sabah Al-Haddad
Marella Alejandrino
Christopher Byler
Seetha Chittar
Jan Craven-Greenberg
WRE Northlake Email
Ryan Francescutti
Ann Hovik
OB Jacobi
Jennifer Johnsen
Denise Johnson
Nicole Kraft-Canitz
Amanda Mayberry
Sheila McKee
Cheri Moll
Windermere Northlake
Beverly Prkacin Read
Maureen Richards
Jeff Strom
Jaclyn Tomaras
Leo Van Hollebeke
Sarah Wolverton
Nicole Zaffarano

Windermere Seattle-Northwest
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/FN
12250 Greenwood Ave N
Seattle, WA 98133

Phone: 206-367-4720
Fax: 206-361-6943
Email: northw@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerenorthwest.com

Bruce Ainslie
Naureen Ali
Mary P. Anderson
Brooke Barnes
Sandra Brenner
Kathe Charais
Debbie Cooper
Internet Coordinator
Bill Drummond
Erika Hartzog
Nicole Haun
Karen Hayes
Larry Helms
Jim Hill
Steve Hill
Shannon Hill Hanson
Cristina Jensen
Andrew Kim
Lindsay Kim
Carmen A. Kloth
Lexie Knull
Dennis Koepke
Brian Landreville
Josephine LaRosa
David Malmgren
Sunshine McArthur
Dick McPhaden
Fritz Nichols
Northw Nichols
Nwfax Nichols
Nwscan Nichols
Officedocs Nichols
Carl Nicholson
Jill Nicholson
Michelle Ogle
Sharilyn Patterson
Kay Rigley
Steve Hill and Sandra Brenner
Matthew Skeel
Tamara Stangeby
Jay Yancey

Windermere Seattle-Queen Anne
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street, Inc.
214 W McGraw St.
Seattle, WA 98119

Phone: 206-283-8080
Fax: 206-283-5650
Email: queenanne@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere-queenanne.com

Compliance Account
Nicole Bailey
George Beasley
Kevin Bohnert
Nicole Christopher
Ann Clark
Chris Cooley
Internet Coordinator
Andres Garcia
Susan G. Gilbert
Stephanie Goode
Janet Haberbush
Scott Haveson
Kris Hendricks
Karla Hulse
Stephanie Imsande
Dana Johnston
Arison Knapp
Mary Lee
Susan Leonardson
Michael Macdonald
Randie Nelson
Leah Pham
Front Desk Queen Anne
Kamie Rasmussen
Holley Ring
Michael Schrepfer
Aaron Sean
Rene Stern
Scott Torre
Robbie Wald Tradal
Nancy Williams
Melanie Young

Windermere Seattle-Sand Point
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
5424 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105

Phone: 206-524-1100
Fax: 206-526-7614
Email: sandpt@windermere.com
Website: www.seattle-sand-point.windermere.com

Kate Allen
Chris R. Austin
Linda Balyeat
The Beach Team
Sue Bethke
Brenda Brake
I C
Dillon Chatriand
Mark Corcoran
Marissa Cram
Debbie Jenner Culp
Jessica Dales
Kim O. Dales
Isabelle Dowling
Carolyn Erickson
Nick Foote
Aaron Fredrickson
Carole Fredrickson
Mike Gannon
Katharine Gibson
Mary Gibson
Joie Gowan
Phyllis Haaland
Laura Halliday
Phyllis Hanen
Christine Henn
Mark Holden
Jonna Hood
Nat Hopper
OB Jacobi
Kristi Johnson
Dale Kaneko
Norm Kaneko
Colleen Keilbart
Cherie Keller
Donna King
Paula Knopf
Brad Knowles
Kim Knowles
Edward Krigsman
Dora Krupanics
Megan Kukull
Tom Lavigne
Timothy W. Lenihan
Rick Lubov
Tom Maider
Jordan Malloch
Renee Menti Ruhl
Cathy Millan
Elsa Nunes-Ueno
Sand Point Office
Leslie Ota
Georgia S. Perez
Kelly Pornour
Kian Pornour
Sandpoint Printer
Sue Rockwell
Jill Rotset
Janet Schanno
Barbara Shikiar
Jeri P. Smith
Sally Tafft
Patti Verschueren
Dave Weaver
Maggie Weissman
Jay West
Jeff Williamson
Doug Zeiler

Windermere Seattle-Wall Street
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street, Inc.
2420 2nd Ave. at Wall St.
Seattle, WA 98121

Phone: 206-448-6400
Fax: 206-448-3291
Email: wallst@windermere.com
Website: windermere-wallstreet.com

Office Legal Email Admin - Email for P&S Documents
Office Administration
Carol Ard
Gina Ard
Ginger Ard
Kay Asai
Lara Baca
Windermere
Joe Bills
Broker Care
Anne Carney
Cathleen Carney
Kelly Cash
Suzanne Charnos
Ying Chen
Mark Dagg
Suzanne Charnos Dan Petesch
Mary Ann Dickhoff
Claire Dion
Elinor Dofredo
Dan Drummey
Janine Duncan
Olga Dyckman
Mina Ellis
Don Ennes
Kathrin Faulkner
Wall St Fax
Rick Finer
Jennifer Fink
Mary Ann Fordyce
Joe Galindo
Rich Gangnes
Ellen Gillette
Carol Gilmore Sauter
Bill Gleason
Phillip Greely
John Grieco
Todd Hagan
Lauren Hendricks
Stephen Hicks
Leah Hill
Jake Jacobsen
Richard Kaiser
Stewart Karstens
Jed Kliman
Tom Knee
Chelise Kuhn
Gerry Ann Lanphier
Penny J. Lewis
Coleen Lovell
Mary McCrone
Amy McDavid
Jeff Morgan
Joseline Mucha
Jack O'Berg
Randall O'Dowd
Phyllis Ohrbeck
Sharon Parmenter
Melody Paxton
Dan Petesch
Shannon Praetorius
Windermere
Chris Sadowsky
Judie Sanders
Ed Santos
Jan Slawson
David Stelzer
Qasim Tanga
Andy Tonning
Stuart Vincent
Heidi Ward
Mary Welk
John Wellman
D. Lisa West
Christopher Wetzel
Mari Womack
Deborah Young
Matt Zaharias

Windermere Seattle-Wedgwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Company
8401 35th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115

Phone: (206) 522-9600
Fax: (206) 527-3818
Email: wedgwood@windermere.com
Website: http://seattle-wedgwood.windermere.com/

Mary Abbott
Nancy Bolin
Barbara Brandt
Ben Buckley
Blake Budden
Bill Cecil
Patrick J. Corr
Greg Cowan
John Cowan
Jill Cunningham
Marie Davis
Brenda Dimond
Mark Emily
Kevin Erickson
Tracy Erickson
Rhona Feldman
Michele Flinn
Rob Graham
Brian Griffin
Bryan Haworth
Anita Italiane Hearl
High Heermans, JD
Maddy Heinrich
Merritt Hess
Casey Holme
OB Jacobi
Pamela Jensen
DT Levy
Eileen Lindsey
Kelland Lindsey
Kelland & Eileen Lindsey
Bryan Loe
Kathy MacDuff
Jennifer Maher
Terri Maloney
Kim Marsh-Stearns
Stuart Miner
Jay Nemitz
Marsha Nemitz
Ann O'Neil
Wedgwood Office
Roberta Pletz
David Prater
Carissa Saffel
Nick Simonton
Laura Smith
Michael Strazzara
Tanya Thackeray Wilson
Gary Thompson
Wedgwood Transactions
Marina Vitasovic
Krystal Wade
Neale Weaver
Cisca Wery
Bill Wilson
Wedgwood Windermere
Katherine Zorich Walsh

Windermere Seattle-West Seattle
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street, Inc.
4526 California Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116

Phone: 206-935-7200
Fax: 206-937-6574
Email: westseattle@windermere.com
Website: http://www.windermerewestseattle.com/

Susan Anda
Doug Baldwin
John Benson
Anne Bentrott-Wise
Carla Brobeil
Kevin Broveleit
Baouyen Chan
Internet Coordinator
West Seattle Documentation
Tamera Duke
Natalie English
Bill Fazekas
Javier Fosado
Shelley Godwin
Teresa J. Grassley
Chloe Gubata
Rebecca Hartsook
Mara Haveson
Gayle Hellriegel
Tonya Hennen
Sandra Hines
Chuck Houston
Jim Jacobsen
West Seattle Junction Fax
Robert Kelly
Holly Kemery
Kate Kenney
Mike Kirk
Kevin Krout
Laura Krumwiede
Karen Lavallee
Meredith Laws
Dawn Leverett
Rick Lohr
Desiree Loughlin
Jessica Lynn
Kelly Malloy
Gina Malvestuto
Nancy McKallor
Jennifer McQuade
Vickie Mengedoht
Kurt Metzger
Cara Mohammadian
Scott Monroe
Margaret Nordahl
Joe Nye
Barb Ogden
Millie Osborne
DeAnna Piccini
Andria Pinkowski
Anastasia Reed
John C. Rockwood
Cori Roed
Lacie Roth
Lucas Roth
Dustin Schisler
Connie Sorensen
Matthew Spenny
Randie Stone
Karin Swendsen
James Tibbetts
Kim Tingley
Desirée Tkach
Mary Ann Vandergriff
David Warren
Cara Wass de Czege
Christina Waterhouse
Bill Wayburn
Britt Wibmer
Peter Wolf

Windermere Sedro-Woolley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/North Cascades
520 Cook Rd
Sedro Woolley, WA 98284

Office: (360) 856-4901
Email: sedrowoolley-@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeresedrowoolley.com

Shawn Danley
Cell/Direct:(360) 856-4901
Email: sdanley@windermere.com
Website :www.RentalsWPM.com

Tiffany Danley
Cell/Direct:(360) 298-4857
Email: Danley@windermere.com
Website :www.TheDanley-Group.com

Becky Elde
Cell/Direct:(360) 770-9427
Email: beckyelde@windermere.com
Website :www.beckyelde.com

Tahlia Honea
Cell/Direct:(360) 333-5815
Email: tahlia@windermere.com

Deborah McNeal
Cell/Direct:(360) 707-8073
Email: dsmcneal@windermere.com
Website:www.DeborahMcNeal.com

Amy Russell
Cell/Direct:(360) 856-4901
Email: amyrussell@windermere.com
Website:www.WindermereSedroWoolley.com

Windermere Sequim- East
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate Sequim East
842 East Washington
Sequim, WA 98382

Phone: 360-683-4844
Fax: 360-683-1122
Email: wresequim@olypen.com
Website: www.sequimproperty.com/windermeresequimeast/

Melanie Arrington
Alan Burwell
SequimEast Coordinator
Carol Dana
Carolyn Dodds
Robert Dodds
Dianna Erickson
Heidi Hansen
Chuck Murphy
Sheryl Payseno Burley
Cathy Reed
Jean Ryker
David Sharman
Jan Sivertsen
Jessica Warriner

Windermere Sequim- Sunland
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Sunland
137 Fairway Dr
Sequim, WA 98382

Phone: 360/683-6880
Fax: 360/683-9614
Email: alanb@olypen.com
Website: http://sequim-sunland.windermere.com

Alan Burwell
Tyler Conkle
Bill Huizinga
Deb Kahle
Terry Peterson
Irene & Mike Schmidt Schmidt
Mike Schmidt
Dollie Sparks

Windermere Services Company 

Office Address:
Windermere Services Company
5424 Sand Point Way N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105 

Phone: 206-527-3801
Fax: 206-526-7629
mail: wsc@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com 
Selina Bowen
Susie Bustamante
Katie Clegg
Nellie DeBruyn
Chris Demco
Paul Drayna
Michael Fanning
Ashley Frei

Matthew Gardner
Greg Gustafson
OB Jacobi
Duane Johnson
Julia Jordan
Edward S. Krigsman
Chris Ma
Diane Madore-Anderson
Scott Mitchelson
Bill Murray
Mark Oster
Chip Painter
Carolyn Rathe
Don Riley
Military Services
Jim Shapiro
Amanda Sox
Chris Stephan
Shawn Sullivan
Lansing Teal
Mike Teather
Lai Tran
Kendra Vita
Lora Wilson
Christine Wood
Geoff Wood
Jill Wood

Windermere Services – Marketing
Office Address:
Windermere Services Company
815 Western Ave., Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: (206) 695-5959
Fax: (206) 357-2393
Email: support@windermere.com
Website: www.windermere.com

Tiana Baur
Noelle Bortfeld
Office Coordinator
Windermere Cup
Front Desk
Nicole Dundas
Ashley Eager
Margaret Eckert
Sam Everyagent
Kait Graettinger
Marketing Guest
Robyn Hallonquist
Jonah Hoskins
Gina Kim
Kate Ledbetter
Windermere Marketing
Vikki Nakamura
Kathleen Nolan
Sonja Riveland
Shelley Rossi
Tara Sharp
Summer Splash
Trudy Taylor
Mary Lynn Thompson
Marilou Ubungen
Kimi Wagoner

Windermere Services-Mountain West
Office Address:
Windermere Services Mountain West
25 West Cataldo, Suite A
Spokane, WA 99201

Phone: 509-468-2923
Fax: 509-468-3203
Email: wsmw@windermere.com
Website: www.experiencewindermere.com

John Becker
Diana Davis Hehn
Spokane Info@
Jim Lodato
Services Mountain West
Rebekah Singer
Social Spokane
Guest User
Janet Weldon
Scott Wetzel
Tracie Wetzel
Spokane@ Windermere

Windermere Shelton
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Himlie
920 Railroad Ave. / P.O. Box 729
Shelton, WA 98584

Phone: 360-426-2646/800-281-2740
Fax: 360-426-2698
Email: shelton@windermere.com
Website: shelton.windermere.com

Jeanne Blanton
Andy Conklin
Jef Conklin
Daralynne Fitzpatrick
Brady Fuller
Keith Fuller
Krisy Henry
Jill Himlie
Vince Himlie
Windermere Real Estate/ Himlie, Inc. - Shelton, WA
Stephanie Johnson
Denise Matylinski
Tracey McGlothlin
Bethany Simmons
Carolyn Vivian
Kelly Zoldak

Windermere Shoreline
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Shoreline
900 North 185th Street
Shoreline, WA 98133-3903

Phone: 206-546-5731
Fax: 206-546-5741
Email: shoreline@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereshoreline.com

Gary Alston
Therasa Alston
Mark Blackbourn
Bill Burns
Julie Carlton
Cheryl DeLaittre
Isabella DiLucca
Michael Dodge
Pat Dornay
Dave Douglas
Saihou Drammeh
Shawna Eden
Kim Edwards-Fukei
Kristine Emerson
Audra Farley
JC Gagnaire
Jennifer Gay
Bill Gibson
Henry Goss
Mary Jane Goss
Shoreline Graphic Designs
Chris Haynes
Nancy Huoth
Debbie Jaeger
Kira James
Rick Kalamar
Christine Kelly
Clint Kinzel
Laura Kinzel
Bob Koo
Steve Koon
Laura Kremer Carl
Lee Lageschulte
Jean Linhardt
John Lough
Billie Lunsford
Jack Malek
Anne Millman
Lella Norberg
David O'Connor
Ann O'Leary
Soo Paik
Tobiah Paik
Ranee Palacios
Scott T. Phariss
Sharon Seferos Pierce
Leslie Sharkey
Karen Sherrell
Windermere Shoreline
Sandra Simmons
Leif Stenfjord
Scott T. Phariss
Shelley M. Thompson
Ingrid Tollessen
Gary M. Turner
Hanneli Turner
Jamie Wang

Windermere Silverdale
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/West Sound, Inc
9939 Mickelberry Rd. NW
Silverdale, WA 98383

Phone: 360-692-6102 or 206-282-5340
Fax: 360-698-4614
Email: silverdale@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeresilverdale.com

Agent Assistant
Bill Bailey
Mike Bay
Deb Becker
Judy Bigelow
Rod Blackburn
Nick Blickhan
Donna Bosh
John C. Hays
Alan Cady
Lindsay Clark
Jamie Colon
Eric Cookson
Crystal Dahlhauser
Mark A. Danielsen
Dino Davis
Summer Davy
Steve Derrig
Carter Dotson
Tori Dotson
Molly Ells
Marie Flanders
Jason Galbreath
Bob Guardino
Judy Hartness
Tom & Marie Hooker
Mary Ellen Hooks
Julie Wurden Jablonski
Kevin Jennings
Christine Johnson
Dave Jones
Jessica Kennedy
Jennifer Kilkenny
Christina Kuske
Nancy Mackleit
Bonnie Michal
Joe Michelsen
Adam Moon
Erin Moon
Glenn Morrison
Stuart Nethery
Kathy Olsen
Jeanette Paulus
Mike Pitts
Belinda Rider
Carol Sue Rogers
Jordan Rogers
Christine Salo
Philip Scheer
Kim Stewart
Jack Stodden
Victor Targett, CCIM
Kristina Togia
Wendy Tonge
Kate Wilson
Silverdale Windermere

Windermere Snohomish
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Snohomish, Inc.
731 2nd Street
Snohomish, WA 98290

Phone: (360)568-1537
Fax: (360)568-1530
Email: wre.sno@windermere.com
Website: www.snohomishwindermere.com

Karalyn & Ron Andersen
Melinda Baena
Cindy Berg
Tina Cairns
Gayle Campbell
Tim Denton
Haley Duke
Marie Hartung
Amanda Hellman
Angie Kelleher
Alicia Kersavage
Jeff Larson
Rhonda LePoidevin
Todd Lipke
Maureen Loomis
Nonie Martin
Jayne Miller
Dani Miska
Tanya Mock
Kaysie O'Dell
Kathie Salvadalena
Mitzie L Schield
Kevin Shinn
Windermere Real Estate Snohomish Inc
Bill Steffener
Kathy Stevens
Sandy Trice
Kelly Turner
Cyndi Vannoy
Karen Young
Shanley Zinger

Windermere Spokane-City Group
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/City Group, LLC
1237 W Summit Pkwy., Suite B
Spokane, WA 99201

Phone: 509-323-2323
Fax: 509-323-2353
Email: citygroup@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerecitygroup.com

Denise Ashcroft
Michelle Baker
Daniel Bergmann
Windermere City Group
Cody Craig
Tina Craig
Cathy Dernbach
Joey Duris
Carrie Eutsler
Sandy Falkner
Joe Garst
Ryan Knudson
Ric Lake
Joe Lanet
Darren Lawson
Lisa Lembeck
Bob Maxwell
Donna Mergen
Linda Peters
Claire Peterson
Stephanie Peterson, MRP
Jan Roseleip
Laurie L. Ross
Margaret Sandusky
Kolby Schoenrock
Chris Siemens
Kara Siemens
Mom And Son Team
Tina Sowl
Jennifer Tiffany
Cathey Wells
Randy Wells

Windermere Spokane-Cornerstone
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Cornerstone
1420 N Mullan, #200
Spokane, WA 99206

Phone: (509) 927-7733
Fax: (509) 927-2999
Email: cornerstone@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerespokane.com

Office Administrator
Brian Anderson
Bruce Baldwin
Jeremy Bray
Bill Fatur
Kristy Hamby
Ross Hawkinson
Rusty Hayes
Claudia Hildahl
Steve Hildahl
Eric House
John Stirling Jeremy Bray
Helen Lavelle
Joyce Lingo
Pam Lyon
Sheridon Rennaker
Kevin Russell
John Stirling
Jerry Vanhook
Stuart VanZyverden
Steve Vizzini
Susan Wentz
Kim Williams

Windermere Spokane-Liberty Lake
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Valley, Inc.
1429 N. Liberty Lake Rd., Suite A
Liberty Lake, WA 99019

Phone: (509) 340-8000
Fax: (509) 340-8010
Email: libertylake@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerelibertylake.com

Matt Allen
Char Detro
Rae Flynn
Breanne Jones
Kristi Kerkuta
Allyson Knapp
Josie Krahn
Windermere Liberty Lake
Shawna Lumley
Cate Moye
Louise Ortega
Mary Lou Shiley
Wendy Shiley
Liberty Lake Transactions
Bill White
Sandy Zoller

Windermere Spokane-Manito
Office Address:
Windermere/Manito LLC
2829 South Grand Blvd, Ste 101
Spokane, WA 99203

Phone: 509-747-1051
Fax: 509-747-9160
Email: manito@windermere.com
Website: www.windermeremanito.com

Clark Betts
Khalil Beznaiguia
Chris Bornhoft
Marianne Bornhoft
Marianne Bornhoft
Carol Capra
Greg Durheim & Carol Groves
Bart Cloninger
Matthew Cocks
Internet Coordinator
Heidi Crawford
Jerry Crossett
Darlene Dawson
Katie DeBill
Yvonne DeBill
Suzy Dix
Gjonnette Dugger
Greg Durheim
Hilary Garber
Stephanie Gates
Mary Frances Gence
Carol Groves
M Guenther
Sue Hare
Brad Harris
Ashlie Hatchitt
Sam Hess
Kelly Hunt
Karen Jones
W. Michael Keller
April Key
Dusty Klink
Jill Klinke
Doug Koenig
Alex Kokkoris
Jim Lister
Mary O'Connell Marr
Jackie Mather
Maryanna Mayer
Brett McCandless
Dawn McKenna
Marcy Mongan
Marolee Morris
Roy Mortlock
Vickie Munch
Lana Neeley
Tom Neupert
Fritz W. Nichols
Joseph K. Nichols, Sr.
Pam Novell
Sally O'Brien
Nicole Ochoa
Barbara Parlet
Kathi Pate
Tim Penna
Janet Pittmann
Whitney Ramsey
Sola Raynor
Sandy Ridge
Judy Rowland
Jen Sawyer
D.J. Sebanc
Lori Sherfey
Gaye Shumaker
Brian Smith
Hollie Smith
Manito Tech
Bob Travis
Bob Travis (HUD)
Tony Vaughn
Connie Wilson
Rick Wood
Dan Wynia
Kathleen Wynia
Nancy Wynia

Windermere Spokane-North
Office Address:
Windermere North Spokane LLC
9017 N Country Homes Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99218

Phone: 509-467-6640
Fax: 509-466-3610
Email: windermerenorth@windermere.com
Website: www.yourwindermere.com

Dick Aagard
Suzette Alfonso
James Allen
Jeanne Barnes
Lorelei Barrett
Melissa Barton
Dallas Becker
John Becker
Marianne Becker
Howard Bergdoll
Ron Bledsoe
Josiah Boone
Tammy Brutschy
Michele Buck
Steve Cain
Howard Bergdoll and Catherine Sutherland
Chris Connelly
Martina Coordes
Esse Costello
Dyer Davis
Stacy Dunaway
Ken DuPree
Marjorie A. DuPree
Aaron Edwards
Jim Farrow
North Fax
Ken Garceau
Linda Gilroy
Mike Gleason
David Graesser
Brandi Graham-Snow
Hal Greene
Jim Greenup
Kerry Grimes
Karilynn Hardan
Kent Harrison
Nancy Haskell
Patti Helring
Jody Henderson
Dwight Hille
Bonnie Howell
Billy Iseman
Dale Johnson
Veronica Johnson
Nancy Jones
Wendy Kennedy
Laura Krauth
Dave Lawrence
Sue Lesher
Chris Lucas
Chris & Karie Lucas
Karie Lucas
Teena Maguire
John Markley
Floyd McDonald
Case McGinley
Roy McHaney
Darwin McKibbin, CRS
Shelly Monahan-Cain
Dana Morris
Jack Morse
Brigette Murphy
Bookkeeper North
Processor North
Windermere North
Bill O'Dea
Enju Park
Dan Pasby
Shelby Pearson
Marie Pence
Julie Fender Pohl
Gary Redding
Joi Rhodes
Ron Rogers
Michael Rubrecht
April Sherwood
Juliene Speck
Shelly Monahan-Cain & Steve Cain
Catherine Sutherland
Larry Urann
Steve Wallin
Julie Weaver
Robin Wendel
Kevin Wick
Don Williams
Amanda Wright
Jim Wynne

Windermere Spokane-Valley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Valley, Inc.
15812 East Indiana Avenue, Suite 203
Spokane Valley, WA 99216

Phone: (509) 928-1991
Fax: (509) 928-4250
Email: valley@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerevalleyspokane.com

Cheryl Boisen
Jim Bowden
Cindy Calvert
Brooke Carey, ABR, CNE
Micheal Chappell
Dustian Coates
Melissa Curryer
Dan Dhaenens
Maggie Dyko
Gayle Earling
Sharon Ehrhardt
Jacque Eide
Rae Flynn
Ken Fry
Don Hay
Tawny Hiett
Kim Hynes
Ellie Jones
Nila Jorden-Rosslow
Lori Joy
Bob Krafft, AB, CRS, MBA
Gary Kuster
Wendy Kuster
Jen Deming Lee
Andrea Malone
Annette McAlister
Keri McFarland
Terrence P McKanna
Social Media
Camilla Mounts
Cate Moye
Rick Pearman-Gillman
Doug Pecha
Dana Pendergrass
Lori Peters
Lori Peters, ABR, CRS, GRI
Sally Prete
Pam Reilly
B. Todd Rooks
Noreen Rooks
Becky Ruark
Glen Scott
Scott Sloane
Windermere Spokane Valley
Lisa Sweeney
Dave Syrcle, ABR
Valley Transactions
Debbie Turnbow
John Q. White
Fletcher Wilkens
Roger Williamson
Larry and Sharon Windhorst
Sharon Windhorst
Trevor Windhorst

Windermere Stanwood
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/CIR
7359 267th St. NW, Ste. D
Stanwood, WA 98292

Phone: 360-629-8233,877-602-8200
Fax: 360-629-2733
Email: stanwood@windermere.com
Website: www.camanorealestate.com

Molly Alumbaugh
Keith Bjornethun
Doris Blas
Michael Borthwick
Bill Duncan
Bill Duncan
Linda Gleadle
Marla Heagle
Randy Heagle
Michele Housner
Barbara Huff
Megan Johnson
Julie Love
Steve Love
Steve & Julie Love
Homeowners Association Management
Denise McDonald
Ray Mueller
Hans Ostrander
Robert Sandoz
Robert Sandoz

Windermere Stevenson
Office Address:
Windermere Glenn Taylor Real Estate
220 SW Second / P.O. Box 280
Stevenson, WA 98648

Phone: 509/427-2777
Fax: 509/427-2770
Email: stevenson@windermere.com
Website: windermerestevenson.com

Bob Anderson
Dave Bennett
Mary Lou Bennett
Kim Chadney
Frank Cox
Jim Joseph
Amanda Renner
Angela Rodriguez-Renner
Kim Salvesen-Pauly

Windermere Tacoma-North
Office Address:
Windermere Professional Partners
2209 N Pearl Street #200
Tacoma, WA 98406

Phone: 253-565-1189
Fax: 253-830-3500
Email: professional@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerepropartners.com

Dianne Adkins
Janet Armitage
Annette Beardemphl
Mark Bergman
Cyrus Bonnet
Lisa Carlson
Mark Carns
Nikki Carson
Leighanne Cheslik
Cathie Christie
Colleen Cook
Judi Duncan
Peter Elswick
Consuella Evans
Erin Farquhar
Peter J. Filmer
Zach Flowers
Matt Francis
Fenny Friis
Jenny Gullikson
Michael Handy
Mike Handy
Hilary Heim
Kelli Jo Hjalseth
Jim Hoiland
Stephen(Shu) Hsu
Jasmyn Jefferson
Kelsey Kovach
Mark & Mark
Michael McNiel
Ryan Meacham
Dawn Medling
Autumn Mills
Alex Munoz
Deanne O'Connell
Tanya Odom
Krista Osborne
Chase Peart
Mark Pinto
Windermere Professional Partners
Greg Pubols
WPP Realtors
Mandy Sakemi
Maggie Schauble
Monica Scott
Client Services
Kristy Skobel
South Sound Property Group
Dave Spencer
Michele Spencer
Amy Steele
CJ Stewart
Greg Stock
Sarah Stolberg
Diane Thomas
Amy Thor
Mike Tipton
Will Warren
Tameka Washington
Jeff Williams
Jeff A. Williams
Meagan Zacher
Debbie Zessin

Windermere Tacoma-Professional Partners
Office Address:
Windermere Professional Partners
4701 S 19th Street
Tacoma, WA 98405

Phone: 253-565-1189
Fax: 253-565-6178
Email: professional@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerepropartners.com

Nicole Alderson
Teresa Alderson
Shannon Bell-Peterson
Brandy Brazeau
Chip Butzko
Tracy Butzko
Christina Cardin
Shelly Crane
Linda Diehl
Stacie Dylan
Alison Easley
WPP Faxes
Fenny Friis
David Gala
Curtis Gibson
Marguerite Giguere
Diane Gilmore
Jennifer Golder
Bryan Hall
Amber Hight
Matt Hume
Tom Hume
Sloan Hunter
Jeff Jensen
Jacob Jezek
Anne Jones
Amanda Jorgensen
Ryan Knicely
Janet Lee
Brenna Lee Harrington
The Lee Team
Kirk Lent
Amy Lowry
Danni Lunt
Regina Madiera-Gorden
Corey Matney
Kevin Mullin
Windermere Professional Partners
Nancie Quach
Scott Schulz
Joyce Shipley
Weekend Staff
Jim Swanson
Brent Tornquist
Mark Van Antwerp
Cheryl Wilkerson

Windermere Tacoma-University Place
Office Address:
Windermere Professional Partners
2700 Bridgeport Way W, Suite F
University Place, WA 98466

Phone: 253-565-1121
Fax: 253-565-1371
Email: professional@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerepropartners.com

Mark Akers
Chris Barrett
Ray Bolinger
Elsa Borgen
Pat Busick
Patience Colkitt
Kaylee Colwell
The Commencement
Jerry Foss
Fenny Friis
Brandie Hassing
Debbie Homeyer
JoAnn Jett
Carrie LaRocque
Jason Leyes
WPP Marketing
Sandy McKenzie
Kristin Niebergall
Karen Noland
Garrett T Pessemier
Elisa Pierce
Windermere Professional Partners
Client Services
Client Services
Steve Sloboda
LeRoy Smith
Cindy Stewart
Ken Thiemann
Jeremy Vallery-Watson
D Wright

Windermere Tri-Cities Richland
Office Address:
Windermere Group One/Tri-Cities
490 Bradley Blvd.
Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-946-1188
Fax: 509-946-0284
Email: groupone@windermere.com
Website: www.grouponetricities.com

Lynn Affleck
Chris Albrecht
Jenny Albrecht
Kelly Allen
Don Bouchey
Toby Bouchey
Dan Bruchman
Christina Brunson
Janie Bunch
Tonya Callies
Alana Carter
Katie Copeland
Darla Cravens
Kyle Cravens
Carol-Lynn denHoed
Ruth Dingfield
Geri Fleming
Dani Gilchrist
Lisa Green
Windermere Group One
Dan Hansen
Kim Harty
Marilyn Hodgson
Jessica Hollandsworth
Garland Huff
Barb Keltch
John Keltch
John & Barbara Keltch
Damion Lalka
Ericka Lalka
Terry Loney
Tim May
Nancy Miskho
Tom Moore
Jed Morris
Joe Mullins
Melissa Niebuhr
Morgan Nielsen
Kyle Palmer
Cathy Preston
Lori Pruitte
Mike Punch
Melinda Robinson
Ashley Rubon
Wendy Rush
Sarah Sarver
Jenifer Sawby
Susan Shay-Johnson
Susie Si
Suzanne Siekawitch
Michelle Sisemore
Chris Smith
Shari Stringer
Jeff Thompson
Patti Thompson
Greg Tripp
Deanna Woods

Windermere Vancouver- Mill Plain
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
12500 SE 2nd Circle, Suite 205
Vancouver, WA 98684

Phone: 360-253-3600
Fax: 360-944-6199
Email: mplain1@windermere.com
Website: windermerevancouver.com

Mill Plain Agent
Cindy Anderson
John Anderson
Keith Anderson
Scott Anthony
Carrie Armstrong
Dan Barkley
Ed Beard
Donna Beck
Jennifer Belmore
Connie Bovee
Rebecca Brown
Judy Burke
Fred Castaldi
Karen Cleveland
Carol J. Curtis
Jason Curtis
Kelly Daniels
Debi Good Flanagan
Kevin Gorby, Sr.
Diane Gregory
Susan Gustafson
Linda Haring
David & LaVern Heiner
Laura Henderson
Rick Jenkins
Nancy Johns
Gary Kaster
Chiou Kolaks
Trent Latshaw
Scott Lewis
Brett Leyden
Charlotte Lien
Rowena C. Lusby
Travis Maley
Tony Manduley
Seth McCauley
Chris McCullough
Admin, Mill Plain
Mereloyd Owen
Linda Owens
Mike Owens
Brian Pelky
Jim Pool
Joanne Powell
Loretta Railing
Nick Redinger
Alan Reeves
Rod Rice
Phyllis Riikonen
Tim Selfridge
Kim Smith
Larry W Smith
Windermere Stellar
Dawn Swanger
Glenna Tanner
Jeff Tanner
James M. Tapio
Staci Uhey
Danny Vallelunga
Janet Voelz
Debra Warnock
David Weedman
Leona Weedman
Patrick Williams
Neelufer Yusef

Windermere Vancouver- Officers Row
Office Address:
Windermere Stellar
850 Officers Row
Vancouver, WA 98661

Phone: (360) 694-4050 or 800-538-2038
Fax: (360) 694-4538
Email: therow@windermere.com
Website: windermerevancouver.com

Jeanne Able
Officers Row Agent
Curtis Ambrose
Omar Arriaga
Cindy Banzer
Marge Bare
Marie Baxter
Mary Benson
John Phillip Betz
Pasqual Contreras
Internet Coordinator
Barbara Corigliano
Sean Coster
Victoria Crumpacker
Kalani Davis
Mary Davis
Relocation Department
Mark Donnelly
Gerry Dowdy
Nathan Drake
Rachael Drake
Julie Drury
Kathy Frisbie
Roger Gantz
Fred Gibbs
Vicki Glasow
Richard Gonzalez
Patrick Gourley
Robin Hamilton
David Harris
Rebecca Harris
Gary D. Heller
Jennifer Hensley
Victor Holmgren
Karen Holove
David Horowitz
Linda Horowitz, CRS,
Ron Howard
Leann Hull
Randy Hunzeker
Kim Kelleher
Mike Lamb
Patty Lilly
Maggie Lind
Keri Lippold
Linda London
Donna Major
Reid Monroe Maritn
Wendy Martin
Carol Miller
Kori Miller
Matthew Morris
Hilda Naranjo
Denice Neddo
Deana Nerton
Mel Ott
Sue Pauley
Lisa Petersen
Patti Philip
Nancy Resnick
Kris Richardson
Ricardo Romagosa
Dan Rupp
Seth Russell
Emily Seelig
Linda Selfridge
Tracy Sheehan
Patti Shmilenko
Dennis Short
Jean Silver
Paula Standfill
Angela Swigert
Tracy Weedman
Erin E. Wright
Amy Zeggert

Windermere Vashon Island
Office Address:
Windermere Vashon
P.O Box 1867/ 17233 Vashon Hwy SW
Vashon Island, WA 98070

Phone: 206-463-9148
Fax: 206-463-2231
Email: vashon@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerevashon.com

Linda Bianchi
Richard Bianchi
Lisa Blair
Heather Brynn
Vashon CanonPrinter
Sue Carette
JR Crawford
Connie Cunningham
Cheryl Dalton
Nancy Davidson
Beth de Groen
John de Groen
Sophia de Groen Stendahl
Rose Edgecombe
Lisa Fiano
Paul Helsby
Julie Hempton
Denise Katz
Dale Korenek
Windermere Office
Kathleen Rindge
Sarah Sullivan
Salli Swift
Deborah Teagardin

Windermere Walla Walla
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Walla Walla
202 South First Avenue
Walla Walla, WA 99362

Phone: 509-525-2151
Fax: 509-529-2717
Email: wallawalla@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewallawalla.com

Bradley Beckner
Arda Blevins
Lynne Chamberlain
Debbie Clark
Jack Conley
Internet Coordinator
Assistant DiDario
Jayne DiDario
Michelle Dunham
Shelly Franklin
Sam Galano
Jackie Howard
Cheryl Husted
Erika Ingersoll
Christina Kennell
Julie Ligon
Assistant Martinez
Jose Martinez
Joshua Morris
Diane Pease
James D Pease
Sam Ramos
Michele Rennie
Judy Schlicher
Rebecca Selph
Doug Simcock
Tom Stokes
Toby Swank
Melissa Tetz
Doug Versteeg
Windermere Walla Walla
Rosalie Wheeler
Assistant Wright
Todd Wright
Dana Yarwood

Windermere Wenatchee
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/NCW
517 N. Wenatchee Avenue
Wenatchee, WA 98801-1158

Phone: 509 662-7184
Fax: 509 662-2656
Email: wenatchee@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewenatchee.com

Russ Andrews
Alex Arriaza
Jody Campbell
Pamela Cooke
Kathy Emerick
Wendy Fries
Maria Gion
Margo Hetterle
Claudia Hildahl
Steve Hildahl
Julie Jessup
Christie Kay
Cliff Larson
Becky Long
Ruth Macias
Wenatchee Office
Kele Osborn
Jerry Paine
Vera H. Salas
Cindy & Tim Seyster
Jolly Ann Seyster
Tim & Cindy Seyster
Jacqueline SwinDell-Hurst
Jamie L. Wallace

Windermere Westport
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Westport, Inc.
2601 Westhaven Drive, P.O. Box 2369
Westport, WA 98595

Phone: 360-268-1234 or 800-377-0787
Fax: 360-268-0375
Email: westport@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewestport.com

Tim Anderson
Lorraine Christensen
Mike Coverdale
Mike Coverdale - Commercial
Jennifer Custer
Steven F. Isaacson
Carol Minor
Donnell Shelton
Kevin Todd
Windermere Westport

Windermere Whidbey Island- Coupeville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whidbey Island
P.O. Box 610, 5 South Main St.
Coupeville, WA 98239

Phone: (360) 678-5858
Fax: (360) 678-6743
Email: centerisle@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewhidbey.com

Bruce Bryson
Mary Bryson
John Carr
Al Chochon
Marilyn Clay
Irene Echenique
John Harris
Jason Joiner
Carmen McFadyen
Clay Miller
Aleshia Mitten
Eric Mitten
Coupeville Office
Jennifer Roberts
Rebecca Robinson
Margaret Wing-Tassano
Jennifer Wynn

Windermere Whidbey Island- Freeland
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/South Whidbey
5531 Freeland Avenue
Freeland, WA 98249

Phone: 360/331-6006
Fax: 360/331-7252
Email: whidbey@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewhidbey.com

Bernadette Aguiar-Johnson
Linda L. Beeman
Dana Bieber
Sharon Boyle
Linda Casale
Peter Casale
Internet Coordinator
Jennifer Cox
Michelle Cussen
Alicia Dietrich
Jill Engstrom
Lori Ferrario
Amber Fouts
Daniel Fouts
Gordy Frederickson
Lyn Gray
Carol Hanson
Marlane Harrington
Libby Hayward
Jenny Hooper
Whidbey Info
Gail Klebold
Jody LaBissoniere
Kevin Lee
Bryan McCourt
Barbara Mearing
Joseph P. Mosolino
Ann Muniz
Louis Muniz
Jim Norman
Freeland Office
Diana Parker
Sw Pending
South Whidbey Property
Amy Raymond
DoNotDelete Revist123114
Ben Robinett
Jim Short
Sandra Stipe
Sheila White
Michelle Williams
Colleen Winslow
Diane Zwiebel

Windermere Whidbey Island- Langley
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/South Whidbey
223 Second Street ~ P.O. Box 1068
Langley, WA 98260

Phone: 360/221-8898
Fax: 360/221-8878
Email: whidbey@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewhidbey.com

Julie Bean
Colin Campbell
Langley
Coordinator
Jennifer Cox
Bruce Enter
Barbara Golub
John D. Joynt
Mary Matthew
Shellie Moore
Joseph P.
Mosolino
Langley Office
Nancy Rowan
Steve Strehlau

Windermere Whidbey Island- Oak Harbor
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Whidbey Island
32785 SR 20, Suite 4
Oak Harbor, WA 98277

Phone: 360-675-5953
Fax: 360-679-2619
Email: oakharbor@windermere.com
Website: www.windermerewhidbey.com

Lila Barker
Ashley Barnette
Annie Cash
Laura Civinskas
Karen Cox
Heather Czlapinski
Linda Earnhart
Cheri English
Marissa Evans
Kristi Jensen
Anita Johnston
Thomas Kier
Julie Kinnaird
Sarah Konopik
Nikki Leith
Karen Lesetmoe
Cheryl Lueder
Erik Mann
Elaine McDowell
Jason McFadyen
Jennifer McGlothlin
Craig McKenzie
Bob McNeill
Debbie Merritt
Aleshia Mitten
Eric Mitten
Andrew O'Brien
Oak Harbor Office
Windermere Whidbey Property
Management
Diana Rasmussen, Admin
Teresa Reynolds
Mitch Richards
Danny Salinger
Stephania Schleipman
Kristen Stavros
David Stuart
Michael Tenore
Terry Reynolds & Tom Kier
Pamela White
Tina Wieldraayer
Jacki Wyatt
Jonathan Young
Judith Zapanta-Borras

Windermere Windermere Solutions
Office Address:
Windermere Solutions LLC
815 Western Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104

Phone: 206-695-5959
Fax:
Email: info@windermeresolutions.com
Website: www.windermeresolutions.com

Georgia Admin
Joe Q. Agent
Patricia Aranda
Daniel Bailey
York Baur
Joshua Bentley
Randy Bruhl
Poptart Cat
Ben Cearlock
Josh Christenson
Jeff DeMelle
Solutions Foundation
Adam Griffin
Tom Hartnett
Jillian Igarashi
Biab Impersonation
OB Jacobi
R Jacobi
Regina Kelley
Krista King
Jason Lindsey
Bryan Link
Stephen Lloyd
Dawn McLellan
Luke Mongomery
Marissa Myers
Rachel Nickinovich
Solutions Ops
Nick Pollock
Paul A. Quinn
Appstore Review
Kylah Searing
James Smoak
Jim Smoak
Jim Smoak
Todd Steinberg
Elaine Stephens
Kelly Taylor
Override Test
Password Test
Rackspace Test
Windermere Training
Kate Wickersham

Windermere Woodinville
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/HLC
13901 NE 175th Street Suite 100
Woodinville, WA 98072

Phone: 425-483-5100
Fax: 425-486-7165
Email: woodinville@windermere.com
Website: windermerewoodinville.com

Test Agent
Jennifer Beeler
Tom Berg
Michelle Blue
Nicole Bosko
Erin Bowersox
Kristina Branson
Kathy Brown
Will Bruce
Karal Cox
Jeff Dyer
Woodinville Email
Ashley Farrington
Maureen A. Goodlund
Rhonda Greer
Rick Grimes
Leah Hernandez
Leif Herrington
Sharon Hyde
Nicole Ji
Stacie Jonson
Sean Kelsey
Carl King
Andrew Koeppen
Steve Laccinole
Leslie Lee
Ann Luce-Bruce
Mallory Luemmen
Jen Moore
Gail Murchison
Bruce Rawlinson
Bonnie Reddick
Victor Reddick
Kevin Scott
Bruce Sellers
Beth Shephard
Jorge Silva
Jill Sjolin
Michelle Sullivan
Scott Taylor
Blue Team
Susan M. Webster
Cydny Wells
Keith Wells
Windermere Woodinville
Aaron Zehm
Aaron & Karen Zehm
Karen Zehm

Windermere Yakima
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Yakima
4002 Englewood Ave
Yakima, WA 98908

Phone: 509-965-6655
Fax: 509-574-8973
Email: yakimastaff@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereyakima.com

Freba Afzali
Sam Alvarez
Gary Bailey
Harry Collier
Holly Cousens
Cheri Daniels
Josh DeBoer
Dustin Dirks
Alex Haro
Christina Hoover
JoAnn Houfek
Sally Kobli
Cami Leonard-Corbin
Becki Mitchell
Daina Moore
Susan Riordan
Melissa Shea
Diana Siebol
Wendy Snipes-Heit
Office Staff
Tom Trepanier
Windermere Yakima

Windermere Yelm
Office Address:
Windermere Real Estate/Yelm
PO Box 1257/ 709 Yelm Ave.East
Yelm, WA 98597

Phone: 360/458-3855
Fax: 360/458-1806
Email: yelm@windermere.com
Website: www.windermereyelm.com

Lida Cozzetti
Catie Crane
Stephanie Crone
Brooke Fairchild
Kristin Friis
Chuck Galambos
Christy Gerrish
Steve Gilling
John Graver
Terry Kaminski
Holly Kappert
Roger Rieke
Linda Roberson
Rick Simpson
Melissa Vadnais
Francine Waters
Sheryl Williams

Listings are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate as individuals may have changed offices or company affiliation; or may have left the real estate industry entirely since listings were posted.

 

 

THE WINDERMERE RELOCATION RAPE CASE

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COURT'S ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION HERE

 

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAUREEN LITTLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 99-35668

v.

WINDERMERE RELOCATION, INC., a  Washington corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court  for the Western District of Washington  Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted  March 6, 2001--Seattle, Washington

Opinion Filed September 12, 2001
Amended January 23, 2002

Before: Harry Pregerson, Sidney R. Thomas and
Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Thomas

D.C. No. CV-98-01184-RSL
ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

COUNSEL

Marilee Erickson and Danielle A. Hess, Reed McClure, Seattle, Washington, for the appellant. Patrick N. Rothwell, Abbott, Davis, Rothwell, Mullin &  Earle, P.C., Seattle Washington, for the appellee.

ORDER

The opinion filed on September 12, 2001, is hereby amended. With the amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for  rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for  rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

OPINION

THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

Maureen Little ("Little") appeals from an order granting summary judgment on her claims of hostile work environment  and retaliation in violation of Title VII, and wrongful dis- charge in violation of Washington state law. Because genuine issues of material fact exist on these claims, we reverse the  judgment of the district court. We affirm the dismissal of her state law claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,  as we must in evaluating the propriety of a grant of summary  judgment, see Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir.  1991), the events leading up to this lawsuit occurred as follows:

Little was employed by Windermere Relocation Services, Inc. ("Windermere") as a Corporate Services Manager, a position that required her "to develop an ongoing business relationship and relocation contacts with corporations in order to obtain corporate clients needing relocation services for their employees." Until she was terminated, she received only positive feedback from her supervisors. Windermere's records  confirm that during the relevant period, Little had the best  transaction closure record of all corporate managers by a large  margin.

Unlike the other managers, Little's employment contract provided that Little would receive $2,000 monthly, plus a $1,000 monthly override and $250 per closed sale. The over-ride was based on the assumption that Little would close four  transactions per month, with a provision for rollover when she  did not make target. According to Windermere President Gayle Glew, the other managers had not received the $1,000 override.

One of Windermere's clients was the Starbucks Corporation. Some time in 1997, Little performed some relocation services for Starbucks Human Resources Director, Dan Guerrero, on a contract basis, and she learned from him that Starbucks was dissatisfied with its primary relocation provider. Glew told Little that he would "do whatever it takes to get this account" and that Little should "do the best job she could." Thus, Little believed that, as part of her job, she was to build a business relationship with Guerrero to try to get the Starbucks account, and she had at least two business lunches with Guerrero toward this end.

On October 14, Little accepted Guerrero's invitation to discuss the account at a restaurant. After eating dinner with Guerrero and having a couple of drinks, Little suddenly became ill and passed out. She awoke to find herself being raped by Guerrero in his car. She fought him off and jumped out of the car, but again she became violently ill. Guerrero put her back in the car and took her to his apartment, where he raped her again. Little fell asleep, and when she awoke he was raping her again. Afterward, he showered and drove her to her car.

Little was reluctant to tell anyone at Windermere about the rape because, in her own words, "I knew how important the Starbucks account was to Mr. Glew. Mr. Glew would ask me on a consistent basis the status of the account and I was afraid that if I told him about the rape, he would see me as an impediment to obtaining the Starbucks account." This belief was reinforced when, a few days after the rape, Little reported the rape to Chris Delay, Director of Relocation Services (apparently not one of Little's supervisors), and Delay advised her not to tell anyone in management. Little believed  that Delay feared "what might happen to [Little] if [she] did tell."

On October 23, about nine days after the rape, Little reported it to Peggy Scott, the Vice President of Operations, who was designated in Windermere's Harassment Policy as a complaint-receiving manager. Little described Scott's response:

She came out around the desk and I could tell she was upset and she just gave me a hug and said she wished there was something she could do. She didn't understand what I was going through. She asked me  if I was in therapy. Then she proceeded to tell me she wouldn't say anything to [Glew] unless I proceeded to seek legal action [against Dan Guerrero].

Scott told Little that "[s]he thought it would be best that [Little] try to put it behind [her] and to keep working in therapy," and that she should discontinue working on the Starbucks account. She did not give Little any advice about going to the police, and she did not conduct an investigation of Little's complaint or any follow-up interview with Little. Scott testified in her deposition that, because the rape occurred outside the "working environment," she believed that it fell outside the scope of Windermere's Harassment Policy.

Despite Little's supposed removal from the Starbucks account, Glew continued to ask her about the status of the Starbucks account during the next six weeks. "[As of December 2,] Gayle was asking me questions about Starbucks . . . a couple of times every month to see what the status was." Concerned by Glew's questions, Little told her immediate supervisor, Linda Bellisario, the Vice President of Sales and Marketing, on December 2, 1997, about the rape. Little had been reluctant to tell Bellisario because she "felt that [Bellisario] would immediately go to Gayle and Gayle would terminate my position. . . . I knew how much this account meant to him. He said he would do whatever it took to get this account." Bellisario told Little to inform Glew of the incident.

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

She told me [later] that she had no idea Mr. Glew was going to cut my salary. It did not appear he had talked with her about my pay structure prior to his making his decision . . . . [She] was crying and she was upset, she said she had no idea that Gayle was going to talk about this at all. And she had no idea he was going to reduce my pay. And that she didn't want me to leave and she didn't know what to do. And she was pretty upset about the whole thing.

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

Little brought suit against Windermere, alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), and the Revised Code of Washington § 49.60; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and intentional, reckless, and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Windermere on all four claims. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo . Ellison, 924 F.2d at 873.

II

Little alleges that Windermere's response to the rape created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Rev. C. Wash. § 49.60.180(3). Because Washington sex discrimination law parallels that of Title VII, see Payne v. Children's Home Society of Washington, Inc., 892 P.2d 1102, 1105 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995), it is appropriate to consider Little's state and federal discrimination claims together.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., prohibits sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, in employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-66 (1986).

When evaluating a claim of sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment, we must determine two things: whether the plaintiff has established that she or he was subjected to a hostile work environment, and whether the  employer is liable for the harassment that caused the environment. See Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787-89 (1998); Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc. , 256 F.3d 864, 871-75 (9th Cir. 2001). Both present mixed questions of law and fact that we review de novo. See Id.  at 871, 875.

A

To establish that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, a plaintiff must prove that "1) she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, 2) this conduct was unwelcome, and 3) this conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment." Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotations and citation omitted). There is no doubt that Little was subjected to unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature; the dispute here centers around the third element: whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive or hostile work environment. The district court did not make any findings on the severity or pervasiveness of the conduct, but rather found that liability could not be imputed to Windermere, and granted summary judgment on that basis. However, Little does not seek relief based on imputed liability for the rape. Rather, her claim is about whether Windermere's reaction to the rape created a hostile work environment.

Under the third element, to determine whether an environment is sufficiently hostile or abusive to violate Title VII,  we look "at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an  employee's work performance." Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, _______ U.S. _______, 121 S. Ct. 1508, 1510 (2001) (internal  quotation marks and citations omitted); see Nichols, 256 F.3d at 872. Moreover, "the work environment must both subjectively and objectively be perceived as abusive," Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527 (citation omitted), and the objective portion of the claim is evaluated from the reasonable woman's perspective. Ellison, 924 F.2d at 879-80.

Little has tendered sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment on her hostile work environment claim. Guerrero's rape of Little was "severe." Under the circumstances, it would have made a reasonable woman feel that her work environment had been altered: The nature of Little's employment extended the work environment beyond the physical confines of the corporate office. Having out-of-office meetings with potential clients was a required part of the job. The rape occurred at a business meeting with a business client.  However, more significantly, Windermere's subsequent actions reinforced rather than remediated the harassment. Although she had no further contact with Guerrero, Little was  not effectively removed from responsibility for the account. She was informed that reporting the rape would probably result in an adverse employment action, even to the point of jeopardizing her career. When she reported the rape to the President, he immediately decreased her compensation and referred her to corporate lawyers. Windermere disputes the significance of many of these events. However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Little, Windermere's failure to take immediate and effective corrective action allowed the effects of the rape to permeate Little's work environment and alter it irrevocably. Thus, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the "conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of . . . employment and create an abusive working environment" for Little. Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527.

The tendered evidence stands in contrast to the circumstances of Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2000). In Brooks, we held that a"single incident" of harassment that was not "severe" and that was followed by immediate corrective action by the employer was not sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to create a hostile work environment. Id. at 925-26. Here, in contrast to the single instance of fondling in Brooks, Little was victimized by three violent rapes. In Brooks, the harassing employee was fired; here, not only was there no remediation, the harassment was arguably reinforced by Little's employer.

A single "incident" of harassment -- and we assume arguendo that three rapes in the course of one evening constitutes a "single" incident -- can support a claim of hostile  work environment because the "frequency of the discriminatory conduct" is only one factor in the analysis. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (noting that "no single factor is required"). Conduct is actionable if it is either "sufficiently severe or pervasive." Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Supreme Court recently noted that an isolated incident can amount to a "discriminatory change[ ] in the `terms and conditions of employment' " when the incident is "extremely serious." Breeden, _______ U.S. _______, 121 S. Ct. at 1510 (citation omitted). Other circuits have come to a similar conclusion. See, e.g., Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that "even a single incident of sexual assault sufficiently alters the conditions of the victim's employment and clearly creates an abusive work environment for purposes of Title VII liability"); Guess v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 913 F.2d 463, 464 (7th Cir. 1990) (holding that a single incident where supervisor picked up plaintiff and forced her face against his crotch impliedly considered to create hostile environment); cf. DiCenso v. Cisneros, 96 F.3d 1004, 1009 (7th Cir. 1996) ("[Although this single incident was insufficient, we do not] hold that a single incident of harassment never will support an actionable
claim.").

Rape is unquestionably among the most severe forms of sexual harassment. Being raped by a business associate, while on the job, irrevocably alters the conditions of the victim's work environment. It imports a profoundly serious level of abuse into a situation that, by law, must remain free of discrimination based on sex. Being raped is, at minimum, an act of discrimination based on sex. See Brock v. United States, 64 F.3d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Just as every murder is also a battery, every rape committed in the employment setting is also discrimination based on the employee's sex."). Thus, the employer's reaction to a single serious episode may form the basis for a hostile work environment claim.

In sum, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Little, because her employer effectively condoned a rape by a business colleague and its effects, Little was subjected to an abusive work environment that "detract[ed] from [her] job performance, discourage[d] [her] from remaining on the job, [and kept her] from advancing in [her] career[ ]." See Harris, 510 U.S. at 22.


B

Having determined that Little has presented a triable issue of whether she was subjected to a hostile work environment, we must decide whether Windermere can be liable for the harassment. See Nichols, 256 F.3d at 875; see also Meritor, 477 U.S. at 70-72 (noting that a Title VII plaintiff must also provide a basis for holding her employer liable for the harassment). "The relevant standards and burdens pertaining to employer liability vary with the circumstances." Nichols, 256 F.3d at 875.

In this circuit, employers are liable for harassing conduct by non-employees "where the employer either ratifies or acquiesces in the harassment by not taking immediate and/or corrective actions when it knew or should have known of the conduct." Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 107 F.3d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F.3d 1062, 1073 (10th Cir. 1998) (adopting Folkerson standard). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines endorse this approach: "An employer may also be responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action." 29 C.F.R.§ 1604.11(e) (emphasis added). Thus, if Windermere ratified Guerrero's rape of Little by failing to take immediate and effective corrective action, it is liable for the harassment.

Windermere's precise remedial obligations are defined by Ellison v. Brady:

[T]he reasonableness of an employer's remedy will depend on its ability to stop harassment by the person who engaged in harassment. In evaluating the adequacy of the remedy, the court may also take into account the remedy's ability to persuade potential  harassers to refrain from unlawful conduct.

924 F.2d at 882 (footnote omitted). In addition,"[i]f 1) no remedy is undertaken, or 2) the remedy attempted is ineffectual, liability will attach." Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1528-29.

As discussed above, Windermere's response to the rape was equivocal at best. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Little, she was informed that she should "do anything" to get the account; she was advised by a co-worker not to report the incident to top management because it would damage her career; when she reported the rape to her supervisor, she was not effectively removed from the account; and,  when she finally reported the incident to the President, she was demoted and terminated. There is no evidence that Windermere took steps to prevent contact between Little and Guerrero, such as effectively removing Little from the account or informing Starbucks that it must replace the contact it used with Windermere. Because of Windermere's failure to take appropriate remedial measures, Little has raised sufficient genuine issues of material fact as to whether Windermere ratified or acquiesced in the harassing conduct, and we reverse the district court's contrary conclusion.

C

In sum, Little has raised genuine issues of material fact as to whether Windermere's actions (or inactions) subsequent to Guerrero's rape of Little subjected Little to a hostile work environment. Windermere will be liable for the hostile work environment created at Windermere after Guerrero's rape if a jury finds that it ratified or acquiesced in the rape by failing to take immediate corrective action once it knew or should have known of the rape. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this claim.

III

Little also alleges that Glew reduced her pay and terminated her in retaliation for reporting the rape in violation of Title VII and the Revised Code of Washington § 49.60.210. Because Washington courts look to interpretations of federal law when analyzing retaliation claims, we again consider Little's state and federal claims together. See Graves v. Dept. of Game, 887 P.2d 424, 428 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on this claim.

To establish a prima facie retaliation claim under the opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), Title VII, Little must show 1) her involvement in a protected activity, 2) an adverse employment action taken against her, and 3) a causal link between the two. See Brooks, 229 F.3d at 928. Title VII provides, in relevant part, that "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter. " 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). It is unnecessary that the employment practice actually be unlawful; opposition thereto is protected when it is "based on a `reasonable belief ' that the employer has engaged in an unlawful employment practice." Moyo v. Gomez, 40 F.3d 982, 984 (9th Cir. 1994) (emphasis in original, citation omitted).

A prima facie case may be based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Id. "Once a prima facie case has been made, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who must offer evidence that the adverse action was taken for other than impermissibly discriminatory reasons." Id.  The plaintiff can rebut this by producing "specific, substantial evidence of pretext." Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996). Pretext, too, may be shown by circumstantial evidence, see Wrighten v. Metropolitan Hospitals, Inc., 726 F.2d 1346, 1354 (9th Cir. 1984), but it must consist of "more than a mere refutation of the employer's legitimate reason and [a mere assertion] that the discriminatory reason be the cause of the firing," Wallis, 26 F.3d at 890 (citation omitted).

Little established a prima facie case. The district court correctly found that Little could have reasonably believed that, in reporting the rape to Scott, she was opposing an unlawful employment practice. See Moyo, 40 F.3d at 985. Given Lit tle's belief that her relationship with Guerrero was strictly business, and that she met with him because it was part of her job as a Windermere employee, her belief that Windermere was required to take action in response to his assault of her was eminently reasonable. See, e.g., Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1528-29 (holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment).

Second, Glew's reduction of her guaranteed monthly base salary from $3,000 (including the override) to $2,000 constituted an "adverse employment action." An "adverse employment action" is "any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging in a protected activity." Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1244 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8, "Retaliation, " ¶ 8008 (1998)). This definition includes actions "materially affect[ing] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges" of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Kortan v. Cal. Youth Auth., 217 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000). A cut in base pay is clearly such an adverse action, despite, as the district court  noted, Little's "hopes and expectations [of her sales and bonuses] for coming months or years." See Ray, 217 F.3d at 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that "adverse employment action" is defined broadly); see, e.g., Hashimoto, 118 F.3d at 676 (holding that the dissemination of a negative job reference constitutes an "adverse employment action"). And, of course, termination of employment is an adverse employment action; Little has presented triable issues of fact that she was, indeed, fired.

Third, Little has presented evidence that the adverse employment action occurred within minutes of her reporting the rape to Glew. This close timing provides circumstantial evidence of retaliation that is sufficient to create a prima facie case of retaliation. See Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 507 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that causation can be inferred from timing alone); see, e.g., Miller v. Fairchild Indus., 885 F.2d 498, 505 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that a prima facie case of causation was established when discharges occurred forty-two and fifty-nine days after EEOC hearings); Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that sufficient evidence existed where adverse actions occurred less than three months after complaint filed, two weeks after charge first investigated, and less than two months after investigation ended).

As required in a retaliation case, Windermere has properly rebutted Little's prima facie case with evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory motive for altering Little's pay structure. Glew testified and declared that he had grown increasingly dissatisfied with and concerned by Little's failure to make four closings per month, as contemplated in her employment agreement. Scott and Glew both testified that they met in November to discuss Little's lower-than-expected performance. Glew declared that, after considering the options, he decided to restructure Little's compensation to conform to the base that had been previously given. His decision to terminate her was consistent with his decision to restructure her pay. This evidence establishes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the pay cut.

However, Little has tendered sufficient evidence, in addition to the proximity of events, to rebut this alleged reason. Little testified that, until the pay cut and termination, she had received only positive feedback, and that she never knew of the four-deal-per-month requirement; although her employment contract states so explicitly, she may have received verbal assurances that she believed were superceding. Little averred that it took time to establish business relationships, making it difficult to close four deals per month in her first year as a Corporate Services Manager, and that her supervisors knew that. Further, the data showing Little's superior performance, in addition to Little's belief that her work was more than satisfactory, cast doubt on Glew's decision to cut the pay of the most successful corporate caller Windermere apparently had yet employed, and particularly to make the cut non-negotiable. Little's description of Bellisario's surprise and concern at the pay cut supports this interpretation -- as Little's direct supervisor, Little believed that Bellisario would have been involved in that decision. These facts, together with the proximity in timing, suffice to create a question of fact regarding Windermere's motive in cutting Little's pay and ultimately terminating her employment. "[A] prima facie case is insufficient to preclude summary judgment, a plaintiff need produce `very little evidence of discriminatory motive to raise a genuine issue of fact' as to pretext." Strother v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 79 F.3d 859, 870 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate on this claim.

IV

In addition to her federal discrimination claims, Little has alleged that Windermere wrongfully discharged her in violation of Washington law. Under this Washington tort claim, Little must establish four elements: 1) the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element); 2)"that discouraging the conduct in which [she] engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element)"; 3) that her public-policy-linked conduct was a substantial factor in (i.e. the cause of) Windermere's decision to discharge her (the causation element)"; and 4) that employers generally do not have an "over-riding justification" for wanting to use the activity as a factor affecting the decision to discharge (the absence of justification element). Ellis v. City of Seattle, 13 P.3d 1065, 1070 (Wash. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 913 P.2d 377 ( Wash. 1996) (en banc)); see also Lins v. Children's Discovery Centers of America, Inc., 976 P.2d 168, 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the elements of the claim, as well as whether Little resigned or was discharged.

First, Little has established the clarity element required by Washington Law Against Discrimination, Revised Code of Washington § 49.60. In analyzing this element, "courts should inquire whether the employer's conduct contravenes the letter or purpose of a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision or scheme." Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081, 1089 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

In general, it can be said that public policy concerns what is right and just and what affects the citizens of the State collectively . . . . Although there is no precise line of demarcation dividing matters that are the subject of public policies from matters purely personal, a survey of cases in other States involving retaliatory discharges shows that a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen's social rights, duties, and responsibilities before the tort will be allowed.

Dicomes v. State, 782 P.2d 1002, 1006 (Wash. Sup. Ct. 1989) (en banc) (citation omitted). Little argued that Windermere discharged her because she made a complaint about sexual harassment. The Washington Supreme Court held recently that Revised Code of Washington sections 49.12.200 and 49.60.010 embody a clearly articulated public policy condemning sex discrimination in employment. See Roberts v. Dudley, 140 Wash. 2d 58, 69, 993 P.2d 901, 907 (2000) (en banc) (holding that discharging an employee because she was on maternity leave would violate that policy). Relatedly, discharging an employee because of his opposition to a practice in violation of a public policy forms a cause of action for wrongful discharge. See Ellis, 13 P.3d at 1070. Thus, Little has articulated a clear public policy -- against sex discrimination in employment -- that Windermere's action may have
contravened.

Little tendered sufficient evidence concerning the second element, namely, that she was "engaged in particular conduct" that "directly relate[d] to the public policy, or [that] was necessary for the effective enforcement of the public policy." Gardner, 913 P.2d at 377 (emphasis in original). In Ellis, after noting that a retaliation claim exists under § 49.60.210, the court found that "the jeopardy prong . . may be established if an employee has an objectively reasonable belief the law may be violated in the absence of his or her action. " 13 P.3d at 1071. As discussed previously, Little has established a reasonable belief that Guerrero had sexually harassed her and that her reporting to Windermere could prevent further harassment. She has therefore established the jeopardy prong of Gardner. Accord Ellis, 13 P.3d at 1071 (firing fireman "for raising questions about the legality of what he was told to do jeopardizes the public policy of following the fire code").

Little has raised a genuine issue of fact as to the third element, namely, whether Windermere's termination of her employment was in retaliation for her report of the rape -- that is, whether her report was a "substantial factor" in Windermere's decision to terminate her.

Finally, Windermere has offered -- and cannot offer -- any general overriding justification for using an employee's report of sexual harassment as a reason to discharge that employee. Cf. Lins, 976 P.2d at 173 (stating that employers have no "overriding justification" for wanting to consider employee's refusal to perform an unlawful order). In fact, Windermere's sexual harassment policy encourages employees to report such behavior and provides a mechanism by which Windermere can correct such behavior.

In sum, Little has established the first two elements of her wrongful discharge claim, and she has raised questions of fact regarding the second two elements. Thus, summary judgment was not appropriate on this claim.

V

The district court correctly entered summary judgment against Little on her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in violation of Washington state tort law. To establish this cause of action, Little "must show (1) that her employer's negligent acts injured her, (2) the acts were not a workplace dispute or employee discipline, (3) the injury is not covered by the Industrial Insurance Act, and (4) the dominant feature of the negligence claim was the emotional injury." Snyder v. Med. Srv. Corp. of Eastern Wash., 988 P.2d 1023, 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). Like all negligence claims, a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim requires duty, breach, proximate cause, and injury. Hunsley v. Giard, 553 P.2d 1096, 1102 (Wash. 1976). Little also must show objective symptoms of emotional distress. See Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 577 P.2d 580, 582 (Wash. 1978) (citing Hunsley, 553 P.2d at 1103).

However, Washington courts "[do] not recognize a claim against an employer for negligent infliction of emotional distress . . . `when the only factual basis for emotional distress [is] the discrimination claim.' " Robel v. Roundup Corp., 10 P.3d 1104, 1113 (Wash. 2000) (quoting Chea v. Men's Wearhouse, Inc., 932 P.2d 1261 (Wash. 1997)). Here, Little's only factual basis is that "Windermere failed to investigate Ms. Little's complaint, then cut her pay and terminated her employment." This argument formed an integral part of her discrimination claim and the emotional injury she alleges is compensable in her discrimination action. This cause of action is therefore not cognizable under Washington law and the entry of summary judgment was appropriate.

VI

In sum, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for trial Little's claims of hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and Washington's Law Against Discrimination and her claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. We affirm the dismissal of her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in violation of Washington state tort law.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties shall bear their own costs.

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE OPINION HERE

 

Windermere Charged with Financial Elder Abuse—AGAIN.

(At left, Windermere Coachella Agent Faith Messenger, and Windermere Coachella / SoCal Owners Joseph R. "Bob" Deville and Bob Bennion.)

Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, Palm Desert, Portola Agent Faith Messenger, and Windermere Real Estate SoCal, Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud and Deceit, Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Financial Elder Abuse, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Breach of Contract, in Complaint Alleging:

"It was also not until March 6, 2013, that Messenger first presented Dr. Glancz with the C.A.R. form entitled “Disclosure and Consent for Representation of More Than One Buyer or Seller” for Dr. Glancz’s signature. Thus, the first written disclosure of Messenger's dual agent status, representing both Dr. Glancz and the Buyer did not occur until long after the initial offers had been signed and exchanged and weeks after most of the negotiations, misrepresentations by Messenger and her failures to inform Dr. Glancz had all taken place." and;

"Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that the misrepresentations, concealments, and non-disclosures of Messenger and all other wrongful acts alleged in this complaint were carried out within the course and scope of her duty as an agent for Windermere. Furthermore, Windermere contracted directly with Dr. Glancz and assigned Messenger to work for Dr. Glancz and had a duty and responsibility to oversee Messenger's conduct. As a consequence, Windermere is responsible for Messenger's conduct and is directly liable to Dr. Glancz not only for Windermere's failures, but for Messenger's failures and wrongful conduct under principles of agency and because Messenger's conduct is imputed to Windermere under the doctrine of respondeat superior," and;

"Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’ conduct constituted oppression, fraud, and malice in the commission of financial abuse, and Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing Defendants for financial elder abuse pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and California Civil Code section 3294."

The Boilerplate Answer of Defendants Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. dba Windermere Real Estate Southern California and Faith Messenger to Complaint Asserts Twenty-Six Affirmative Defenses.

DOWNLOAD A COMPLETE COPY OF THE COMPLAiNT HERE

 

FILED JANUARY 23, 2014

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, PALM SPRINGS COURTHOUSE

 

GEORGE GLANCZ, individually, and as Trustee of the Glancz Family Trust U/T/D April 21, 2005,

 

Plaintiff,

 

v.

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOCAL, INC., a California corporation; FAITH MESSENGER, an individual,

 

Defendants

 

Case. No. PSC 1400430

 

 

[Action Filed: _____________ Case Assigned For All

Purposes to Dept. ____, the Hon. _____________________]

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR:

 

1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty

2) Fraud and Deceit;

3) Negligence;

4) Negligent Misrepresentation;

5) Financial Elder Abuse;

6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and

8) Breach of Contract

 

Plaintiff GEORGE GLANCZ, individually, and as Trustee of the Glancz Family Trust U/T/D April 21, 2005 (“Plaintiff” or “Dr. Glancz”) alleges as follows:

 

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

 

            1. Plaintiff Dr. George Glancz is, and at all times herein mentioned was, an individual residing in the State of California, County of Riverside, City of Palm Desert, and is also the Trustee of the Glancz Family Trust u/d/t April 21, 2005. Dr. Glancz is sixty-nine (69) years old. At all times relevant hereto, Dr. Glancz resided at 21 Avenida Andra, Palm Desert, California, 92211 (hereinafter, the “Property”).

 

            2. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Windermere Real Estate Socal, Inc. (hereinafter “Windermere”) is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of California with its primary place of business located at 71-691 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Windermere is a real estate company that offers brokerage and related services in connection with the purchase and sale of real estate in Riverside County and elsewhere.

 

            3. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Faith Messenger (hereinafter “Messenger”) is an individual residing in the County of Riverside, State of California. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that at all times herein mentioned Messenger was and is employed by, or associated with, Windermere in her capacity as a real estate agent licensed by the State of California, and at all times acted as Windermere's representative, employee, and/or agent such that Messenger's conduct at issue herein was and is imputed to Windermere under general principles of agency and employment. Messenger and Windermere are hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as “Defendants.”

 

ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

 

            4. On or about April 24, 2012, Dr. Glancz, as seller, and Windermere, as broker, entered into a written Residential Listing Agreement dated April 24, 2012 (the “Listing Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the Listing Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein. The Listing Agreement granted Windermere the exclusive right to act as the broker for the sale of the Property for a six month term. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that the parties to the Listing Agreement thereafter executed an extension or extensions to the Listing Agreement continuing Windermere's exclusive right to sell the Property through all relevant times herein mentioned. The Listing Agreement is signed on behalf of Windermere by Defendant Faith Messenger, who acted at all times herein mentioned as Dr. Glancz's real estate agent on behalf of Windermere.

 

            5. The initial listing price for the Property in the Listing Agreement is $2,095,000.00.

 

            6. On or about February 18, 2013, Messenger contacted Dr. Glancz to inform him that she had received an offer for the purchase of the Property from a person named Harold Rothman (“Rothman” or “Buyer”). The offer stated as follows: “The Purchase Price offered is One Million, Five Hundred Fifty Thousand (Dollars $ 1550000.00).” Under Finance Terms, the offer stated, “Initial Deposit: Deposit shall be made in the amount of $52,500.00 ....Balance of Purchase Price or Down Payment: In the amount of $1,497,500.00 to be deposited with Escrow Holder within sufficient time to close escrow.” A true and correct copy of the written California Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions dated February 18, 2013, including Counter-Offers One through Six described below, (collectively, the “Purchase Agreement” is attached hereto as Exhibit “2”, and incorporated herein in full by this reference. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that Messenger represented Rothman as his agent in this transaction at the time the aforementioned offer was conveyed, however, Messenger did not provide written disclosure or seek to obtain written consent from Dr. Glancz for the joint representation at that time.

 

            7. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that on or about February 20, 2013, Messenger, on behalf of Dr. Glancz, presented a written counter-offer (“Counter-Offer One”) to Rothman which included the following stated terms: “(1) Sale Price $1,900,000; (2) Seller to carry back $450,000 at 5% for 5 year term - no prepayment penalty after the first 2 years; (3) Escrow to be 60 days; (4) Furnished per inventory list; (5) Possible 30-day lease back after COE.” Messenger was informed and was aware that Dr. Glancz, who is nearly seventy (70) years old, desired and would only agree to terms of financing which would allow him to receive the funds from the sale no later than 5 years after the close of escrow as Dr. Glancz had specific plans for the use of the funds as he nears retirement.

 

            8. On or about February 21, 2013, Messenger telephoned Dr. Glancz and informed Dr. Glancz that Rothman had signed another counter offer (“Counter-Offer Two”) which Messenger stated included a purchase price of $1,650,000.00, the Property subject to an appraisal, with seller financing in the amount of $1,050,000.00 at 5% interest, monthly payments only, a sixty-day escrow with a seller lease back for thirty-days. Messenger did not immediately provide Counter-Offer Two to Dr. Glancz, but further informed Dr. Glancz that, aside from these terms she stated, there were no other material changes to the previous terms Dr. Glancz had offered.

 

            9. Messenger failed to inform Dr. Glancz and he was, therefore, unaware that Counter-Offer Two provided for the seller to carry back a note and deed of trust with a fifteen year term, rather than the five year term in counter-offer one. Counter-Offer Two further provided for no prepayment penalty after the first five years. Counter-Offer Two stated as follows: “1. Sale Price to be $1,650,000. 2. Seller to carry $1,050,000.00 (or more) for 15 years at 5% Interest only with no pre-payment penalty after the first 5 years. . 3. Buyer to put down $600,000.00. 4. Property to be subject to appraisal. 5. Escrow to be 60 days with an option for seller to lease back after the COE for additional 30 days. 6. All other terms and conditions in original offer remain.” Messenger was well aware of Dr. Glancz' desires and knew he would not and could not agree to terms of seller financing in which he would receive only interest payments for fifteen years, and thereby not receive the majority of the purchase price or have access to those funds until he was nearly eighty-five (85) years old. Despite that knowledge and the knowledge that the funds could serve Dr. Glancz's intended purposes only if the balance of the purchase price were paid no later than five years after the close of escrow, Messenger either intentionally or negligently, omitted those essential terms from her explanation of the offer to Dr. Glancz.

 

            10. On or about February 21, 2013, relying on Messenger's representations and without knowledge of the actual changed terms of the seller financing provided in Counter-Offer Two, Dr. Glancz signed another counter offer (“Counter-Offer Three”) to be transmitted by Messenger to Rothman, which included the following stated terms: “(1) Sale Price to be $1,725,000 - (2) Seller to carry First Trust Deed of $1,050,000 (or less)(or more) (3) Buyer to put minimum of $600,000 down payment (4) Seller to pay $5,000 after COE for additional 30 days (5) Seller to have attorney draft terms and conditions of First Trust Deed within 17 days of acceptance.” After Dr. Glancz had explained his situation, needs and desires, Messenger had suggested including the language in parenthesis “or more - or less” regarding the amount of the trust deed to allow Dr. Glancz the ability to adjust the amount of the note depending on the funds Dr. Glancz would need. Dr. Glancz had explained to Messenger his need to acquire a replacement home at a cost then unknown to Dr. Glancz, and to assist Dr. Glancz’s son and daughter-in-law who were then expecting the birth of another child and were themselves looking to purchase a new home. At that time, and repeatedly thereafter, Messenger informed Dr. Glancz that this arrangement - in which Dr. Glancz could adjust the respective amounts of the cash due at closing and the amount of seller financing - was acceptable to Rothman because Rothman had more than sufficient immediately available funds to pay whatever final allocation Dr. Glancz decided upon.

 

            11. On or about February 22, 2013, Messenger came to Dr. Glancz's home with another counter offer from Rothman (“Counter-Offer Four”) which Messenger again explained to Dr. Glancz. Messenger informed Dr. Glancz that Counter-Offer Four included the following terms: Dr. Glancz could either (1) accept Counter-Offer Two (i.e., purchase price of $1,650,000.00, seller financing of $1,050,000.00 at 5% interest), with an appraisal contingency on value of $1,725,000.00; or (2) agree to a purchase price of $1,725,000.00, with an appraisal contingency, and the seller carrying back a First Trust Deed at 3.5% interest per annum for the terms negotiated in Counter Offers Two and Three. However, Dr. Glancz understood the terms and conditions of the prior counter-offers to be as explained to him by Messenger and described above (i.e., either option including a five-year note). With that understanding, Dr. Glancz instructed Faith Messenger to prepare another counter offer (“Counter-Offer Five”), which stated as follows: “Seller agrees to sell using either Option #1 or Option #2 as outlined in Counter-Offer Four. Decision will be made after discussion with Accountant by Monday, 2-25-2013 on or before 5:00 p.m.”

 

            12. Messenger later informed Dr. Glancz that Rothman was agreeable to the proposal set forth in Counter-Offer Five. Therefore, Dr. Glancz decided to go with the second option described in the preceding paragraph, as Dr. Glancz understood those terms to be. Messenger prepared a further counter offer (“Counter-Offer Six”) which Dr. Glancz signed on February 26, 2013, and which Messenger was to provide to Rothman. Counter-Offer Six stated, “Seller has chosen Option #2 as described in Counter-Offer #5... Sale price to be $1,725,000.00 with seller carry of First Trust Deed at 3.5% for terms and conditions negotiated in Counter Offers #2 and #3.” Counter-Offer Six further provides that it is revoked if not accepted in writing by the buyer and received by the seller by 5:00 p.m. on the third day after it is made. Consequently, Rothman had until 5:00 p.m. on March 1, 2013, to deliver to Dr. Glancz or Messenger a signed Counter-Offer Six. At the time Dr. Glancz provided Messenger with the signed Counter-Offer Six, Messenger told Dr. Glancz that she believed Rothman would sign all the counter offers and that the sale was essentially a done deal.

 

            13. On February 26, 2013, Dr. Glancz's attorney, Robert Patterson, telephoned Messenger at Windermere to request copies of all the contractual documents so that he could prepare the note and first trust deed. Messenger responded defensively and evasively insisting that the escrow company was “perfectly capable of preparing the note and deed of trust.” Attorney Patterson insisted that Messenger forward him the contractual documents and further informed Messenger that the documents he would prepare would be identical to those normally used for his clients and assured Messenger that he had no intention of making the transaction any more difficult than necessary. Although Messenger remained defensive, she agreed to have all offers and counter offers forwarded to Mr. Patterson shortly. That morning, Dr. Glancz' attorney, Patterson, sent Messenger an email confirming his request that Messenger fax or email him the offers and counter offers for the sale of Dr. Glancz's home and confirming that he would then draft a standard note and deed of trust, a true and correct copy of which email is attached hereto as Exhibit “3”.

 

            14. On February 27, 2013, Messenger emailed Dr. Glancz falsely telling him that “[w]e have a fully executed agreement...” A true and correct copy of the February 27 email is attached hereto as Exhibit “4”.

 

            15. Despite Messenger's promise to attorney Patterson on February 26th  that she would forward all the contractual documents to him shortly, more than a week later no documents had been forwarded. Consequently, on Wednesday, March 6, 2013, attorney Patterson again emailed Messenger asking her to send him all the documents concerning the sale of the Property and requesting that she confirm receipt of the email. At 9:57 a.m., Messenger responded by email confirming that she did receive Patterson's email and stating that: “I waited until we passed a challenge.” Messenger did not explain what “challenge” she referred to. Messenger further wrote that she was on jury duty but would have her assistant email him the documents “before the end of the week.” Patterson responded by email at 10:00 a.m. “Thank you ...the sooner the better.” A true and correct copy of the email string between Messenger and Patterson of March 6, 2013, is attached hereto as Exhibit “5”.

 

            16. It was also not until March 6, 2013, that Messenger first presented Dr. Glancz with the C.A.R. form entitled “Disclosure and Consent for Representation of More Than One Buyer or Seller” for Dr. Glancz’s signature. Thus, the first written disclosure of Messenger's dual agent status, representing both Dr. Glancz and the Buyer did not occur until long after the initial offers had been signed and exchanged and weeks after most of the negotiations, misrepresentations by Messenger and her failures to inform Dr. Glancz had all taken place.

 

            17. Messenger was aware that Dr. Glancz had planned a trip to Hawaii starting on March 8, 2013. Consequently, on March 7, 2013, Messenger brought to Dr. Glancz's home two documents which she told Dr. Glancz were the supplemental escrow instructions (collectively, the “Escrow Instructions”) for the escrow for the sale of the Property to be opened with Foresite Escrow. At that time, Messenger told Dr. Glancz that because Rothman had signed all the papers, Dr. Glancz needed to sign the escrow documents before he left on his trip. At that time, Messenger stated to Dr. Glancz that the Escrow Instructions were the customary instructions that mirrored the terms of the Purchase Agreement and were necessary for Foresite Escrow to carry out those terms and bring the transaction to a close. Messenger further told Dr. Glancz that to the extent, if any, there were any conflicts between the Escrow Instructions and the Purchase Agreement, the Purchase Agreement would control. Based on these representations, and under the belief that a contract with Rothman already existed, Dr. Glancz signed and initialed the Escrow Instructions where Messenger indicated. A true and correct copy of the Escrow Instructions is attached hereto as Exhibit “6”.

 

            18. While Dr. Glancz was in Hawaii, he contacted Faith Messenger and inquired regarding the status of the sale. It was only at this point that Messenger told him there was “a problem” and that the buyer was now “having second thoughts” about purchasing the Property. However, shortly after Dr. Glancz's return from Hawaii, Messenger told him everything was “now okay with the buyer,” or words to that effect. At no time during this conversation did Messenger state to Dr. Glancz that Rothman had not signed the offers and counter offers.

 

            19. Despite Messenger's promise to attorney Patterson on March 6th that she would forward the contractual documents to him “before the end of the week,” it was only at 4:07 p.m., on Monday, March 11, 2013, that Patterson finally received an email from Jacklyn Chaney at Windermere attaching copies of the C.A.R. form Purchase and Sale Agreement and Counter-Offers 1-5. A true and correct copy of Ms. Chaney's email of March 11th  (without attachments) is attached hereto as Exhibit "7". Ms. Chaney's email did not include or otherwise reference Counter-Offer Six, signed by Dr. Glancz on February 26, 2013, and purportedly signed by Rothman, according to Messenger, no later than February 27, 2013.

 

            20. Contrary to Messenger's representation to Dr. Glancz on February 27, 2013, that the parties had a "fully executed agreement," Counter Offers One through Five attached to Ms. Chaney's email of March 11, 2013, show that there was not a “fully executed agreement” between Dr. Glancz and Rothman on that date. Instead, the counter offers show that they were not signed by Rothman until March 11th. Further, when Windermere finally produced a copy of Counter Offer Six, the document showed that it had not been signed by Rothman until March 14, 2013.

 

            21. Because the offer and counter offers forwarded to attorney Patterson were extremely convoluted and did not show which of the two “options” constituted the parties supposed agreement, Patterson prepared drafts of the note and deed of trust based upon the terms communicated to him by Dr. Glancz; specifically, that purchase price was to be $1,725,000.00, the seller to take back a note for $1 million, with interest payments only at 3.5% for five (5) years, at which time the entire principal would become due, a prepayment Penalty for early repayment, and that the seller could require prepayment at any time without penalty.

 

            Events Leading to the Buyer's Lawsuit Against Dr. Glancz

 

            22. On or about March 20, 2013, attorney Patterson forwarded drafts of the note and deed of trust to Messenger at Windermere so that she could forward them to Rothman and/or his attorney for review. On March 22, 2013, Messenger sent an email to attorney Patterson attaching an email from Alex Yoffe, counsel for Rothman. In his March 21, 2013 email to Messenger, Mr. Yoffe states that based on his review of the Note, “there are significant issues, which substantially change the agreement for the purchase of the property.” He then notes that “unless changed,” several items are “absolute deal breakers.” Specifically, Mr. Yoffe wrote: “(1) the Note should be 15 years (not 5 years); (2) The Note should be an interest only note for the entire 15 years, with principal repaid at the end of the 15 years, unless [the] Purchaser chooses to pay early; (3) (the] Note should be for 3.5% for the 15 year term; (4) the prepayment penalty only applies, if the Note is prepaid in the first 5 years; (5) [the] Seller cannot draw down, or call the note at any time during the 15 years, unless there is a default; and (6) default shall require written notice, and at least a two week cure period after notice is received.” A true and correct copy of the March 22, 2013, email from Messenger, forwarding Mr. Yoffe's email of March 21, 2013, is attached hereto as Exhibit "8". Subsequent informal attempts to resolve the dispute were not successful.

 

            23. On March 29, 2013, Rothman, Zachary P. Rothman, and the Harold B. Rothman Revocable Trust filed a lawsuit against Dr. Glancz in the Riverside County Superior Court as Case Number INC 1302067, captioned as “Complaint for Recording of a Notice of Pendency of Action for Damages for Breach of Contract, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Specific Performance,” a true and correct copy which is attached hereto as Exhibit “9”. Dr. Glancz subsequently filed an answer to the complaint denying the allegations and setting forth numerous applicable affirmative defenses.

 

            24. On or about April 2, 2013, attorney Yoffe served a copy of the Notice of Pendency Action recorded in connection with the lawsuit, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “10”. The Notice of Pendency of Action clouded title to Dr. Glancz's property rendering it impossible for him to sell the Property.

 

            25. Rothman's lawsuit was based, not on the Purchase Agreement, but on the signed Escrow Instructions which Rothman alleged formed a binding contract between the parties, even in the absence of a separate purchase agreement. However, Dr. Glancz would never have signed the escrow instructions unless he had been under the mistaken belief that a contract already existed between the parties (i.e., the Purchase Agreement), that the Escrow Instructions accurately reflected the terms of the Purchase Agreement, as those terms were described to Dr. Glancz by Messenger, and that Dr. Glancz was required to sign the Escrow Instructions under the terms of the Purchase Agreement. Accordingly, Dr. Glancz was fraudulently induced to execute the Escrow Instructions by Messenger's misrepresentations, concealments, and/or breaches of fiduciary duty, as described herein.

 

            26. In order to resolve the dispute and remove the Notice of Pendency of Action clouding title to Dr. Glancz's Property, Dr. Glancz and Rothman entered into a settlement in which Dr. Glancz was forced to accept a lower purchase price for the Property of $1,590,000.00, and to incur related costs, including but not limited to, significant legal fees, all as a result of the misrepresentations, concealments, negligence, and breaches of fiduciary duties on the part of Windermere and Messenger.

 

            27. Subsequent communications between counsel for Rothman and Plaintiff's counsel revealed other and additional representations which Messenger, purporting to act on behalf of Dr. Glancz, had made to Rothman in the course of the negotiation and execution of the Purchase Agreement that were in direct contradiction to the desires and instructions of Dr. Glancz, such as the inclusion of various fixtures within the sale, which ultimately lead to additional conflict and dispute between Dr. Glancz and Rothman and which forced Dr. Glancz to incur additional related costs to settle the disputes with Rothman caused by Defendants.

 

            28. Pursuant to a separate agreement with Dr. Glancz, Defendants have waived any commission or compensation which would have been due Defendants under the Listing Agreement upon sale of the Property and have thereby resolved the dispute regarding the obligation to pay compensation under the Listing Agreement and the total damages suffered by Dr. Glancz have thus been reduced by $62,940.00.

 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against All Defendants.)

 

            29. Dr. Glancz realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs I through 28, inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

 

            30. Dr. Glancz alleges that there existed a fiduciary duty and/or relationship of trust and confidence (hereinafter “fiduciary duty”) between Dr. Glancz and Defendants arising out of their relationship and Defendants' role as Dr. Glancz's broker and real estate agent in connection with the sale of the Property and, therefore, in connection with the exchange of the offers and counter offers between Dr. Glancz and Rothman, as described above. The agency relationship in the real estate context existing between Dr. Glancz and Defendants was a strict fiduciary relationship that required Defendants to act in Dr. Glancz's best interests at all times.

 

            31. Despite the misrepresentations and concealments by Defendants described above, and despite the fact that discovery of the full extent of Defendants’ wrongful acts are not fully known and discovery has yet to commence, Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, breached their fiduciary duty to Dr. Glancz and took advantage of Dr. Glancz's dependence and trust, engaged in acts of self-dealing and self-profit desiring a “binding” contract between Dr. Glancz and Rothman by any means available so as to secure a double commission, and ignoring the best interests of Dr. Glancz, the various actions constituting breaches include, but are not limited to, the following:

            A. Misrepresenting and concealing material terms of Rothman's counteroffers to Dr. Glancz, knowing and that Dr. Glancz relied on Defendants to fully, accurately, and faithfully describe the terms of the counter offers to Dr. Glancz, as further described below;

            B. Misrepresenting and concealing from Dr. Glancz that Rothman's counteroffers included seller financing by means of a promissory note and deed of trust with no payment of principal for fifteen years, as opposed to the five years Defendants knew Dr. Glancz understood as being offered and which Defendants knew Dr. Glancz required given his disclosed age and his needs in retirement;

            C. Misrepresenting and concealing from Dr. Glancz that Rothman's counteroffers did not allow the prepayment penalty intended by Dr. Glancz;

            D. Misrepresenting to Dr. Glancz on February 27, 2013, that the parties had a “fully executed agreement” while concealing from Dr. Glancz that Rothman had not then signed the Purchase Agreement, including all counter-offers thereto;

            E. Misrepresenting to Dr. Glancz that the Escrow Instructions contained no terms different from those represented to Dr. Glancz by Defendants;

            F. Falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting to Dr. Glancz that Dr. Glancz's signature on the Escrow Instructions was a mere formality required by the Purchase Agreement, which Purchase Agreement did not in fact exist, thereby fraudulently inducing Dr. Glancz into signing the Escrow Instructions when Dr. Glancz had no intention of entering into a separate contract at the time he signed the Escrow Instructions;

            G. Falsely and fraudulently stating to Dr. Glancz that in the event there was a conflict between the Purchase Agreement, which did not yet exist, and the Escrow Instructions that the terms of the Purchase Agreement (as Defendants knew Dr. Glancz understood them to be) would control.

            H. Initially refusing and then delaying the provision of the Purchase Agreement documents to counsel for Dr. Glancz in furtherance of concealing the fact that the Purchase Agreement was not, in fact, executed at the time Messenger indicated it was complete.

            1. Failing to timely provide written notice and obtain written approval of the joint representation by Defendants of Dr. Glancz and Rothman in the sales transaction at issue.

            32. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that the misrepresentations, concealments, and non-disclosures of Messenger and all other wrongful acts alleged in this complaint were carried out within the course and scope of her duty as an agent for Windermere. Furthermore, Windermere contracted directly with Dr. Glancz and assigned Messenger to work for Dr. Glancz and had a duty and responsibility to oversee Messenger's conduct. As a consequence, Windermere is responsible for Messenger's conduct and is directly liable to Dr. Glancz not only for Windermere's failures, but for Messenger's failures and wrongful conduct under principles of agency and because Messenger's conduct is imputed to Windermere under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

 

            33. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that as a direct and proximate result of the breaches of fiduciary duty and the unlawful conduct of Defendants, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover all compensable damages under the law in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to, the difference between the purchase price stated in the Purchase Agreement, $1,725,000.00, and the amount Dr. Glancz was forced to accept to settle Rothman's lawsuit, $1,590,000.00, as well as the lost interest, tax benefits, attorney's fees and costs incurred by Dr. Glancz in defending against and settling Rothman's claims in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.

 

            34. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to Civil Code section 3345, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover three times the amount of damages otherwise recoverable against Defendants, and each of them.

 

            35. Dr. Glancz is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that the aforementioned conduct of Defendants were intentional acts and failures to disclose and breaches of fiduciary duty made with the intention on the part of Defendants of depriving Dr. Glancz of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury and was despicable conduct that subjected Dr. Glancz to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard of Dr. Glancz's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof.

 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Fraud and Deceit Against All Defendants)

 

            36. Dr. Glancz realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 35, inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

 

            37. Dr. Glancz alleges that at the times herein mentioned with respect to the representations and non-disclosures alleged herein, Defendants committed such acts and made such representations, engaged in non-disclosures and attempted to conceal her misrepresentations and non-disclosures while obligated by law to disclose the true facts kept from Dr. Glancz, with the intent to deceive Dr. Glancz in direct violation of Defendants' representations to the contrary and the duties existing to Dr. Glancz by Defendants under the Listing Agreement and by law, as alleged herein.

 

            38. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that when Messenger made misrepresentations alleged herein and failed to disclose and concealed the true terms of the counter-offers for the purchase of the Property as well as the fact that there was no contract in effect at the time Messenger coerced Dr. Glancz to execute the escrow instructions, such conduct resulted in reliance by Dr. Glancz thereon and at a time Messenger knew them to be false and were made at the time to deceive and defraud Dr. Glancz and to induce Dr. Glancz to act in reliance on that conduct in the manner herein alleged.

 

            39. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at the time of these misrepresentations, deceit, non-disclosures and concealment, Dr. Glancz was ignorant of the falsity of Messenger's representations and believed them to be true and had no reason not to believe in the trustworthiness and honesty of Messenger. In reasonable reliance on the representations of Messenger and the professed and required good faith obligation of Messenger, Dr. Glancz was induced to and did employ Defendants and otherwise allow Defendants to occupy the positions they held and to undertake the duties and services to be rendered on behalf of Dr. Glancz as herein alleged. Had Dr. Glancz known the true facts, Dr. Glancz would not have allowed such action to occur. Dr. Glancz's reliance on Messenger's representations was justified and reasonable under the circumstances given when, how, and by whom they were made.

 

            40. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that the misrepresentations, concealments, and non-disclosures of Messenger and all other wrongful acts alleged in this complaint were carried out within the course and scope of her duty as an agent for Windermere. Furthermore, Windermere contracted directly with Dr. Glancz and assigned Messenger to work for Dr. Glancz and had a duty and responsibility to oversee Messenger's conduct. As a consequence, Windermere is responsible for Messenger's conduct and is directly liable to Dr. Glancz not only for Windermere's failures, but for Messenger's failures and wrongful conduct under principles of agency and because Messenger's conduct is imputed to Windermere under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

 

            41. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that as a direct and proximate result of the fraud and deceit of Defendants, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover all compensable damages under the law in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to the difference between the purchase price stated in the Purchase Agreement, $1,725,000.00, and the amount Dr. Glancz was forced to accept to settle Rothman's lawsuit, $1,590,000.00, as well as the lost interest, tax benefits, attorney's fees and costs incurred by Dr. Glancz in defending against and settling Rothman's claims in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.

 

            42. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to Civil Code section 3345, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover three times the amount of damages otherwise recoverable against Defendants, and each of them.

 

            43. Dr. Glancz is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that the aforementioned conduct of Defendants were intentional acts and failures to disclose constituting fraud and/or deceit made with the intention on the part of Defendants of depriving Dr. Glancz of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury and was despicable conduct that subjected Dr. Glancz to cruel and unjust hardship, in conscious disregard on Dr. Glancz's rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof.

 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Negligence Against All Defendants.)

 

           

            44. Dr. Glancz realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs I through 35 and 37 through 43, inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

 

            45. As the duly hired broker and agent for Dr. Glancz in the attempted sale of his home, Defendants and each of them owed a duty to Dr. Glancz to exercise the caution and care of a reasonable residential real estate broker/agent in all efforts to list and sell the Property.

 

            46. In performing the acts alleged herein and engaging in the conduct described herein and, inter alia, failing to make all the proper disclosures, failing to inform and explain to Dr. Glancz all relevant terms of the counter-offers, and failing to keep Dr. Glancz apprised of the actual status of execution of the Purchase Agreement, Defendants and each of them failed to exercise the care and caution expected of a reasonable residential real estate broker/agent.

 

            47. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence as described herein above, Dr. Glancz has incurred damages, losses, costs and fees in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to the difference between the purchase price stated in the Purchase Agreement, $1,725,000.00, and the amount Dr. Glancz was forced to accept to settle Rothman's lawsuit, $1,590,000.00, as well as the lost interest, tax benefits, attorney's fees and costs incurred by Dr. Glancz in defending against and settling Rothman's claims in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.

 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Negligent Misrepresentation Against All Defendants.)

 

            48. Dr. Glancz realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 28, 37 through 43, and 45 through 47, inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

 

            49. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the misrepresentations and concealments of Defendants as set forth herein, if not intentional, were negligent in that Defendants had no reasonable ground for believing them to be true or believing that they were not required to disclose the actual facts to Dr. Glancz, and were carried out with reckless disregard for their accuracy and for the well-being of Dr. Glancz.

 

            50. Defendants made these representations and concealments with the intention of inducing Dr. Glancz to act in reliance thereon in the manner herein alleged, or with the expectation that Dr. Glancz would do so.

 

            51. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that the misrepresentations, concealments, and non-disclosures of Messenger and all other wrongful acts alleged in this complaint were carried out within the course and scope of her duty as an agent for Windermere. Furthermore, Windermere contracted directly with Dr. Glancz and assigned Messenger to work for Dr. Glancz and had a duty and responsibility to oversee Messenger's conduct. As a consequence, Windermere is responsible for Messenger's conduct and is directly liable to Dr. Glancz not only for Windermere's failures, but for Messenger's failures and wrongful conduct under principles of agency and because Messenger's conduct is imputed to Windermere under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

 

            52. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes that as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, and as a consequence of the fiduciary relationship between the parties, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover all compensable damages under the law in an amount to be determined at trial, including, but not limited to, the difference between the purchase price stated in the Purchase Agreement, $1,725,000.00, and the amount Dr. Glancz was forced to accept to settle Rothman's lawsuit, $1,590,000.00, as well as the lost interest, tax benefits, attorney's fees and costs incurred by Dr. Glancz in defending against and settling Rothman's claims in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.

 

            53. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to Civil Code section 3345, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover three times the amount of damages otherwise recoverable against Defendants, and each of them.

 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Financial Elder Abuse Against All Defendants.)

 

            54. Dr. Glancz realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 28, 36 through 43, and 45 through 47, inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

 

            55. Dr. Glancz is and at all times herein mentioned was a resident of California and an elder within the meaning of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.27.

 

            56. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, acted wrongfully and illegally by taking advantage of Dr. Glancz's age and physical condition, his dependence on, and trust and confidence in, Defendants to take, procure, or otherwise obtain control and/or a claim on assets of Dr. Glancz in the form of proceeds from the sale of Dr. Glancz’s residence rightfully belonging to Dr. Glancz by means of the false and fraudulent misrepresentations, concealments, non-disclosures, and other wrongful conduct herein alleged, for Defendants' own benefit in a manner completely contrary to the interests of Dr. Glancz and in violation of Defendants’ fiduciary duty to Dr. Glancz.

 

            57. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants had obtained or sought to obtain the use and benefit of Dr. Glancz’s property in the form of proceeds from the sale of Dr. Glancz's residence, and had otherwise deprived Dr. Glancz of the use of his property, with the intent to defraud Dr. Glancz within the meaning of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.30.

 

            58. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Dr. Glancz has sustained damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.

 

            59. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in addition to all other remedies provided by law, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for financial abuse pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5.

 

            60. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’ conduct constituted oppression, fraud, and malice in the commission of financial abuse, and Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing Defendants for financial elder abuse pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5 and California Civil Code section 3294.

 

            61. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to Civil Code section 3345, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover three times the amount of damages otherwise recoverable against Defendants, and each of them.

 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants.)

 

            62. Dr. Glancz realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 35, 36 through 43, 45 through 47, 49 through 53, and 55 through 61, inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

 

            63. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that based on the allegations that Defendants willfully and maliciously and knowingly engaged in in the actions set forth herein with a conscious design to deprive Dr. Glancz of his rights.

 

            64. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' conduct was intentional, malicious, unprivileged, outrageous and done for the purpose of causing Dr. Glancz to suffer humiliation, anguish and emotional and physical distress. Defendants' conduct as alleged herein, was done with knowledge that Dr. Glancz would suffer mental anguish and emotional and physical distress and Defendants’ conduct was wanton and reckless disregard for the consequences of said actions to Dr. Glancz.

 

            65. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges as a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants alleged herein, Dr. Glancz has suffered humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical injuries, and Dr. Glancz has suffered loss of sleep, severe tension, profound shock and anxiety, all to Dr. Glancz’s damage in an amount according to proof, at the time of trial.

 

            66. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges in performing the acts herein alleged, Defendants acted fraudulently, maliciously, and oppressively, within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294, thereby justifying an award of punitive damages in an amount according to proof.

 

            67. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to Civil Code section 3345, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover three times the amount of damages otherwise recoverable against Defendants, and each of them,

 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Against All Defendants.)

 

            68. Dr. Glancz realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 35, 37 through 43, 45 through 47, 49 through 52, 54 through 62, and 63 through 67, inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

 

            69. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the conduct of Defendants alleged herein, if not intentional, was negligent on the part of Defendants and was reckless and without due regard for the health and welfare of Dr. Glancz.

 

            70. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants had a duty of care towards Dr. Glancz in light of Defendants' fiduciary duties to Dr, Glancz, as Dr. Glancz’s agent and representative, and due to the trust and confidence Dr. Glancz placed in Defendants. Said duties were breached as a result of the conduct herein alleged, which had continued through Defendants’ unjustified claim and demand on proceeds from the sale of Dr. Glancz's residence.

 

            71. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in their handling of the transaction at issue, Defendants acted negligently, carelessly, and without justification and in carrying out the acts herein alleged have intended to deprive Dr. Glancz of his rights and property. Defendants knew or should have known that Dr. Glancz would suffer severe emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct.

 

            72. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges as a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants alleged herein, Dr. Glancz has suffered humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical injuries, and Dr. Glancz has suffered loss of sleep, severe tension, profound shock and anxiety, all to Dr. Glancz's damage in an amount according to proof, at the time of trial.

 

            73. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to Civil Code section 3345, Dr. Glancz is entitled to recover three times the amount of damages otherwise recoverable against Defendants, and each of them.

 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Breach of Contract Against All Defendants.)

 

            74. Dr. Glancz realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 35, 36 through 43, 45 through 47, 49 through 53, 55 through 61, 63 through 67, and 69 through 73, inclusive as though fully set forth herein.

 

            75. Dr. Glancz and Defendants entered into a valid and enforceable contract when the parties executed the Listing Agreement for the Property whereby Defendants agreed to exercise reasonable effort and due diligence to achieve the purposes of the agreement and to confirm the agency relationship existing between Defendants and the parties, in writing, prior to or concurrent with Dr. Glancz’ execution of a purchase agreement and Dr. Glancz agreed to compensate Defendants with a percentage of the purchase price in the event that a buyer was procured during the listing period and Defendants otherwise complied with the contract.

 

            76. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants breached the contract by failing to exercise the due diligence required to achieve the purposes of obtaining a buyer for the property on terms agreeable to Dr. Glancz, but instead, worked to obtain a buyer on terms that were knowingly disagreeable to Dr. Glancz thereby exerting efforts contrary to the purposes of the Listing Agreement and failed to confirm the agency relationship existing between Defendants and the parties in writing prior to Dr. Glancz' execution of the Purchase Agreement.

 

            77. The Listing Agreement between Dr. Glancz and Defendants additionally contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prohibits Defendants from engaging in any conduct that interferes with Dr. Glancz's ability to perform under the Listing Agreement or under any contract or prospective contract Dr. Glancz might enter into with a prospective purchaser of the Property, or otherwise denies Dr. Glancz the benefits of such contract with a prospective purchaser of the Property, which contract is expressly contemplated in the Listing Agreement.

 

            78. Dr. Glancz is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants’ efforts to push through an agreement with Rothman as a buyer on terms that were not in accord with what Defendants knew to be the desires of Dr. Glancz and Defendants’ failures to notify Dr. Glancz in writing of the dual agency relationship constitute direct breaches of the Listing Agreement and further constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants’ further efforts to conceal Messenger’s true motives and to further conceal her deception constitute additional breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in force under the Listing Agreement.

 

            79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches as herein alleged, Dr. Glancz has been denied the benefits of the Listing Agreement in that Dr. Glancz has been subjected to potential liability arising from the purported agreement between Dr. Glancz and Rothman, and has further sustained damages in the form of having to accept a lower purchase price for the Property and under less favorable terms than Dr. Glancz was led to believe he had reached and which he would otherwise have received but for the breaches of Defendant herein alleged. Dr. Glancz has sustained further damages by being required to incur significant legal expenses to defend against and settle the various claims of Rothman. The full extent of damages sustained by Dr. Glancz as a result of Defendants' breaches have not yet been ascertained, but are believed to be well in excess of this Court's jurisdictional minimum of $25,000.00.

 

            80. Dr. Glancz requests an award of damages, costs of suit, and attorney fees that he is entitled to recover on this claim as provided by the parties' Listing Agreement.

 

            WHEREFORE, Dr. Glancz prays for Judgment as follows:

 

On the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action:

 

            1. For general and compensatory damages in the sum of not less than $800,000.00 according to proof;

 

            2. For special damages for losses incurred by Dr. Glancz in connection with the sale of Dr. Glancz's residence and resolution of disputes with Rothman;

 

            3. For all costs of suit including Dr. Glancz’s attorney's fees pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, according to proof;

 

            4. For exemplary and/or punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants, and each of them, and to deter Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct, according to proof;

 

            5. For treble damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3345.

 

On the Third, Fourth, Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action:

 

            1 . For general and compensatory damages in the sum of not less than $800,000.00 according to proof;

 

            2. For special damages for losses incurred by Dr. Glancz in connection with the sale of Dr. Glancz’s residence and resolution of disputes with Rothman;

 

            3. For all costs of suit including Dr. Glancz's attorney's fees pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.5, according to proof;

 

            4. For treble damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3345.

 

Dated: 1-22, 2013            Respectfully submitted,

                                   

                                    SLOVAK BARON ENTEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP

 

 

 

                                    By: _____________________________

                                    JOHN O. PINKNEY

                                    CHARLES L. GALLAGHER

                                    TORY J. CHRISTENSEN

                                    Attorneys Plaintiff GEORGE GLANCZ, individually

                                    and as Trustee of the Glancz Family Trust

 

 

 

Read Another Windermere Elder Abuse Case Next:

WASHINGTON APPEALS COURT, DIVISION 1—NOS. 58439-9-I, 58531-2-I

National Real Estate Fraud Center Windermere Real Estate Case History: Windermere Freeland Agents Saul and Gabelein’s Abuse of a Vulnerable Adult

john jacobi

(Above L to R) 1: Utterly shameless liar and bully John W. Jacobi, Windermere founder and chairman who promotes "We are committed to... The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," but in reality—despite being presented hard evidence of dishonest, unethical Windermere misconduct—forces damaged and defrauded Windermere victims through years of ruinous, bankrupting litigation. When victims do indeed speak out, Jacobi falsely sues them for trade libel and defamation, tries to coerce the defendant into a "dark clause" settlement agreement through fear and intimidation, continues to prosecute the bogus action for years at enormous cost to the parties, then runs away and voluntarily dismisses his own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41, just prior to trial when the honest, innocent victim persists in refusing to sign away their speech rights. 2: Windermere general counsel, Paul S. Drayna, who spearheads illegal efforts to strip damaged Windermere clients of their speech rights. 3: Attorney John Demco of Windermere's Demco Law Firm, which prosecutes Windermere's anti-speech cases and unabashedly defends the most outrageous Windermere Realtor misconduct—no matter what it is. Demco is also a multi-franchise Windermere owner who defended his one-time mother-and-daughter Windermere Freeland/Whidbey agents, Samantha Saul and Linda Gabelein, about whom the court stated "...the Sauls and Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma."

(Above L to R) 4: Windermere-Demco Law Firm's lawyer, Matthew F. Davis who lies to courts and legal opponents alike in an all-out effort to win at any cost. In one particular case of note, Davis served a Windermere victim a lawsuit for libel and defamation, then emailed the victim not to hire an attorney! 5: L 'Nayim Shuman Austin, past Demco Law Firm attorney, ENDICOTT v. SAUL. 6&7: Samantha Saul and Linda Gabelein. 8: Barbara Mearing, current Windermere Freeland employee who got a $7500 commission from the sale of Emma's land: "Ms. Mearing testified that she was aware that the $150,000 sale price was low, but ‘not horribly low’. She also testified that the assessor’s values are not “spot on” and that sometime property sells for less or more than the assessed value. She said that it is always hard to estimate value but that she respected the fact that the seller gets to choose the price that he or she wants." The court later stated,"The court gives Ms. Mearing's testimony little weight."

DOWNLOAD THE COURT OF APPEALS PUBLISHED OPINION HERE.

 

ENDICOTT v. SAUL

Ronald ENDICOTT and Donald Endicott, Respondents, v. Robert and Samantha SAUL, husband and wife, and Linda and Vernon Gabelein, husband and wife, Appellants. Emma Endicott, Appellant, v. Ronald Endicott and Donald Endicott, Respondents.

Nos. 58435-9-I, 58531-2-I.

February 04, 2008

John W. Demco, Demco Law Firm PS, Matthew F. Davis, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, H. Clarke Harvey, Attorney at Law, Clinton, WA, for Appellants. Carolyn Cliff, Attorney at Law, Langley, WA, for Respondents. Michael Mert Waller, Zylstra Beeksma & Waller PLLC, Oak Harbor, WA, for Guardian Ad Litem Clarke Harvey, Attorney at Law,Clinton, WA, for Other Parties.

 

¶ 1 Emma Endicott (Emma), Samantha and Robert Saul (the Sauls), and Linda and Vernon Gabelein (the Gabeleins) challenge the trial court's decision to establish a limited guardianship for Emma under the Guardianship Act, chapter 11.88 RCW, and to issue a protective order under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act (AVA), chapter 74.34 RCW. After a ten-day bench trial that took place over the course of three months, the trial court concluded clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that Emma was at significant risk of personal and financial harm and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma. Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that Emma is a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exploited and unduly influenced Emma to sell her Whidbey Island view property to them for significantly below fair market value, we affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2 Emma Endicott is an 80-year-old woman who has lived almost her entire life on Whidbey Island and was married to Orvel “Shorty” Endicott for 43 years. Emma has two sons from an earlier marriage, John Earl (Earl) Fisher and Robert (Bob) Fisher. Shorty and Emma had twin sons, Ronald (Ron) Endicott and Donald (Don) Endicott. Ron and Don lived with Emma and Shorty for most of their lives. Emma's son Earl lives with his family in Seattle. Bob and his spouse Sandy live nearby in the house built by Emma's father.

¶ 3 Emma and Shorty lived in a small neighborhood on Whidbey Island that has scenic views of Mutiny Bay. In 1947, Shorty inherited 24 acres of view property overlooking Mutiny Bay. In 1976, Emma inherited five acres and a one-third interest in her parents' house that is located in the same general area.

¶ 4 During their 43-year marriage, Shorty managed and controlled all the finances and Emma and Shorty lived an extremely frugal life. Emma has never had a checking account or a credit card. Emma also never obtained a driver's license and, until shortly before the trial in this case, did not have a telephone.

¶ 5 Shorty died in 1998, leaving Emma the family home, the 24 acres of view and waterfront property, $114,000 in savings, and $556 per month from his pension benefits. Emma took over managing the finances and the property. After Shorty died, friends described Emma as devastated, lonely, and lost.

¶ 6 Initially, Emma relied on Ron and Don. But increasingly, Emma came to rely on Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul. Linda is married to Vernon Gabelein. Emma's brother is married to Vernon Gabelein's sister. Linda has two daughters from a previous marriage, Samantha Saul and Dina Thompson. Samantha is married to Robert Saul, who grew up on Whidbey Island with Ron and Don. Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul own homes in the same neighborhood as Emma and are both real estate agents with Windermere Real Estate (Windermere). Emma testified that Linda is like a daughter to her and that she worships Linda. Emma was also very close to Samantha. In June 2003, Emma executed a durable power of attorney, giving Samantha the authority to make all decisions on her behalf.

¶ 7 It is undisputed that Emma wants to live on her own in her house on Whidbey Island for the rest of her life. When Shorty died, Emma's childhood friend, Frank Robinson, offered to purchase a 445-foot beachfront portion of her property for $660,000. A long-time neighbor, Ray Lotto, later offered to buy most of Emma's property for $1.5 million and give Emma a life estate in her residence. Instead, in three separate real estate transactions, Emma sold the majority of her property to Dina Thompson and her spouse, to the Sauls, and to the Gabeleins. After the three real estate transactions with the Gabelein family members, Emma was left with 13.77 acres, but over a third of it was swamp and marshland.

¶ 8 In September 2001, Emma decided to sell the five acres she inherited from her parents after Earl and Bob Fisher were unable to agree on how to pay expenses for the property.1 After unsuccessfully attempting to sell the property by putting up a for sale sign, Emma asked Samantha, who had recently acquired her real estate license, to list the property for sale.

¶ 9 The assessed value for the five-acre parcel was $82,326. Samantha originally listed the property for sale at $69,500. After two months, Samantha lowered the price to $64,500. When Dina Thompson and her spouse offered to buy the property for $52,000, Samantha acted as a dual agent for her sister and her brother-in-law and Emma. Emma relied on Samantha's advice and accepted the offer of $52,000. The court rejected Samantha's testimony that she did not suggest a price to her sister as not credible. Emma received $45,000 from the sale. Bob and Sandy Fisher were extremely upset that Emma sold the five acres and as a result were estranged from Emma for a number of years.

¶ 10 In February 2002, Emma sold another five acres of waterfront view property to Samantha and Robert Saul for $80,000. The 2001 assessed value of the property was $195,524. Samantha initially denied that she suggested the sales price of $80,000. But at trial Samantha admitted that she did. After purchasing the five acres, the Sauls invested $40,000 to $100,000 in improvements. When the Sauls applied for a home construction loan in July 2004, according to a bank appraisal, the five acre view property was valued at $400,000.

¶ 11 After the Sauls bought the property from Emma, Roy Lotto told Samantha he was willing to pay $1.5 million for the rest of Emma's property and would give Emma a life estate in her residence. Lotto said Samantha told him that she would be able to get the property for him. But in June 2004, Emma signed a purchase and sale agreement with Linda and Vernon Gabelein to sell five acres of prime view property next to the five acres Emma sold to the Sauls for $150,000. There is no dispute that the property was worth $324,000. The “Vacant Land Purchase and Sales Agreement” states that a five-acre parcel will “be created by Buyer paid short plat” with “all other expenses paid by Buyer” and a net purchase price of $150,000. The Addendum states that the “Seller may be selling the property substantially below market value as the property has not been exposed on the open market.” The Addendum also states that because the buyer is a Windermere real estate agent, the agreement was “conditioned on review and approval by Sellers [sic] attorney.” Because Emma's attorney was representing the Gabeleins in another real estate matter, Linda Gabelein arranged for Emma to meet with another attorney about the agreement. Emma's meeting with the attorney lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes.

¶ 12 In September 2004, Emma and the Gabeleins signed another addendum to the Purchase and Sale Agreement that allowed the Gabeleins to assign their interest in the property to the Sauls and obtain a boundary line adjustment. It is undisputed that the purpose of the boundary line adjustment was to avoid the public notice requirement for a short plat and prevent Ron and Don from learning about the sale before it closed. According to an unchallenged finding, the Sauls and the Gabeleins acted with “deliberate secrecy” throughout this real estate transaction. Before signing the Addendum, Emma met with the same attorney again for about 20 to 30 minutes. Following the boundary line adjustment, Emma was left with a parcel of approximately nine acres, more than half of which is swamp and marshland. The sale closed on May 16, 2005. There is no dispute that, at closing, the property was worth $427,000.

¶ 13 During the evening of June 14, 2005, Emma fell down. Ron drove to Bob Fisher's house to call 911. When the paramedics arrived, Emma refused to go to the hospital. On the morning of June 16, Don found Emma on the floor and halfway under her bed. Ron and Don drove Emma to the hospital. Don said his mother's eyes were glazed, she was confused, and she did not know where she was. When they arrived at the hospital, the hospital personnel determined Emma was not competent to refuse hospitalization. The court concluded it was not likely that Ron and Don would have called 911 if Emma had not fallen, as they claimed. The trial court also concluded that Emma's memory was suspect and “she is suggestible to the memories of others, especially as to what happened the night before she went in to the hospital in June 2005.”

¶ 14 At some point, Samantha notified the hospital that she had the power of attorney for Emma. Samantha also told the hospital social worker that Emma said Ron and Don hit her and that was why she was in the hospital. Samantha was present when the social worker interviewed Emma. Emma told the social worker that she did not remember why she was in the hospital, but that Ron and Don yelled at her a lot, that they were controlling, and they would not let her watch television. That same day, Emma filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order against Ron and Don. The court entered a temporary restraining order requiring Ron and Don to move out of the house.2 When Emma was released from the hospital, she went to live with Bob and Sandy Fisher. Emma lived with the Fishers until December.

¶ 15 On July 11, 2005, Ron and Don filed a petition to establish a guardianship for Emma and for her estate, to obtain a protective order for Emma as a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and to rescind the May 2005 real estate transaction with the Sauls and the Gabeleins. Ron and Don alleged that Emma was incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exerted undue influence over Emma, and that the Sauls and Gabeleins financially exploited her.

¶ 16 Prior to trial, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins filed a motion to bifurcate the request to rescind the May 2005 real estate transaction. The Sauls and the Gabeleins also filed a motion to exclude evidence relating to alleged undue influence concerning the 2005 real estate transaction. The court granted the motion to bifurcate the request to rescind the 2005 real estate transaction, but denied the motion to exclude testimony about undue influence related to the transaction.

¶ 17 A ten-day bench trial began in December 2005 and concluded in March 2006. During the course of the trial, the court heard testimony from 36 witnesses and admitted more than 75 exhibits. At the conclusion of the trial, the court issued a 55-page written opinion consisting of 94 separate findings of fact and 26 conclusions of law. The court concluded that Emma was incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, that Samantha and Linda had a confidential and fiduciary relationship with Emma, that Emma was a vulnerable adult under the AVA, and that the Sauls and Gabeleins unduly influenced and financially exploited Emma. The court appointed Emma's son Earl as a limited guardian with the “goal of allowing Emma to live in her house for as long as possible” 3 and entered a protective order under the AVA prohibiting the Sauls and the Gabeleins from transferring or encumbering the property Emma sold in May 2005.

ANALYSIS

¶ 18 On appeal, Emma, Samantha and Robert Saul, and Linda and Vernon Gabelein challenge the trial court's determination that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend the trial court erred in shifting the burden to Samantha and Linda to prove lack of undue influence and finding Emma was a vulnerable adult
under the AVA.

Standard of Review

¶ 19 We review the trial court's decision following a bench trial to determine whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether those findings support the conclusions of law. Dorsey v. King County, 51 Wash.App. 664, 668-69, 754 P.2d 1255 (1988). Substantial evidence is the quantum of evidence sufficient to persuade a rational fairminded person the premise is true. Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wash.2d 169, 176, 4 P.3d 123 (2000). In determining the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court need only consider evidence favorable to the prevailing party. Bland v. Mentor, 63 Wash.2d 150, 155, 385 P.2d 727 (1963). In evaluating the persuasiveness of the evidence, and the credibility of witnesses, we must defer to the trier of fact. Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wash.2d 93, 108, 864 P.2d 937 (1994). “[C]redibility determinations are solely for the trier of fact [and] cannot be reviewed on appeal.” Morse v. Antonellis, 149 Wash.2d 572, 574, 70 P.3d 125 (2003). Unchallenged findings of fact are also verities on appeal. In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wash.2d 1, 8, 93 P.3d 147 (2004); RAP 10.3(g). We review questions of law de novo. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wash.2d 873, 879-880, 73 P.3d 369 (2003).

¶ 20 The clear, cogent and convincing burden of proof contains two components: (1) the amount of evidence necessary to submit the question to the trier of fact or the burden of production, which is met by substantial evidence; and (2) the burden of persuasion. As to the burden of persuasion, the trier of fact, not the appellate court, must be persuaded that the fact in issue is “highly probable.” Colonial Imports, Inc. v. Carlton Northwest, Inc., 121 Wash.2d 726, 734-735, 853 P.2d 913 (1993).

¶ 21 In determining whether the evidence meets the “clear, cogent and convincing” standard of persuasion, the trial court must make credibility determinations and weigh and evaluate the evidence.

Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727.

What constitutes clear, cogent, and convincing proof necessarily depends upon the character and extent of the evidence considered, viewed in connection with the surrounding facts and circumstances. Whether the evidence in a given case meets the standard of persuasion, designated as clear, cogent, and convincing, necessarily requires a process of weighing, comparing, testing, and evaluating-a function best performed by the trier of the fact, who usually has the advantage of actually hearing and seeing the parties and the witnesses, and whose right and duty it is to observe their attitude and demeanor. Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727.

¶ 22 Thus, the appellate court's role is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact. Bland, 63 Wash.2d at 154, 385 P.2d 727. It is for the trial court, and not this reviewing court, to determine whether the evidence in a given case meets the standard of persuasion designated as “clear, cogent and convincing.” Id.

Limited Guardianship

¶ 23 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins challenge the trial court's conclusion that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate. The standard of proof in a guardianship proceeding is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. RCW 11.88.045(3). In determining incapacity as to the person, the court must determine whether the individual is at significant risk of personal harm “based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for nutrition, health, housing, or physical safety.” RCW 11.88.010(1)(a). In determining incapacity as to the estate, the court must decide if there is a significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability “to adequately manage property or financial affairs.” RCW 11.88.010(1)(b). The guardianship statute authorizes the superior court to appoint a guardian for an incapacitated person.

¶ 24 RCW 11.88.010 provides in pertinent part:

(1) The superior court of each county shall have power to appoint guardians for the persons and/or estates of incapacitated persons, and guardians for the estates of nonresidents of the state who have property in the county needing care and attention.

(a) For purposes of this chapter, a person may be deemed incapacitated as to person when the superior court determines the individual has a significant risk of personal harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for nutrition, health, housing, or physical safety.

(b) For purposes of this chapter, a person may be deemed incapacitated as to the person's estate when the superior court determines the individual is at significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately manage property or financial affairs.

¶ 25 Under RCW 11.88.010(1)(c), the determination of incapacity “is a legal not a medical decision, based upon a demonstration of management insufficiencies over time in the area of person or estate. Age, eccentricity, poverty, or medical diagnosis alone shall not be sufficient to justify a finding of incapacity.” In making this determination, the trial court considers evidence from all sources, not just experts. In re Guardianship of Stamm v. Crowley, 121 Wash.App. 830, 841, 91 P.3d 126 (2004).

¶ 26 Here, the trial court concluded clear, cogent, and convincing evidence established that Emma is at a significant risk of personal harm “based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety.”

The court concludes, based on clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, that Emma is at significant risk of personal harm based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety. In the court's opinion, the professionals who have concluded otherwise have not had all of the information that was provided to this court during the trial, having based their opinions primarily on short interviews done months ago.

¶ 27 Substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma is incapacitated as to her person. The trial court found that the unbiased testimony of Emma's neighbors, Don Gulliford and Janet Lotto, was more credible than the testimony of other witnesses. According to the unchallenged testimony of Don Gulliford, he found Emma wandering along a roadside ditch in the summer of 2003, holding a toothbrush. When he stopped to help her, Emma did not appear to know where she was going and “seemed confused and [in need] of assistance.” When Janet Lotto brought Emma food in November 2004 and in December 2004, Emma appeared confused and told Lotto to whisper “because she did not want Vernon Gabelein to know about the food.” And according to the testimony of other witnesses, there were multiple occasions in 2005 when Emma did not recognize people she had known for decades. In addition, the court relied on Frank Robinson's undisputed testimony about Emma. Robinson was a friend of Emma's since childhood and regularly visited her. According to Robinson, in the summer of 2005 and at trial, Emma did not recognize him and acted agitated and confused when he spoke to her.

¶ 28 It is also undisputed that when Emma was hospitalized in June 2005, the hospital personnel determined she was not competent to refuse medical care because she “was disoriented” and confused. Before Emma was admitted to the hospital in 2005, Emma had not been to a doctor or had any medical care for over thirty years.

¶ 29 There is also no dispute that “Emma does not cook, and relies on others for her meals.” And on the occasions when Emma cooked, she burned or undercooked the food or cooked spoiled meat. Emma would also turn the stove on and sometimes forget to turn it off and often dropped her lit cigarettes on the floor without noticing. In addition, the trial court's finding that Emma continued to go through “the garbage at the county boat ramp, even after being advised that it was dangerous because needles from illegal drug use had been discarded there” is unchallenged.

¶ 30 The court considered but expressly rejected the opinion of the psychologist, Dr. Janice Edwards, that Emma did not need a guardian, because the opinion was based on a “short interview[ ] done months ago.”

The court has struggled with these opinions because the court has respect for these professionals. But Dr. Edwards' impressions reflect a two-hour visit at the end of September of 2005.[Her] impressions are widely divergent from what the court observed of Emma over a period from December of 2005 through March 2, [2006], through ten days of trial. Even the guardian ad litem, who testified after Emma, acknowledged that if she were looking at Emma solely based on Emma's testimony in court, that she too might have doubts as to whether Emma needed a guardian.

The court is also mindful that the professionals based their opinions on information gathered when Emma was staying with Bob and Sandy Fisher. But the court concludes that things have changed since Emma moved back into her home alone on December 1, 2005... The court concludes that Emma appears to have gone downhill since she started living alone on December 1, 2005.

In evaluating Dr. Edwards' opinion, the trial court expressly “credit[ed] the information elicited on cross-examination.”

Dr. Edwards is a forensic psychologist who has done over 100 guardianship evaluations. However, the court credits the information elicited during her cross-examination: that she was not aware of much of the evidence provided to the court in this trial. For example, Dr. Edwards was not aware ? that Emma had not been to a doctor in over 30 years until she was hospitalized in June of 2005, that Emma had no preventative checkups or any well health care until the guardianship petition was filed, that Emma had refused emergency medical care, or that Emma was considered not competent to refuse hospitalization when she was admitted to the hospital in June of 2005.

¶ 31 During cross examination, the GAL also admitted that before her investigation was complete and before talking to “Earl Fisher, Emma's oldest son and the proposed guardian; Janet Lotto[; or] Emma's [siblings],” she had already decided that she would not recommend a guardianship.

¶ 32 Emma's trial testimony also supports the trial court's conclusion of incapacity. For instance, Emma's description about what she said when Janet Lotto brought food to her was incoherent:

Q. And you were in court when Janet Lotto described bringing food to you after Thanksgiving and Christmas?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told her to whisper and not to tell Vernon about it. Do you remember Janet saying that?

A. What? No. I know what that was all about. I don't know if I should tell it or not. But she got scared one night and she come up and I should have went with her. I told her afterwards, too, I said, Janet, I should have went with you. Because it was not at night, it was in sort of the afternoon.

And Emma often had difficulty answering simple questions during the trial. For example, when asked “[h]ow long have you had that microwave?” she replied “[s]ince I've been-and you should see the house. They're painting the house inside. Inside. Linda and Sandy, my daughter-in-law, well, Linda, there's-and we were talking about it the other day, we're going to finish painting the inside.” When asked “[w]hat did you believe that the property was worth when you agreed to sell it?” Emma replied “No, I sold it because there was so much junk up there.” Asked about the property that she sold for $150,000 that was worth $427,000, “Emma scoffed and said, ‘It's just sand’.”

¶ 33 The court found Emma was “frail, confused, unsteady, disoriented, childlike, and oftentimes belligerent.” According to the court, while it is not unusual for a person of Emma's age to be forgetful, “Emma's forgetfulness had another element to it. It is not that Emma could not remember something; it is that Emma refused to believe certain things had happened at all. On other occasions, Emma asserted certain information as if it was the truth when she clearly had no memory of the event.” The trial court also clearly rejected the argument that an infection in February caused Emma's sometimes incoherent testimony.4

¶ 34 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins rely on Elston v. McGlauflin, 79 Wash. 355, 140 P. 396 (1914), to argue the trial court impermissibly relied on its own observations of Emma's behavior at trial as evidence of incapacity in violation of ER 605. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins specifically challenge findings of fact 76, 92, and 93, claiming they were unable to challenge the court's observations that were not made part of the record.

¶ 35 Finding of fact 76 states:

If Emma did not agree with the testimony from other witnesses, she would make faces of astonishment or bafflement, indicating clearly her disagreement with the testimony. She continued to talk in court, at times so loudly that she would have to be reminded by the court to be quiet. In December of 2005, during the testimony of her sister-in-law, Ruth Gabelein Ohm, Emma laughed, smiled, talked, and looked around as if she was at a social gathering. Emma's attorney frequently had to tell her to be quiet. The court understands that a guardianship proceeding is a difficult time for anyone. But Emma's behavior in court was dramatically different from anyone else that the court has observed in ten years on the bench.

¶ 36 Finding of fact 92 states:

As Ron was testifying, Emma was saying to her attorney, loudly enough for anyone in the courtroom to hear, “That's not true! That's not true!”

¶ 37 Finding of fact 93 states:

In reaching its decision in this case, the court has carefully considered the opinions of the professionals described above: i.e., that Emma is fine. But it is the court's strong impression, and the court finds, that Emma is not, in fact, fine but rather that she is incapacitated. Emma has not appeared to be fine to this court, or to many people who are part of her family or otherwise knowledgeable about her and who have nothing to gain from their testimony about their concerns.

¶ 38 Under ER 605 “[t]he judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as a witness.” In Elston, during the trial in an action to recover damages allegedly caused by negligent construction of an apartment building on a steep slope, the judge visited the site without the knowledge of the parties or counsel. Elston, 79 Wash. at 357, 140 P. 396. On appeal, the court held that the trial court's independent investigation impermissibly denied the parties a fair trial. Elston, 79 Wash. at 359, 140 P. 396. “The court unwittingly became a witness in the case and in some degree, at least, based his judgment upon his own independent experience and preconceived opinion.” Id. Here, unlike in Elston, the trial judge did not conduct an independent investigation or make a decision based upon independent experience and preconceived opinions. And in deciding the incapacity and competency of a witness, the trial court is entitled to draw on its observations of the witness. See Day v. Santorsola, 118 Wash.App. 746, 765, 76 P.3d 1190 (2003); State v. Avila, 78 Wash.App. 731, 735, 899 P.2d11 (1995).

¶ 39 The record also shows that on numerous occasions, the judge noted Emma's inappropriate courtroom behavior. For example, the court admonished Emma “to not make comments out loud during” the testimony of other witnesses. And as finding of fact 93 makes clear, the trial court considered but expressly rejected the expert opinions offered and primarily relied on the trial testimony of disinterested witnesses such as Don Gulliford, Janet Lotto, and Frank Robinson in reaching the conclusion that Emma is at significant risk of personal harm “based on a demonstrated inability to adequately provide for her nutrition, health, or physical safety.” 5

¶ 40 Substantial evidence also supports the trial court's conclusion that “Emma is at significant risk of financial harm based upon a demonstrated inability to adequately manage property or financial affairs.” There is no dispute that Emma wishes to remain in her home as long as possible, but that “Emma is not able to protect her resources to meet her future needs” and her “uni[n]formed decisions will have an enormous impact on her” ability to do so. The parties also do not challenge the finding that Emma “has absolutely no idea of property values or financial planning” or that after months of litigation about the value of the properties she sold “Emma is unaware of the market value of the property that she sold and does not even care.” Although Emma insisted “I know what I sold,” when she finally understood that she was being asked how much the property was worth, she admitted “I don't know. I don't know all that. Jeepers.” Emma also testified that “I forget how many acres I've got left. I had 24 but I don't have that much now. I don't know what all I have.”

¶ 41 In addition, the evidence establishes Emma has difficulty paying bills and is unaware of her finances.6 Emma relies on the bank tellers to make entries in her check register and could not account for the withdrawal of money. Emma did not recognize entries in her checkbook and could not explain the withdrawals from her account in 2004. And according to one of the court's unchallenged findings, “[i]n addition to having unaccounted withdrawals from her savings, Emma has little understanding of ‘investments,’ which also leaves her vulnerable to others.”

¶ 42 Because substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings, we conclude the court did not err in appointing a limited guardianship for Emma to allow her to meet her medical and day-to-day needs and assist her in managing her finances and property.

Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act Protection Order

¶ 43 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend that the trial court erred in concluding Emma was a vulnerable adult and entering a protective order under the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults Act (AVA), chapter 74.34 RCW. Relying on former RCW 74.34.110(2),7 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert that the court had to find by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that Emma was a vulnerable adult when she signed the purchase and sale agreement with the Gabeleins in 2004 and the evidence does not support finding Emma was a vulnerable adult in 2004.8

¶ 44 Statutory interpretation is a question of law we review de novo. Western Telepage, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 140 Wash.2d 599, 607, 998 P.2d 884 (2000). The court's primary goal is “to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent.” State v. Pac. Health Ctr., Inc., 135 Wash.App. 149, 158-59, 143 P.3d 618 (2006). Legislative intent is determined primarily from the statutory language, viewed “in the context of the overall legislative scheme.” Collection Servs. v. McConnachie, 106 Wash.App. 738, 741, 24 P.3d 1112 (2001). If the statute's meaning is plain on its face, we give effect to that plain meaning. Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wash.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4 (2002).

¶ 45 The stated purpose of the AVA is to protect vulnerable adults from abuse, financial exploitation, and neglect. RCW 74.34.110. Under the AVA, the court shall conduct a hearing on a petition for an order of protection and can enter an order to protect the vulnerable adult from exploitation, “not to exceed one year.” Former RCW 74.34.130.

¶ 46 Former RCW 74.34.110(2) provides that: A petition shall allege that the petitioner is a vulnerable adult and that the petitioner has been abandoned, abused, financially exploited, or neglected, or is threatened with abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect by respondent.

¶ 47 A “vulnerable adult” is defined as a person “[s]ixty years of age or older who has the functional, mental, or physical inability to care for himself or herself” or is “[f]ound incapacitated under chapter 11.88 RCW” Former RCW 74.34.020(13). The AVA establishes an action for the protection of vulnerable adults in cases of “abandonment, abuse, financial exploitation, or neglect.” The AVA definition of “abuse includes exploitation of a vulnerable adult.” Former RCW 74.34.020(2). “[E]xploitation” is defined as “an act of forcing, compelling, or exerting undue influence over a vulnerable adult causing the vulnerable adult to act in a way that is inconsistent with relevant past behavior.” Former RCW 74.34.020(2)(d). According to the statutory definition of “exploitation,” exploitation can only occur when the adult is vulnerable. Under the plain language of the AVA, we conclude the court must find an individual is a vulnerable adult at the time of the alleged exploitation.

¶ 48 Relying on the opinion of Dr. Edwards and the fact that the GAL did not recommend a guardianship, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins contend the evidence does not support the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult under the AVA in 2004 when she signed the purchase and sale agreement. Since her husband died in 1998, Emma has been vulnerable to others, who have taken advantage of her desire to please those persons she perceives as being her friends or looking out for her best interests, such as Linda Gabelein and Samantha Saul. Emma has sold property to members of the Gabelein family for a fraction of its value jeopardizing her ability to remain in her home for the remainder of her life.

¶ 49 The testimony of Dr. Edwards and the GAL about Emma's mental capacity “presents one source of information among many, credibility is the province of the judge, and the judge can cast a skeptical eye when called for.” Stamm, 121 Wash.App. at 841, 91 P.3d 126. And the court rejected the opinion of Dr. Edwards as based on spending very limited time with Emma while she was being taken care of by and living with Bob and Sandy Fisher.

¶ 50 In addition, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that Emma was not a vulnerable adult under the AVA because the GAL “concluded Emma was not an exploited vulnerable adult.” They mischaracterize the GAL's testimony. While the GAL testified that she did not believe the Gabeleins had “purposely done something to hurt” Emma, the GAL's report states that “[n]one of this means that Emma has not been unduly influenced.”

¶ 51 Evidence concerning Emma's incapacity under chapter 11.88 RCW also supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult when she entered into the purchase and sale agreement with the Gabeleins in 2004.9 For instance, in 2003, the same year that Don Gulliford found Emma wandering along a ditch, disoriented and confused, Emma gave Samantha Saul a durable power attorney apparently without realizing it was effective immediately. Emma told Dr. Edwards that “she had made a power of attorney over to Samantha Saul [that] is not in effect, but will become active if she is unable to handle her own affairs.” 10 And as previously described, it is undisputed that by 2004 Emma could not independently manage her finances or take care of herself. And Ron testified that he stopped accepting out-of-town jobs in 2004 because his brother could no longer care for Emma by himself.

¶ 52 On this record, substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Emma was a vulnerable adult in 2004 under the AVA when she sold the property to the Gabeleins.

¶ 53 Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also challenge the trial court's conclusion that the Sauls and the Gabeleins exploited Emma by exerting undue influence over her by inducing her to sell her property to them in 2004 at a price far below the market value. They argue that Emma was not exploited because she met with an attorney about the 2004 purchase and sale agreement. But the trial court's unchallenged finding that Emma had “absolutely no idea of property values” supports the court's conclusion that Emma was exploited despite meeting with an attorney. And the unchallenged finding that Emma did not understand the effect of selling her property on her ability to live independently in her home for the rest of her life also supports the conclusion that Emma was exploited, despite meeting with an attorney.

¶ 54 Next, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins contend the property sale was not a gift and the trial court erred in relying on White v. White, 33 Wash.App. 364, 655 P.2d 1173 (1982), to shift the burden to the Sauls and Gabeleins to prove lack of undue influence. The trial court ruled that Emma made a gift to the Sauls and the Gabeleins. “By selling her property as far below its market value as she has, Emma has, in essence, made gifts to the Sauls and the Gabeleins of substantial value, based on the difference between the sales price and the fair market value of each property.”

¶ 55 As a general rule, the party seeking to set aside an inter vivos gift has the burden of showing the gift is invalid. Lewis v. Estate of Lewis, 45 Wash.App. 387, 388, 725 P.2d 644 (1986). But if the recipient has a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the donor, the burden shifts to the donee to prove “a gift was intended and not the product of undue influence.” Lewis, 45 Wash.App. at 389, 725 P.2d 644; White, 33 Wash.App. at 368, 655 P.2d 1173.11 “[E]vidence to sustain the gift between such persons must show that the gift was made freely, voluntarily, and with a full understanding of the facts. If the judicial mind is left in doubt or uncertainty as to exactly what the status of the transaction was, the donee must be deemed to have failed in the discharge of his burden and the claim of gift must be rejected.” McCutcheon v. Brownfield, 2 Wash.App. 348, 356, 467 P.2d 868 (1970). The donee's burden of proof is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Pedersen v. Bibioff, 64 Wash.App. 710, 720, 828 P.2d 1113 (1992). Whether a legal fiduciary relationship exists is a question of law, which we review de novo. S.H.C. v. Lu, 113 Wash.App. 511, 524, 54 P.3d 174 (2002). Whether a confidential relationship exists is a question of fact. McCutcheon v. Brownfield, 2 Wash.App. 348, 356-57, 467 P.2d 868 (1970).

¶ 56 The Sauls and the Gabeleins dispute the trial court's conclusion that Samantha and Linda had a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Emma. “A confidential or fiduciary relationship between two persons may exist either [in law] because of the nature of the relationship between the parties or the confidential relationship between persons involved may exist in fact.” McCutcheon, 2 Wash.App. at 356-57, 467 P.2d 868. A confidential relationship exists when one person has gained the confidence of the other and “purports to act or advise with the other's interest in mind.” McCutcheon, 2 Wash.App. at 357, 467 P.2d 868.

¶ 57 The power of attorney Emma executed in June 2003 that gives Samantha “all of the powers of an absolute owner over [Emma's] assets and liabilities,” including the authority to “[l]ease, sell, release, convey, exchange, mortgage, and release any mortgage on land, and any interest therein,” establishes Samantha had a legal fiduciary relationship with Emma. While Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that Samantha's fiduciary role is irrelevant because she did not purchase the property in 2004, the trial court's finding that her role was critical to the sale is unchallenged-“[t]he Gabelein transaction would not have occurred without the Sauls' participation in a boundary line adjustment.”

¶ 58 Substantial evidence also supports the court's findings that both Samantha and Linda had a confidential or fiduciary relationship with Emma and exerted undue influence over her. It is undisputed that Samantha was involved in all three real estate transactions and, for each transaction, “Emma thought the property was worth a substantial amount less than it was.” Samantha gained Emma's confidence and purported to act in Emma's best interest as her friend, giving advice based on her superior knowledge. For example, Samantha testified that in the 2002 sale, she rejected Emma's proposed price of $52,000 as “too low,” then showed Emma “comparable” property sales records demonstrating that $80,000 was a fair market value.12 But the trial court found $80,000 was a “bargain” price and below fair market value.13

¶ 59 Linda also gained Emma's confidence and purported to advise Emma as her friend and act with Emma's best interests in mind, using her superior knowledge. In the 2004 property transaction, Linda rejected Emma's price as “too low” but told Emma that comparable sales data showed $150,000 was “in the ballpark” of a reasonable price. Yet on appeal, there is no dispute that the property is “some of the best view property on Whidbey Island” and was worth $324,000 in June 2004 and $427,000 when the sale closed in May 2005.14 It is also undisputed that Linda was the listing agent for a house on a small lot in the same neighborhood that sold for only $150,000 around the same time. The trial court noted that this sale also showed that Linda's claim that $150,000 was “in the ballpark” was not credible.

¶ 60 Citing conclusions of law 10 and 17, the Sauls and the Gabeleins also claim the court erred by imposing a fiduciary duty on Samantha and Linda contrary to the laws governing real estate agents.15 Conclusion of law 10 states: Given Emma's age, her lack of sophistication in financial matters, and her almost childlike trust in Samantha and Linda, each of them should have insisted upon getting appraisals and paying fair market value in purchasing property from Emma.

¶ 61 Conclusion of law 17 states:

Samantha had an obligation to advise Emma about the fair market value of the property that Samantha purchased from her before the purchase. Linda had an obligation to advise Emma about the fair market value of the property that Linda purchased from her before the purchase.

¶ 62 It is undisputed that neither Linda nor Samantha acted as Emma's real estate agent for the 2004 real estate transaction. In context, it is clear that the crux of conclusions of law 10 and 17 is not the role Samantha and Linda played as real estate agents but rather their responsibility, because of their close relationship with Emma and Emma's unequivocal trust in and reliance on them, to use their superior knowledge in Emma's best interest.

¶ 63 Because the trial court correctly concluded that Samantha and Linda had a confidential relationship with Emma, as a matter of law they have the burden to prove a gift was not a result of undue influence. In a number of cases, Washington courts have held that below-market sales are gifts. In the Matter of the Estate of McLeod, 105 Wash.2d 809, 814, 719 P.2d 88 (1986) (in the context of the inheritance tax, “the excess of the fair market value above the [amount paid] was a gift”); Glorfield v. Glorfield, 27 Wash.App. 358, 359, 617 P.2d 1051 (1980) (for community property purposes in a dissolution, “sales which were substantially below fair market value” were characterized as gifts). Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins cite no case to the contrary.

¶ 64 The only authority Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins cite to support their argument that the 2004 transaction was not a gift is the introduction to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provision regulating taxation of real property transfers. WAC 458-61A-201(1)
provides:

Generally, a gift of real property is not a sale, and is not subject to the real estate excise tax. A gift of real property is a transfer for which there is no consideration given in return for granting an interest in the property. If consideration is given in return for the interest granted, then the transfer is not a gift, but a sale, and it is subject to the real estate excise tax to the extent of the consideration received.

But a later example in WAC 458-61A-201(6)(b) explains that the value transferred in excess of the consideration received is a gift:

(ii) Keith and Jean, as joint owners, convey their residence valued at $200,000 to Jean as her sole property. There is no underlying debt on the property. In exchange for Keith's one-half interest in the property, Jean gives Keith $10,000. Keith has made a gift of $90,000 in equity, and received consideration of $10,000. Real estate excise tax is due on the $10,000.

¶ 65 We conclude the trial court did not err in concluding that Emma's sale for well below market value was a gift and in shifting the burden to the Sauls and the Gabeleins to prove undue influence.16

¶ 66 According to one of the court's unchallenged findings of fact, “Emma did not have any idea of the value of the property that she sold to the Gabeleins and still does not.” Emma's lack of expertise in real estate and financial matters is also undisputed. Because Emma never had a full understanding of the facts, the claim of gift must be rejected.

¶ 67 Even if the Sauls and Gabeleins did not have the burden to prove undue influence, substantial evidence supports the court's conclusion that clear, cogent, and convincing evidence establishes “Emma has been exploited by the Sauls and the Gabeleins.” Undue influence can exist “when highly unreasonable consideration is coupled with other inequitable incidents.” Lewis v. Estate of Lewis, 45 Wash.App. 387, 391, 725 P.2d 644 (1986). “Even though no directly false statements are made, if there appears to be a studied effort to produce a false impression upon the mind of the party from whom land is being purchased, this, together with inadequacy of price, will be sufficient to authorize relief.” Downing v. State, 9 Wash.2d 685, 689-90, 115 P.2d 972 (1941).

¶ 68 Here, Samantha and Linda convinced Emma that they were looking out for her best interests by telling Emma her price was “too low,” then suggesting prices that were still egregiously low. Emma was also given misleading “comparable” property sales to lead her to believe that the bargain sale prices were reasonably close to market value.

¶ 69 After the first sale to the Thompsons, the Sauls asked Emma to sell them property.17 While Emma offered to sell the property to the Sauls for $52,000, they agreed to buy it for $80,000. Before trial, Samantha took the position that Don or Emma suggested $80,000 as the purchase price. But at trial, Samantha admitted that she proposed $80,000. However, she claimed that $80,000 was “in the range of what was reasonable” for five acres with a marine mountain view, despite the undisputed evidence that the property was assessed at $195,524 the previous year. And when the Sauls applied for a loan two years later, the bank appraisal valued the property at $400,000.

¶ 70 A few months after the sale to the Sauls, Linda Gabelein testified that she approached Emma about buying another five-acre parcel. During the transaction, Linda also purported to act in Emma's best interest by insisting on paying more than Emma initially offered but then agreeing to a price that was still far below market value. Sometime after the 2004 purchase and sale agreement, an addendum was executed. Linda brought the boundary line adjustment paperwork to Emma to sign. Emma signed at least two versions, including one that lacked a legal description or a map. In the boundary line adjustment that was finally approved, all of the less-desirable marsh and swampland was excluded from the five acres the Gabeleins purchased. The Sauls and the Gabeleins also took steps to ensure Ron and Don did not learn about the 2004 real estate transaction until after closing. Linda Gabelein told a fellow real estate agent that the sale was “hush-hush” and “a really good deal.”

¶ 71 There was also testimony that both the Sauls and the Gabeleins told others they were able to influence Emma. According to one unchallenged finding, Samantha told Ray Lotto that “she was working on Emma, by being nice to her and taking her on trips to Costco, so that she could get a listing on Emma's property that Lotto wanted to buy.” Ray Lotto testified that Samantha thought “given enough time [she would] be able to get this property for” him. Emma's daughter-in-law Sandy Fisher testified that Vernon Gabelein told her that he “could talk Emma into giving Bob Fisher and Earl Fisher her remaining five-acre parcel of property?” 18 And according to the GAL, Linda and Samantha could “get Ms. Endicott to change her mind.” The unchallenged findings also show that Samantha's influence over Emma extended beyond real estate. For instance, when Ron and Don questioned “the prudence of Emma's purchase of a 30-year annuity in 2002, she would not believe that their questions were valid until she had Samantha Saul check out the situation.” And it is undisputed that during Emma's testimony, she “volunteered, ‘[i]f Sam told you that, that's the truth.’ ? As Emma said, if Samantha Saul says it, that's the truth for Emma.”

¶ 72 Substantial evidence also supports the trial court's finding that the undue influence of the Sauls and the Gabeleins over Emma caused her “to act in a way that is inconsistent with relevant past behavior.” 19 Many witnesses testified that Emma was extremely frugal. Emma used to dig through trash to find can labels she could turn in for fifty cents or a dollar. Emma has always worn secondhand clothes she got for free. She did not replace her 50-year-old broken dentures because she did not want to spend the money. Before Shorty's death, the couple had never conveyed any property except when Emma gave her favorite sister Annie the one-third interest she inherited in their parent's home.20

¶ 73 On this record, we conclude the trial court did not err in ruling Emma is a vulnerable adult under the AVA and issuing a protective order preventing the Sauls and the Gabeleins from transferring or encumbering the property she sold to them in 2004.

CONCLUSION

¶ 74 We affirm the trial court's decision establishing a limited guardianship for Emma and issuing an order of protection for her as a vulnerable adult under the AVA. Substantial evidence supports finding that Emma is incapacitated as to her person and as to her estate, and that the Sauls and the Gabeleins unduly influenced and exploited Emma. As the prevailing parties on appeal, upon compliance with RAP 18.1, Ron and Don are entitled to attorney fees on appeal under RCW 11.96A.150 and RCW 74.34.130.21

FOOTNOTES

1. There was an understanding in the family that Earl and Bob would inherit Emma's five acres.


2. The court later entered an order of protection against Don because of an unrelated incident a year earlier.

3. The court selected Earl Fisher because he would act in his mother's best interest, he was impartial, and he was not interested in obtaining Emma's money or property.

4. “The court does not attribute Emma's behavior during trial solely to the urinary tract infection. The court observed Emma's behavior for three full days in December of 2005 and two full days in January of 2006, and her behavior was as described above. There is no suggestion that Emma was suffering from a urinary tract infection then. Even if she was suffering from a urinary tract infection, the antibiotics prescribed for her on February 8, 2006, would have been completed on February 13 or 14. Emma's disorientation cleared up with 24 hours when she was at the hospital in June of 2005 for the same condition. The difference between June of 2005 and February of 2006 is that Emma was no longer living with anyone who monitors whether she was taking her medication. Samantha, who took her to the hospital on February 8, testified that she did not know if Emma had finished her medication. Because Emma was diagnosed with two urinary tract infections in such a short period of time, the court questions whether she took all of her antibiotics as prescribed.”

5. And because substantial evidence supports finding Emma incapacitated, any error is harmless.

6. At some point Emma inadvertently let her homeowners' insurance lapse and apparently she often paid bills even when the statements showed a credit balance.

7. In this opinion, the statutory citations to the AVA refer to the version in effect in 2004 and 2005. Effective July 22, 2007, some sections of the AVA were amended in ways that do not affect this appeal.

8. Ron and Don contend the Sauls and the Gabeleins argue for the first time on appeal that the court erred in not addressing whether Emma was a vulnerable adult at the time of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in 2004. But below the Sauls and the Gabeleins took the position that the AVA required proof that Emma was vulnerable when she was allegedly
exploited in 2004.

9. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert the relevant time period was when the purchase agreement for the third sale was signed on June 15, 2004. Ron and Don assert the last exploitation occurred at the closing on May 16, 2005. Because substantial evidence supports finding Emma incapacitated before June 2004, we need not resolve the parties' disagreement about the relevant time period.

10. The court expressly found the psychologist's report of Emma's statement credible.

11. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins also contend that only the donor may challenge the transaction and that White only applies to a rescission action. But the holding in White is not limited to actions by donors to rescind. See Matter of Estate of Eubank, 50 Wash.App. 611, 619-20, 749 P.2d 691 (1988); Lewis, 45 Wash.App. at 388-89, 725 P.2d 644.

12. Samantha's testimony also supports the challenged finding that Samantha knew Emma did not know the value of the property.

13. This challenged finding is supported by substantial evidence. The property was assessed at $195,524 in 2001, and an appraisal showed the land alone was worth at least $300,000 two years after the Sauls bought it.

14. The court's finding that the appraisal Ron and Don submitted was more credible is unchallenged. According to that appraisal, the five acres was worth $324,000 in June 2004.

15. Because the findings, conclusions, and protective order only relate to the 2004 real estate transaction, we need not address challenges to the findings and conclusions related to the first sale to Dina Thompson and her spouse, who are not parties to this action nor subject to the protective order.

16. The White court also distinguished inter vivos gifts from will contests. In will contests, the initial burden is on the party challenging the testamentary gift. By contrast, with an inter vivos gift the donor “strips himself of that which he can still enjoy and of which he may have need during his life.” White, 33 Wash.App. at 371, 655 P.2d 1173 (quoting Whalen v. Lanier, 29 Wash.2d 299, 312, 186 P.2d 919 (1947)).

17. The court rejected the testimony that Emma approached the Sauls. The trial court relied on Emma's statement to the psychologist that the Sauls asked her to sell them property and “she agreed?” And in the protection order hearing, Emma again stated that the Sauls “c[a]me and asked” about buying the property.

18. Because the trial court found Sandy Fisher's testimony about the sale in 2004 noncredible, Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins assert substantial evidence does not support the trial court's finding that the conversation occurred. But while the court rejected Sandy Fisher's testimony that Emma was not exploited in the 2004 sale as not credible, the court expressly found her testimony about the conversation with Vernon was credible.

19. Former RCW 74.34.020(2)(d).

20. Emma, the Sauls, and the Gabeleins argue that because Shorty always controlled the finances, Emma never had a chance to sell anything or give expensive gifts before he died. But for at least the first three years after Shorty died, Emma continued to live very frugally and did not sell any property. The largest gift Ron remembered Emma ever giving was $75 to her sister Annie on her 75th birthday in 2000.

21. Because we affirm, we also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Ron and Don attorney fees under RCW 11.96A.150 and RCW 74.34.130.

SCHINDLER, A.C.J.

WE CONCUR: APPELWICK, C.J., and BECKER

 

 

 

john jacobi
L to R: (1) Joseph R. "Bob" Deville and (2) Bob Bennion of Windermere Services Southern California, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., and Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley. (3) Peggy Shambaugh, Realtor at Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, Indian Wells office. (4) Current Windermere Services Company governing persons John W. Jacobi, (5) Geoffrey P. Wood, (6) Jill Jacobi-Wood, (7) John O'Brien "OB"Jacobi, (8) attorney Paul Stephen Drayna—WSBA# 26636

"Further, at all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Windermere Coachella was and is licensed by the State of California as a real estate broker, doing business as a real estate broker and operating an unlawful franchise arrangement with defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company ("Windermere Services") from which both Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services have unlawfully split over a million dollars in commissions from real estate transactions within the State of California." JUMP TO THIS ALLEGATION HERE

"...At the time of the increase in purchase price, with the knowledge and/or consent of Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services, Deville and Shambaugh, Kovall told the Tribe that the increase was the result of "some people from New York," who were supposedly interested in the property, and therefore constituted potential competitors for the property for the Tribe." JUMP TO THIS ALLEGATION HERE

 

DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND OF MISSION INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA; TWENTY-NINE PALMS ENTERPRISES CORPORATION; and ECHO TRAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, a limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DAVID ALAN HESLOP, an individual, DIVERSIFICATION RESOURCES, LLC, a limited liability company, NATIONAL DEMOGRAPICS [sic], Inc., a corporation, PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, an individual, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., doing business as WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, a corporation, and Does I through 100,

Defendants.

Case No. RIC10006101

Honorable John Vineyard, Dept. 7

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
(2) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
(3) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
(4) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
(5) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;
(6) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
(7) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE; and
(8) UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Plaintiffs Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California, Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation, and Echo Trail Holdings, LLC (sometimes collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiffs") allege, as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Plaintiff Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California was and is a Sovereign Native American Nation duly recognized by the government of the United States of America. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Plaintiff Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation was and is a federally chartered corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the government of the United States of America, and was and is wholly owned by Plaintiff Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California. Together, these two entities are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Tribe."

2. At some of the times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Plaintiff Echo Trail Holdings, LLC ("Echo Trail Holdings") was and is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and was and is wholly owned by the Tribe.

3. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, defendant David Alan Heslop ("Heslop") was and is an individual and, on information and belief, a resident of the County of San Luis Obispo.

4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant Diversification Resources, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("DRL-NV") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in or about August 2006, Heslop formed DRL-NV. On information and belief, Heslop was, and is, the sole member and manager of DRL-NV; and its business affairs were, and are, controlled by Heslop. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that in or about August 2007, a conversion was filed with the California Secretary of State, whereby Defendant DRL-NV was purportedly converted to Defendant Diversification Resources, LLC, a California limited liability company ("DRL-CA"). Assuming that the conversion was lawfully effected, all debts, liabilities and obligations of DRL-NV continue as debts, liabilities and obligations of DRL-CA, and all rights of creditors, including Plaintiffs, were preserved unimpaired against DRL-CA, as if the alleged conversion had not occurred.

5. As a result of Heslop's failure and refusal to respond to any discovery to date, Plaintiffs are currently unable to determine the precise legal status of DRL-NV or the legal effectiveness of the alleged conversion. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that DRL-CA and Heslop failed to notify creditors of DRL-NV of the alleged conversion. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that DRL-NV failed to transfer its assets (including possible insurance coverage) to DRL-CA in connection with the alleged conversion, and instead, transferred such assets to Heslop, with the intent to defraud its creditors and to escape liability for its debts. Accordingly, the purported "conversion" has no effect on Plaintiffs' claims against DRL-NV

6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleged that DRL-NV and Heslop knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves, and with Paul P. Bardos, to defraud Plaintiffs out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by charging Plaintiffs spurious consulting fees for construction and construction management. Defendants Heslop and DRL-NV did the acts and things here and alleged pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy and the above-alleged agreement.

7. In the alternative, since DRL-NV contends that it is a "dissolved" limited liability company, pursuant to California Corporations Code § 17355, this action may be maintained against DRL-NV to the extent of its undistributed assets, including, without limitation, any insurance assets held by DRL-NV that may be available to satisfy claims. (DRL-NV and DRL-CA are hereinafter collectively referred as "DRL.")

8. On information and belief, at all times relevant to the events alleged in this action defendant National Demographics, Inc. ("NDI") was and is a corporation doing business in the States of Nevada and/or California. Further, on information and belief, NDI was formed by Heslop on or about July 12, 1979; Heslop was and is one of the owners of stock in NDI; and, at various times referred to in this action, Heslop was an officer and director of NDI. On information and belief, NDI has its principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, at 1217 Glenwood Road, Glendale, CA 91202.

9. On information and belief, in doing or failing to do the things alleged in this action, Heslop was acting in the course and scope of his responsibilities as the managing owner and agent of DRL and as a managing officer, director and agent of NDI.

10. On information and belief, at all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, defendant Peggy Shambaugh ("Shambaugh") was and is an individual and a resident of the County of Riverside. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Shambaugh was and is a real estate licensee and a real estate agent with defendant Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., which does business as Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley.

11. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, defendant Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., doing business as Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley ["Windermere Coachella") was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with various places of business, including one in Palm Desert, California. Further, at all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Windermere Coachella was and is licensed by the State of California as a real estate broker, doing business as a real estate broker and operating an unlawful franchise arrangement with defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company ("Windermere Services") from which both Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services have unlawfully split over a million dollars in commissions from real estate transactions within the State of California.

12. On information and belief, at all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, defendant Windermere Services was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington and offices in various states including, but not limited to, the offices of Windermere Coachella in California. On further information and belief, Windermere Services managed and controlled Windermere Coachella through defendant Bob Deville ("Deville") and others in, among other matters, the events alleged in this action, so as to render Windermere Services legally responsible in some manner for not only its own wrongful conduct but also the wrongful conduct of Windermere Coachella and certain others alleged below. On further information and belief, at all times relevant Windermere Services had an unlawful franchise arrangement with Windermere Coachella, operated as a real estate broker without a license and unlawfully split over a million dollars in commissions with Windermere Coachella from real estate transactions within the State of California.

13. On information and belief, at all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, defendant Deville was and is an individual residing in Southern California, an owner, operator, officer, manager and alter ego of Windermere Coachella, a member of Windermere Services' management team, and a supervisor of Windermere Services' franchise operation, including an unlawful franchise arrangement with Windermere Coachella.

14. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that each fictitiously named Defendant is legally responsible in some manner for the wrongful conduct described below, and is therefore legally responsible for the injury and damage to Plaintiffs alleged in this action. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these fictitiously named Defendants when the same have been ascertained.

15. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, and each of them, were the duly authorized and acting agents, employees, partners, joint venturers, co­conspirators and/or the alter egos of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the things alleged in this action, each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of his, her or its employment and authority from the other Defendants and/or the other Defendants have approved and/or ratified all such conduct.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

16. At some time before the events alleged in this Complaint, Heslop was associated with the Claremont McKenna College as a professor and/or an administrator. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Heslop was associated with the Rose Institute ("Rose"), as an officer, director and/or sponsor of some sort. Rose holds itself out to the public as being capable of providing services, including survey research, fiscal analysis, and database development and as the author of studies of political and demographic trends.

17. While at Claremont McKenna College or through Rose, Heslop became acquainted with Gary E. Kovall ("Kovall").

18. From and after about 1997, Kovall represented the Tribe and its related entities, first as an attorney with his own office and subsequently through a series of law partnerships and/or affiliations. Beginning in or about 2002, Kovall continued to represent the Tribe and also to provide advice and counsel to the Plaintiffs of a type generally provided by an entity's general counsel pursuant to an oral agreement. However, Kovall submitted written invoices for all of his services and was paid for all of his services by the Tribe. In this capacity, Kovall became an integral part of the Tribe's management and the operations of the Tribe's business endeavors. Beginning in or about 2007, and continuing to in or about 2009, Heslop convinced representatives of the Tribe, including, Kovall and Gene Gambale, the predecessor of Kovall as the Tribe's legal advisor, that he had special knowledge, training and skill in business affairs, including the acquisition of business opportunities, the acquisition of real estate and the management of construction. In addition, Heslop knew of Kovall's relationship with the Tribe and took steps to endear himself to Kovall and the Tribe so as to be able to influence and control the business decisions made by the Tribe.

19. The Tribe hired Heslop and at his recommendation DRL and NDI to, among other things, advise the Tribe with respect to a variety of matters, including, without limitation, all phases of real estate investment (such as, for example, the acquisition and valuation of real property and the retention of real estate lawyers, appraisers, and brokers), all phases of construction matters involving the Tribe (such as the retention and oversight of consultants, owner-representatives, contractors, and sub-contractors), and in connection with the negotiation of agreements with each such type of construction person and entity in connection with construction work proposed or undertaken by the Tribe. During such times the Tribe also utilized the legal service of Kovall to advise it with respect to such matters, Kovall also represented the Tribe in mediations and litigation matters in which the Tribe was a party, including matters pertaining to the Tribe's business operations. Kovall also represented the Tribe with respect to political matters affecting the Tribe's business operations, and with respect to investments and other business transactions which were of potential benefit to the Tribe, including, without limitation, recyclables and solar product ventures. Heslop and his entities also advised the Tribe with respect to such matters. In the course of such representation, Kovall and Heslop gained considerable and intimate knowledge regarding the Tribe's assets and business operations, as well as its organizational and social structure, its chain of command, and its manner of doing things.

20. In or about 1998, the Plaintiffs retained Heslop, who thereafter, began to advise the Tribe on various business ventures, including those described below, for which Heslop was paid as the Tribe's trusted advisor. In addition, based on the recommendation of Heslop, the Tribe entered into special consulting arrangements with various persons and entities, including DRL, NDI and Paul P. Bardos and his related entities, and the Tribe paid Heslop and these other consultants hundreds of thousands of dollars for their services.

The Total Tire Venture

21. On information and belief, beginning in or about 1997 as a result of the recommendation of Heslop and Kovall, the Tribe invested over $5 million in a "recycling" venture in the Sacramento, California area, known as the "Total Tire" venture. The Tribe did not understand or appreciate that Heslop and Kovall arranged for the ownership of the Total Tire venture to be set up so that they each acquired an ownership interest in the venture without investing any money of their own. Thus, the Tribe took all of the financial risk, which resulted in a total financial loss to the Tribe of over $5 million. In or about 2001, Kovall and Heslop conspired together to convince the Tribe to invest more money in this venture when it was clear, or should have been clear, to them that any further investment by the Tribe would be lost. As a result, the Tribe lost additional sums in the Total Tire venture in excess of $1.5 million. Kovall submitted invoices for the legal work he did on the Total Tire venture and was paid for that work by the Tribe. Kovall and Heslop failed to properly disclose the ownership interest they took in the Total Tire venture and failed to obtain the informed consent of the Tribe to the taking of this interest. Kovall and Heslop conspired together to convince the Tribe to invest these additional funds in the Total Tire venture knowing those funds would probably be lost because Kovall and Heslop believed this was the only means available to them to protect their ownership interests in the deal. In so doing and despite the fiduciary relationship they each had with the Tribe, they sacrificed the interests of the Tribe in favor of protecting their own ownership interests.

Bardos and Kickbacks

22. While Heslop was advising the Tribe as described above, in connection with various business matters, including construction and remodeling issues, Heslop, acting individually and through DRL, purported to advise the Tribe on construction issues involving the Tribe. Heslop and DRL used Paul P. Bardos to provide these services. Later, Kovall and Heslop convinced the Tribe that it needed someone to manage or control its construction work and convinced the Tribe to retain Paul P. Bardos and his company to provide these services. Kovall and Heslop also recommended Paul P. Bardos, Bardos Construction, Inc., Bardos Construction Company and/or Cadmus Construction, Inc. ("Cadmus") (a Bardos company) (collectively "Bardos") for various positions and relationships with the Tribe without revealing (and, indeed, concealing) the nature and extent of their relationships with Bardos. In addition, on information and belief, Bardos compensated Heslop and Kovall, for their recommendation of Bardos to the Tribe, and Kovall and Heslop failed to disclose this benefit to the Tribe. Moreover, Heslop did not obtain the consent of the Tribe to his (Heslop's) receipt of these benefits from Bardos. In addition, Kovall and Heslop hired for the Tribe, or recommended for hire by the Tribe, Bardos in connection with construction work related to the Tribe's casino operations without recommending a competitive bid process for the selection of a contractor. Moreover, Heslop did so at a time when Heslop knew or should have known the agreements proposed for Bardos for the construction work were inadequate and insufficient to protect the interests of the Tribe in that they allowed Bardos to charge excessive and unreasonable fees to the Tribe. Heslop also knew or should have known that Cadmus, an entity Bardos used to provide services to the Tribe, lacked experience in construction of the types of projects for which it was hired by the Tribe, and was undercapitalized and unlicensed.

23. Between May 2007 and June 2008, Bardos paid Heslop approximately $683,000 from the millions of dollars he received from the Tribe as a kickback for contracts he was able to acquire from the Tribe due to the recommendation of Heslop and Kovall. On information and belief, Heslop, in turn, paid some portion of those funds to Kovall or to Shambaugh for Kovall's benefit, or to someone identified by Kovall. The Tribe did not know of the foregoing described payments of kickbacks and did not approve them. In addition, while Heslop purported to advise the Tribe in connection with its dealings with Bardos, Bardos was supplying work and materials to Kovall at little or no cost in connection with the construction or remodeling of property owned by Kovall in the Big Bear area, thereby creating a clear conflict of interest for Kovall. Heslop knew Bardos was providing his service to Kovall but never disclosed these facts to the Tribe. Heslop and Kovall concealed Kovall's receipt of these other benefits from Bardos from the Tribe. On information and belief, Bardos also provided similar undisclosed benefits to Heslop in connection with personal construction work done by Bardos for Heslop while Heslop purported to provide independent advice to the Tribe.

The Moskow Action

24. In August 2003, the Tribe sold certain real property located in the City of Laguna Beach, California to Dr. and Mrs. Lonnie Moskow (the "Moskows"). In June 2004, the Moskows filed a construction defect case in Orange County Superior Court against the Tribe and certain of its members, and Mrs. Moskow claimed injury (bodily injury) from exposure to mold.

25. In or about 2004, Kovall retained attorneys Nada L Edwards, Robert Rosette and Monteau & Peebles ("M & P") to represent the Tribe and others in the defense of the Moskow action. On information and belief, Rosette was, at the time, a partner in the firm of M & P. Later, while still representing the Tribe in the Moskow action, M & P reorganized itself and became Fredericks & Peebles ("F & P"), but continued to represent the Tribe in the Moskow action. In 2007, F & P reorganized itself into Fredericks Peebles & Morgan ("FP & M"), but continued to represent the Tribe in the Moskow action.

26. At the recommendation of Kovall and/or Heslop, the attorneys representing the Tribe in the Moskow action retained various consultants and/or experts in connection with the defense of the Moskow action, including Bardos and Peggy Shambaugh ("Shambaugh"). Shambaugh at the time was the girlfriend of Kovall. Later, in 2008, she became his wife. As described above, Bardos paid Kovall and/or Heslop for recommending him and his companies to the Tribe.

The 47 Acres

27. Beginning in about 2005 and continuing into 2008, Kovall represented the Tribe with respect to the acquisition of approximately 47 acres of real property known as the "Echo Trail" property (hereafter the "Echo Trail property" or "the 47 acres"), from its then owner Dillon Road Associates, LLC, and other matters related to the Tribe's acquisition of the property. The Echo Trail property is located in the City of Coachella, County of Riverside. The Tribe also used the services of Heslop and, at his recommendation, NDI, in connection with its evaluation of the transaction by which it acquired the 47 acres. Ultimately, Heslop, acting for himself and for DRL and NDL and Kovall persuaded the Tribe to purchase the 47 acres. In addition, Kovall persuaded the Tribe to utilize the services of Windermere Coachella as the buyer's broker in the transaction, with Shambaugh as the responsible individual salesperson. On information and belief, Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services, Deville and Shambaugh were brought into this transaction less than two months before it closed, at a point when negotiations between the Tribe and the then-owner of the land were at an end or near an end. Further, on information and belief, the services provided by Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services, Deville and Shambaugh in connection with the Plaintiffs' acquisition of the 47 acres were of little or no value to the Tribe.

28. Unbeknownst to the Tribe, at the time Kovall represented the Tribe in connection with the acquisition of the Echo Trail property, Kovall was in a romantic relationship with Shambaugh, in which the two, at the time of the purchase of the 47 acres, lived together and held themselves out as being husband and wife. In July 2008, following his divorce from his then-wife in 2007, Kovall and Shambaugh were formally married. On information and belief, Heslop, individually and on behalf of DRL and NDI, knew of the romantic relationship between Kovall and Shambaugh at the time Shambaugh and Windermere Coachella were hired by the Tribe to represent it in connection with the acquisition of the 47 acres and throughout the time Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services, Deville and Shambaugh represented the Tribe. At no time did Heslop or Kovall ever disclose to the Tribe Kovall's relationship to Shambaugh, or the conflict of interest created thereby. Instead, Heslop, Kovall and Shambaugh actively concealed this relationship, as a means of personally benefiting from the purchase of the 47 acres. For Kovall, he was able to secure a portion of the commission. For Heslop, he was able to, among other things, secure the position as the first manager of Echo Trail Holdings and fees for acting in that capacity and as the advisor to the Tribe in making its decision to purchase the 47 acres for himself as well as fees for DRL and NDI and fees he anticipated he would receive from the Tribe in the future for development of the 47 acres. Such concealment and relationship between Kovall and Shambaugh created a clear conflict of interest for Kovall and Heslop, who, as noted above, represented the Tribe and Echo Trail Holdings, an entity formed by the Tribe to take title to parcels of real property, including the Echo Trail property.

29. Kovall, ostensibly on behalf of the Tribe, negotiated a sales price of $29 million, which was to include a 3.5% commission to Windermere Coachella and their licensed salesperson, Shambaugh. On information and belief, Kovall, Heslop, Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services knew or should have known the Echo Trail property had a market value of no more than $20 million. On information and belief, beginning in 2006 and continuing into 2008, Heslop directed NDI to make various payments to Kovall, totaling many thousands of dollars. On further information and belief, these payments by NDI to Kovall represent a portion of Kovall's share of the kickbacks Heslop received from Bardos, and/or kickbacks for recommending NDI to assist with the acquisition of the 47 acres and were never disclosed by Kovall, Heslop or NDI to the Tribe.

30. Later, as a result of negotiations conducted by Kovall, ostensibly on behalf of the Tribe, the commission for Windermere Coachella and Shambaugh was reduced from 3.5% to 3.0%, but the purchase price was raised to $31 million, apparently to compensate for the reduction in the percentage of the commission to Windermere Coachella, Shambaugh and Windermere Services. At the time of the increase in purchase price, with the knowledge and/or consent of Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services, Deville and Shambaugh, Kovall told the Tribe that the increase was the result of "some people from New York," who were supposedly interested in the property, and therefore constituted potential competitors for the property for the Tribe.

31. While acting on behalf of Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services, Deville was actively involved in the 47 acres transaction. Deville oversaw the 47 acres transaction and communicated with Windermere Coachella and its employees regarding the acquisition of the 47 acres. Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services, through their agent and/or alter ego Deville, knew or should have known that certain of the individuals assigned to act on behalf of Plaintiffs in connection with the 47 acres transaction were grossly lacking the commercial real estate experience and knowledge necessary to adequately represent Plaintiffs in this $30 million plus deal. As a manager of Windermere Coachella in the 47 acres transaction, Deville knew that the individuals assigned to represent Plaintiffs were incompetent and inexperienced but did nothing to rectify the situation, despite the fact that he was "supervising" and following the transaction with bated breath.

32. The negotiations resulted in a September 19, 2007 option agreement between the seller and the purchaser Echo Trail property. Ultimately, the property sold to Echo Trail Holdings for $31 million, which amount was paid by the Tribe. The escrow for the purchase of the property took place in or about November 2007. Shambaugh, Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services received a total commission of approximately $1 million on the sale and Heslop, as stated above, became the first Manager of Echo Trail Holdings, the entity taking title to the 47 acres. Naturally, as an owner, operator, officer, manager and alter ego of Windermere Coachella, a member of Windermere Services' management team, and a supervisor of Windermere Services' franchise operation, including an unlawful franchise arrangement with Windermere Coachella, Deville benefited from the unlawfully split commission.

33.. The Tribe hired and paid Heslop to review the proposed acquisition of the 47 acres and make a recommendation to the Tribe. As part of Heslop's review, and at Heslop's recommendation, the Tribe hired NDI and paid it tens of thousands of dollars in or about early 2006 and in 2007 to conduct valueless studies to justify Heslop's recommendations with respect to the acquisition of the 47 acres. Heslop reviewed the transaction and recommended to the Tribe that it acquire the 47 acres for a price that exceeded $30 million. On information and belief, the 47 acres was worth no more than $20 million at that time of Heslop's recommendation. Part of the reason for Heslop's recommendation was his relationship with Kovall and Bardos and the financial benefits he received from them. On information and belief, Heslop and Kovall recommended to the Tribe that Echo Trail Holdings be formed as a Limited Liability Company to take title to the Echo Trail property, and that Heslop be appointed as the sole manager of Echo Trail Holdings. As a result of the recommendations of Heslop and Kovall, the Tribe formed Echo Trail Holdings with Heslop as the only manager of the company and its business, and arranged for Echo Trail Holdings to take title to the 47 acres. In his capacity as advisor to the Tribe, Heslop occupied a special position of trust and confidence. On information and belief, Heslop knew of the relationship between Kovall, on the one hand, and Shambaugh, on the other, and deliberately did not disclose such information to the Tribe. In his June 24, 2008 letter of resignation, Heslop stated, "You will remember that the Tribe instructed me to keep all transactions strictly confidential: I have done this and believe that the Tribe's position has been effectively protected and its secrets maintained."

34. In his position of leadership in NDI, Heslop repeatedly stated knowledge of the importance of the confidentiality and secrecy of the Tribe's interests. For example, in a July 2007 document entitled, "Development of 47 acre site", Heslop stated, "In order to preserve the absolute secrecy of the Tribe's possible interest in the site and its plans, needed contacts have not been made with professionals in the entertainment field. Thus, the recommendations are based primarily on this consultant's past experience and knowledge of the entertainment industry." As a further example, NDI's 29 Palms Market Study Proposal, dated November 7, 2007 includes the following language: "First and foremost, all information, data, analysis and report will be treated in the strictest confidence. This report will be a vital resource for the tribe and the Spotlight 29 Casino in planning their future business strategy, and NDI will ensure that every aspect of this study is conducted with the utmost in secrecy and discretion." NDI made payments to Kovall after the preparation of this report. On 'information and belief, Heslop directed NDI to make these payments to Kovall.

35. The Tribe is further informed and believes that Kovall arranged for Shambaugh to provide other real property related services for the Tribe in connection with other matters, including litigation, in which the Tribe was involved and for which Shambaugh received payment from the Tribe. The value of these services by Shambaugh was worth little or nothing to the Tribe in that it could not rely on Shambaugh to provide independent expert advice on tribal matters.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

(By All Plaintiffs Against Heslop, DRL, NDL and Does 1-25)

36. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate here by this reference paragraphs 1 through 35, above, as though fully set forth at length.

37. Heslop agreed to provide expert consulting services to the Tribe, individually and through DRL and NDI, beginning in or about 1998 and continuing up to approximately June of 2008, for which the Tribe paid Heslop and these defendants hundreds of thousands of dollars. Heslop and the other defendants provided these services in connection with various transactions, including construction and construction management, the Total Tire venture, the Moskow action and the acquisition of the 47 acres. The agreements between Heslop, DRL and NDI, on the one hand, and the Tribe, on the other, were both verbal and in writing. Heslop, individually, and on behalf of DRL and NDI continued to represent the Plaintiffs in these matters up to at least June of 2008 when Heslop resigned as Manager of Plaintiff Echo Trail Holdings, and NDI's last known payment to Kovall was made in April, 2008.

38. Plaintiffs performed all of the things required of them under the various agreements described above, and there is no condition to their right to full performance of the agreements from the Defendants.

39. In doing or failing to do the things described, the defendants breached the agreements they had with the Plaintiffs, together with obligations imposed by law. As a direct and proximate breach by the Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the form of overpayments of fees, payments for useless services, payments for advice tainted by kickbacks and undisclosed benefits from persons and/or entities with whom Plaintiffs dealt in matters in which Defendants provided services to Plaintiffs, erroneous advice and recommendations, and other errors and malfeasance in an amount which is presently unknown but which exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

40. In addition, Heslop has received benefits and/or kickbacks as described above for business received by others from the Tribe and Heslop has been unjustly enriched by the receipt of such benefits and kickbacks. Heslop should be made to pay over those benefits to the Tribe and, where those funds or benefits have been invested in other property by Heslop, a constructive trust should be imposed on Kovall's interest in any such property.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENTANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
           
(By All Plaintiffs Against Heslop, DRL, NDL and Does 1-25)

41. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate here by this reference paragraphs 36 through 40, above, as though fully set forth at length.

42. In every contract entered into or to be performed in this State, there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which requires each of the parties to the contract to take no action to prevent the other party to the contract from realizing the benefit of same.

43. To the extent they do not represent breaches of the express contract, Defendants, in doing the things described above, breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and deprived the Tribe and Echo Trail Holdings of the benefits of their agreements with the Defendants in connection with each of the matters identified above and as to other matters as yet unidentified. As a direct and proximate result of the breach by the Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered the damages described above in an amount which is presently unknown, but which exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCLARY DUTY
           
(By All Plaintiffs Against Heslop, DRL, NDL and Does 1-25)

44. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate here by this reference paragraphs 41 through 43 as though fully set forth at length.

45. At all times relevant to the events alleged above, Heslop, individually and on behalf of DRL and NDI, occupied a position of trust and confidence with the Plaintiffs. In that position Heslop was provided access to information about the Plaintiffs' business operations, inner workings and plans for the future. Indeed, Heslop was consulted for his advice, for which the Plaintiffs paid him, on various projects, ventures and strategies for the use of the Plaintiffs' property and property rights. For example, Heslop advised the Tribe to invest in the Total Tire venture and to continue to invest money in the Total Tire venture when he knew or should have known that the additional investment would result in additional loss to the Tribe. Heslop did so, in part, because he had a personal financial interest in this venture that was not properly disclosed. Heslop also advised the Tribe to use the services of Bardos, as described above, when he knew or should have known that Bardos was not qualified to provide these services to the Tribe. Part of the reason Heslop recommended Bardos to the Tribe was the kickbacks that Bardos was providing to Heslop. Heslop also advised the Tribe to hire DRL and NDI in connection with services that neither organization was qualified to provide, or under circumstances where the services were valueless, at least in part because Heslop owned or managed these entities. On information and belief, Heslop benefited financially from the services he arranged for DRL and NDI to provide to the Tribe. Heslop was also hired by the Tribe to provide a confidential analysis and recommendation with respect to whether the Plaintiffs should purchase the 47 acres, the correct price to pay for the 47 acres, and how the property might be developed beneficially by the Plaintiffs after it was acquired. In these positions Heslop, individually and on behalf of DRL and NDI, and the other Defendants acquired confidential information about the Tribe's business plans; indeed, they were responsible for many of the Tribe's business decisions and plans and arrangements. Given Heslop's position and given the nature of the services he, DRL and NDI provided to Plaintiffs, Heslop, DRL and NDI occupied a position as fiduciaries in their dealings with Plaintiffs.

46. In doing the things described above, including, without limitation, setting up or continuing to recommend ventures to profit themselves at the expense of the Plaintiffs, and taking undisclosed benefits from persons and entities with whom the Plaintiffs dealt, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of such breach by the Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered the damages described above in an amount which is presently unknown but which exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

47. In doing or failing to do the things described above, Defendants acted with malice, fraud or oppression as those terms are defined by California law by, among other things:

            (a)            Accepting kickbacks as described above from persons and entities with whom Plaintiffs dealt in exchange for causing the Plaintiffs to enter into agreements with these persons and entities;
            (b)            Taking ownership interests in business ventures with Plaintiffs without properly disclosing to Plaintiffs the ownership interest and inherent conflicts of interest involved with these ventures; and
            (c)            Concealing material information from the Plaintiffs about certain
            business ventures in connection with which Defendants provided consulting and expert services, including, without limitation, the relationship between Kovall and Shambaugh and Windermere in connection with the Plaintiffs' acquisition of the 47 acres.
            Accordingly, in addition to any other relief awarded to the Plaintiffs against the Defendants, Plaintiffs are entitled to the imposition of punitive damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

(By All Plaintiffs Against Shambaugh, Deville Windermere Coachella and Does 28-50)

48. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate here by this reference paragraphs 1 through 35 [sic], above, as though fully set forth at length.

49. Shambaugh and Windermere Coachella provided real estate brokerage and/or expert or consulting services to the Plaintiffs for which the Tribe paid them over $1 million. The agreements between Plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Shambaugh and Windermere Coachella, on the other, were both verbal and in writing.

50. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the written agreement between Echo Trail Holdings, on the one hand, and Windermere Coachella and Shambaugh, on the other, for broker services in connection with the acquisition of the Echo Trail property. Exhibit "A" relates to the Plaintiffs' purchase of the Echo Trail property, the escrow for which closed on November 7, 2007. The funds for the purchase of the Echo Trail property came from the Tribe.

51. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the Disclosure Regarding Real Estate Agency Relationships form filled out and provided to Echo Trail Holdings by Defendants in connection with the Plaintiffs' acquisition of the Echo Trail property. In Exhibit "B," there is an acknowledgement by Defendants of the existence of a fiduciary relationship, and concomitant duty of honesty and full disclosure. Despite the recognition and acknowledgement of this relationship, neither Windermere Coachella nor Deville or Shambaugh ever disclosed the relationship between Kovall and Shambaugh as described above, or the fact that the Tribe was paying more than the market value of the Echo Trail property.

52. Plaintiffs performed all of the things required of them under the agreements described above, and there is no condition to their right to full performance of the agreements from Defendants.

53. In doing or failing to do the things described above, Windermere Coachella and Shambaugh, and Deville as an alter ego of Windermere Coachella, breached the agreements they had with Plaintiffs, together with obligations imposed by law, by among other things, failing to disclose the romantic relationship that existed between Shambaugh and Kovall, by failing to disclose the market value of the Echo Trail property, and by failing to disclose the fact that Defendants were providing little or no services to Plaintiffs in connection with the acquisition of the 47 acres. As a direct and proximate breach by Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered the damages described above in an amount which is presently unknown, but which exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

54. In addition, Shambaugh and Windermere Coachella (and Deville as an alter ego, owner, operator, officer and manager of Windermere Coachella) have received benefits and compensation as described above for which they did little or nothing under circumstances where their ability to provide such services was the direct result of the undisclosed romantic relationship between Shambaugh and Kovall. As a result, they have been unjustly enriched by the receipt of such benefits and compensation. Shambaugh, Deville and Windermere Coachella should be made to pay over those benefits to the Tribe and, where those funds or benefits have been invested in other property by them, a constructive trust should be imposed on their interest in any such property.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENTANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

(By AR Plaintiffs Against Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella and Does 28-50)

55. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate here by this reference paragraphs 48 through 54, above, as though fully set forth at length.

56. In every contract entered into or to be performed in this State, there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which requires each of the parties to the contract to take no action to prevent the other party to the contract from realizing the benefit of same.

57. To the extent they do not represent breaches of the express contract, Defendants, in doing the things described above, breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and as a direct and proximate result of the breaches by Shambaugh, Deville and Windermere Coachella, Plaintiffs have suffered the damages described above in an amount which is presently unknown but which exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
           
(By All Plaintiffs Against Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella, Windermere
Services and Does 28-50)

58. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate here by this reference paragraphs 10 through 15, 27 through 35 and 36 through 57, above, as though fully set forth at length.

59. Given their respective positions as either real estate brokers, licensees, experts and/or consultants, and given the positions they assumed vis a vis Plaintiffs in connection with the purchase of real property (including but not limited to the 47 acres transaction) and the giving of expert advice with respect to real estate related questions, and/or given their contract and acknowledgement of the fiduciary nature of that position, Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services were fiduciaries in their dealings with Plaintiffs.

60. In doing the things described above, these Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of such breaches by these Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered the damages described above in an amount which is presently unknown but which exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court.

61. In doing or failing to do the things described above, Defendants acted with malice, fraud or oppression as those terms are defined by California law by, among other things:

            (a) Concealing the relationship between Shambaugh and Kovall;
            (b) Accepting commissions for non-existent services;
            (c) Placing their financial interests above those of Plaintiffs;
           (d) Knowingly advising Plaintiffs to purchase the 47 acres despite Defendants' knowledge that the transaction would cause Plaintiffs to suffer significant financial loss so that Defendants would receive the benefit of a $1 million commission; and
            (e) Entering into an unlawful agreement to share a commission of approximately $1 million among Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services (an unlicensed entity) and Kovall (an unlicensed individual).

Accordingly, in addition to any other relief awarded to Plaintiffs against Defendants, Plaintiffs are entitled to the imposition of punitive damages.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

(By All Plaintiffs Against Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella, Windermere
Services and Does 28-50)

62. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate here by this reference paragraphs paragraphs 10 through 15, 27 through 35 and 36 through 61, above, as though fully set forth at length.

63. Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services negligently represented Plaintiffs in connection with the acquisition of the Echo Trail property, and/or negligently negotiated agreements for Plaintiffs, and/or negligently supervised agents, representatives and/or employees, as described above, in connection with the business affairs of Plaintiffs for which Defendants were paid by Plaintiffs to represent them.

64. While acting on behalf of Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services, Deville was actively involved in the 47 acres transaction. Deville oversaw the 47 acres transaction and communicated with Windermere Coachella and its employees regarding the acquisition of the 47 acres. Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services, through their agent and/or alter ego Deville, knew or should have known that certain of the individuals assigned to act on behalf of Plaintiffs in connection with the 47 acres transaction were grossly lacking the commercial real estate experience and knowledge necessary to adequately represent Plaintiffs in this $30 million plus deal. As a manager of Windermere Coachella in the 47 acres transaction, Deville knew that the individuals assigned to represent Plaintiffs were incompetent and inexperienced but did nothing to rectify the situation, despite the fact that he was "supervising" and following the transaction.

65. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs have sustained loss and injury, the precise amount of which is presently unknown, but which exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Further, Defendants have profited from their wrongful conduct by among other things, collecting and/or benefiting from commissions and fees which they would not have received in the absence of such wrongful conduct. Accordingly, Defendants should disgorge to Plaintiffs the funds they have wrongfully acquired, together with interest thereon.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

(By All Plaintiffs Against Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services, Deville and
Does 28-50)

66. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate here by this reference paragraphs 62 through 65, above, as though fully set forth at length.

67. On information and belief, at all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Windermere Services and Windermere Coachella have held themselves out to Plaintiffs and the general public as franchisor and franchisee, respectively; when, in fact, their relationship is that of licensor and licensee as defined in the only document produced by Windermere Coachella as to the relationship between the parties — a trademark licensing agreement. Also on information and belief, no valid and lawful franchise agreement has ever existed between Windermere Services and Windermere Coachella. On further information and belief, Windermere Services was not licensed as a real estate broker in the State of California.

68. At all times relevant to the events alleged in this action, Windermere Coachella (and its owner, operator, manager and alter ego Deville) and Windermere Services engaged in the following acts, each of which constitute unlawful, unfair and/or fraudulent business practices within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200:

            (a)            Failing to disclose the fact that Heslop had a preexisting and ongoing financial arrangement with Windermere Coachella, through Shambaugh and her then boyfriend, now husband, Kovall, or the fact that Plaintiffs were paying substantially more than market value for the Echo Trail property;
            (b)          Concealing the fact that Heslop had a preexisting and ongoing financial arrangement with Windermere Coachella, through Shambaugh and Kovall, or the fact that Plaintiffs were paying substantially more than market value for the Echo Trail property;
            (c)             Accepting commissions for non-existent services, or for services performed without the requisite disclosures and/or due diligence, as hereinabove alleged; and
           (d)             Windermere Coachella's unlawfully sharing real estate commissions with Windermere Services, an unlicensed entity, on not only the Echo Trail property transaction but also, on information and belief, various other real estate transactions with consumers other than Plaintiffs throughout the State of California, all in violation of California law.

            On information and belief, Windermere Coachella (and its owner, operator, manager and alter ego Deville) and Windermere Services engaged in the above-mentioned acts for the purpose of injuring Plaintiffs and other prospective purchasers of real property similarly situated. By virtue of the conduct alleged herein, there is a likelihood of actual and pernicious confusion and an unfair and inequitable advantage for any real estate broker employing the aforementioned business model or device, and based on the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent practices of these Defendants, a permanent injunction should issue to prevent these Defendants from engaging in such unlawful and fraudulent conduct and restitution should be ordered from these Defendants of all unlawful commissions derived from the real estate transactions involving Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

            On the First Cause of Action by All Plaintiffs for Breach of Contract against Heslop, DRL. NDL and Does 1-25:

1. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

2. For orders requiring restitution and a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein;

3. For an order imposing a constructive trust;

            On the Second Cause of Action by All Plaintiffs for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing against Heslop, DRL, NDL and Does 1-25:

4. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof,

5. For orders requiring restitution and a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein;

6.  For an order imposing a constructive trust;

            On the Third Cause of Action by All Plaintiffs for Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Heslop, DRL, NDL and Does 1-25:

7.  For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

8.  For orders requiring restitution and a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein;

9.   For an order imposing a constructive trust;

10.  For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof;

            On the Fourth Cause of Action by All Plaintiffs for Breach of Contract against Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella, and Does 28-50:

11. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

12. For orders requiring restitution and a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein;

13. For an order imposing a constructive trust;

            On the Fifth Cause of Action by All Plaintiffs for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing against Shambaugh, Deville. Windermere Coachella and Does 28-50:

14. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

15. For orders requiring restitution and a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein;

16. For an order imposing a constructive trust;

            On the Sixth Cause of Action by All Plaintiffs for Breach of Fiduciary Duty against Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services and Does 28-50:

17. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

18. For orders requiring restitution and a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein;

19.  For an order imposing a constructive trust;

20.  For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof;

            On the Seventh Cause of Action by All Plaintiffs for Professional Negligence against Shambaugh. Deville, Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services and Does 28-50:

21. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

22. For orders requiring restitution and a disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein;

23. For an order imposing a constructive trust;

            On the Eighth Cause of Action for Unfair Trade Practices against Windermere Coachella, Windermere Services, Deville and Does 28-50:

24. For an order requiring restitution and disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein in favor of Plaintiffs as to those real estate transactions involving Plaintiffs;

25.  For a permanent injunction barring Defendants from engaging fraudulent and unfair practices as real estate brokers as alleged herein;

            On All Causes of Action by All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants:

26.  For costs of suit;

27.  For interest at the maximum allowable by law;

28.  For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: April 4, 2012                         SPOLIN COHEN MAINZER & BOSSERMAN LLP

 

Complete Set of Case Pleadings and Documents:

 

9/17/2015; INITIAL COMPLAINTEVIDENCE 1EVIDENCE 2

10/13/2015; COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

10/14/2015; FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM BY DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

10/26/2015; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) (Download doc here.)

 

10/29/2015; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

11/2/2015; REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

11/3/2015; SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

11/4/2015; PLAINTIFFS BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., AND WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)

 

11/4/2015; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., AND WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED [sic] [COUNTERCLAIM]

MAjOR CASE UPDATE: 11/6/2015; ORDER DENYING COUNTER CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICE COMPANY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: “...While this Court certainly understands WSC’s concerns, the language of their own contracts does nothing to protect them from such an occurrence.”

11/12/2015; JOINT STIPULATION FOR (i) PLAINTIFFS TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (ii) COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS COUNTS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN OF FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

11/12/2015; ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR (i) PLAINTIFFS TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (ii) COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS COUNTS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN OF FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

 

11/16/1015; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EVIDENCE 1FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EVIDENCE 2

11/27/2015; ANSWER OF COUNTER- DEFENDANTS BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., BENNION & DEVILLE HOMES SOCAL, INC., WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., AND ROBERT L. BENNION TO FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

12/4/2015; JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT

12/7/2015; ANSWER OF DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

12/7/2015; NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS—Local Rule 7.1-1 No Notice of Interested Parties

12/9/2015; ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SETTING PRE−TRIAL & TRIAL DATES [& DISCOVERY CUT-OFF]

12/14/2015; ANSWER OF COUNTER-DEFENDANT JOSEPH R. DEVILLE TO FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM (Download doc here.)

2/16/2016; JOINT REQUEST AND STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO ENTER A PROTECTIVE ORDER

2/17/2016; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE USE AND DISSEMINATION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS

 

4/27/2016; NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY

5/6/2016; MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSES

5/6/2016; JOINT STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSES

5/23/2016; SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSES [L.R.37-2.3]

5/26/2016; NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS

 

6/8/2016; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

7/1/2016; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY RE: COURT’S JUNE 8, 2016 ORDER

8/9/2016; JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

8/29/2016; PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW [L.R. 16-4]
8/29/2016; B&D PARTIES’ PROPOSED WITNESS LIST
8/29/2016; B&D PARTIES’ PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST
8/29/2016; DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF LAW AND FACT
8/29/2016; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S PROPOSED WITNESS LIST
8/29/2016; DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST

8/29/2016; NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS—B&D

8/29/2016; NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS—WSC

9/12/2016; [PROPOSED] FINAL PRETRIAL [BRIEF] CONFERENCE ORDER

9/19/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9/19/2016; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9/19/2016; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9/19/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/26/2016; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9/26/2016; DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
9/26/2016; PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND STATEMENTS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
9/26/2016; EXHIBITS

10/3/2016; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/3/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/3/2016; FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: TRIAL POSTPONED TO JANUARY 31, 2017

10/20/2016; ORDER GRANTING [WSC] DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/24/2016; PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/24/2016; DEC. OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/24/2016; DEC. OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/24/2016; DEC. OF ERIC FORSBERG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/24/2016; PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/24/2016; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/31/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/31/2016; [UNCONTROVERTED FACTS] DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/31/2016; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER-CLAIMANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/7/2016; REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/7/2016; OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11/7/2016; REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF GENUINE DISPUTES

 

11/21/2016: COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT
11/21/2016: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT
11/21/2016: DECLARATIONS OF DRAYNA, FEASBY, OSTER, TEATHER

11/21/2016: APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH, 1, 2, 3, 4

11/28/2016: MEMORANDUM OF BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., ROBERT L. BENNION, AND JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN OPPOSITION TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT
11/28/2016: DECLARATIONS OF ADAMS, DEVILLE, SUNDERLAND
11/28/2016: SUPPORTING EXHIBITS A, C, K
11/29/2016: OBJECTION TO DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL TEATHER AND PAUL S. DRAYNA FILED IN SUPPORT OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT [D.E. 72]

11/30/2016: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

 

12/5/2016; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT
12/5/2016; DECLARATIONS OF DRAYNA, OSTER, TEATHER
12/5/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF KEVIN ADAMS IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS
12/5/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

1/9/2017; CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL- JURY TRIAL RESET TO MAY 30, 2017

1/26/2017; ORDER DENYING WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY'S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

 

3/20/2017; PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT
3/20/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT; EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B

3/27/2017; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT
3/27/2017; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT
3/27/2017; DECLARATION OF DAVID E. HOLMES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT

4/3/2017; PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT

4/3/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE [#1] TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF BREACH BY SERVICES SOCAL NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION
4/3/2017; DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. “BOB” DEVILLE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF BREACH BY SERVICES SOCAL NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION
4/3/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE [#2] TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE CONCERNING LOANS TO PLAINTIFFS FROM THIRD PARTIES
4/3/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE CONCERNING LOANS TO PLAINTIFFS FROM THIRD DEFENDANT PARTIES
4/3/2017; B&D EVIDENCE LIMINE 2
4/3/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE [#3] TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF THE PERSONAL WEALTH OF PLAINTIFFS BENNION OR DEVILLE
4/3/2017; PLAINTIFFS’ AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS’ REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
4/3/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS ISO PLAINTIFFS’ AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
4/3/2017; PLAINTIFFS’ AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS’ REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
4/3/2017; B&D MOTION TO STRIKE EVIDENCE

4/10/2017; [#1] OPPOSITION TO THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF BREACH BY SERVICES SOCAL NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION

4/10/2017; [#2] OPPOSITION TO THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE CONCERNING LOANS TO PLAINTIFFS FROM THIRD PARTIES

4/10/2017; DECLARATION OF PAUL S. DRAYNA IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO COUNTER- DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF LOANS

4/10/2017; [#3] OPPOSITION TO THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF THE PERSONAL WEALTH OF PLAINTIFFS BENNION OR DEVILLE

4/10/2017; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER- PLAINTIFFS’ REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT

4/10/2017; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S OPPOSITIONS TO COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE REBUTTAL REPORT

 

4/17/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF BREACH BY SERVICES SOCAL NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION

4/17/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXHIBITS AND OTHER EVIDENCE CONCERNING LOANS TO PLAINTIFFS FROM THIRD PARTIES

4/17/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF THE PERSONAL WEALTH OF PLAINTIFFS BENNION OR DEVILLE

4/17/2017; PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS’ REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT

4/17/2017; [#4] THE B&D PARTIES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE AND ARGUING THAT B&D FINE HOMES WAS OBLIGATED TO TRANSFER DOMAINS AND EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES FOR OBTAINING DOMAIN NAMES; DEVILLE DECLARATION

4/17/2017; [#5] THE B&D PARTIES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF WORK PERFORMED ON THE SUNDBERG PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2013; DEVILLE DECLARATION; ADAMS DECLARATION

4/17/2017; [#6] THE B&D PARTIES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE WITHHELD ON GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE; ADAMS DECLARATION

4/17/2017; [#7] THE B&D PARTIES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM REFERING TO THE B&D PARTIES COLLECTIVELY; ADAMS DECLARATION

 

4/17/2017; [#1] DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL; MEMO IN SUPPORT; DRAYNA DECLARATION; FEASBY DECLARATION

4/17/2017; [#2] DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ REBUTTAL REPORT; MEMO IN SUPPORT; ROWLETT DECLARATION

4/17/2017; [#3] DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO DISMISSED CLAIMS; MEMO IN SUPPORT

4/17/2017; [#4] DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ITS OFFER TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS; MEMO IN SUPPORT

 

4/24/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WSC’S DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL

4/24/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WSC’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO RELATED DISMISSED CLAIMS

4/24/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WSC’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXLCUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ITS OFFER TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS

4/24/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WSC’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO DISMISSED CLAIMS
4/24/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WSC’S DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL
4/24/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WSC’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ITS OFFER TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS
4/24/2017; DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN OPPOSITION TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT
4/2017; D4/2ECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’'S OPPOSITION TO COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF WORK PERFORMED ON THE SUNDBERG REPORT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2013
4/24/2017; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’'S OPPOSITION TO COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE WITHHELD ON GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE
4/24/2017; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM REFERRING TO THE B&D PARTIES COLLECTIVELY
4/24/2017; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF WORK PERFORMED ON THE SUNDBERG REPORT PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2013
4/24/2017; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE WITHHELD ON GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE
4/24/2017; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ REBUTTAL REPORT
4/24/2017; PETER WROBEL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WSC’S DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL
4/24/2017; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE THAT B&D FINE HOMES WAS OBLIGATED TO TRANSFER DOMAINS AND EVIDENCE OF EXPRENSES FOR OBTAINING DOMAIN NAMES

5/1/2017; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL
5/1/2017; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ITS OFFER TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS
5/1/2017; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION IN LIMINE #7 TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM REFERING TO THE B&D PARTIES COLLECTIVELY
5/1/2017; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION IN LIMINE #4 TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE AND ARGUING THAT B&D FINE HOMES WAS OBLIGATED TO TRANSFER DOMAINS AND EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES FOR OBTAINING DOMAIN NAMES
5/1/2017; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION IN LIMINE #6 TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE WITHHELD ON GROUNDS OF PRIVILEGE
5/1/2017; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION IN LIMINE #5 TO PRECLUDE WSC FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF WORK PERFORMED ON THE SUNDBERG PRIOR TO OCTOBER 2013
5/1/2017; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL
5/1/2017; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT
5/1/2017; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ITS OFFER TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
5/1/2017; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE PORTIONS OF COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ REBUTTAL REPORT
5/1/2017; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO DISMISSED CLAIMS

5/8/2017; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DA VID E. HOLMES

5/22/2017; B&D PARTIES’ AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST
5/22/2017; B&D PARTIES’ AMENDED WITNESS  LIST

5/22/2017; WSC COUNSEL ADDED

5/23/2017; AMENDED NOTICE OF LODGING [PROPOSED] FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

5/23/2017; [PROPOSED] AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

5/24/2017; WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO THE B&D PARTIES’ AMENDED WITNESS LIST

5/25/2017; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS AND COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
5/25/2017; CIVIL MINUTES TRIAL RESET

5/26/2017; OBJECTIONS TO THE [PROPOSED] JOINT EXHIBIT LIST
5/26/2017; [PROPOSED] AMENDED JOINT EXHIBIT LIST
5/26/2017; THE B&D P ARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF OBJECTIONS TO THE B&D PARTIES’ AMENDED WITNESS LIST

5/26/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS ISO THE B&D PARTIES’OPPOSITION TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF THE OBJECTIONS TO THE B&D PARTIES AMENDED WITNESS LIST

5/31/2017; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANTS DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT

6/9/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S MAY 31, 2017 ORDER (DKT. NO. 138)
6/9/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S MAY 31, 2017 ORDER (DKT. NO. 138)
6/9/2017; EVIDENCE, A-D
6/9/2017; EVIDENCE, E-I

6/13/2017; ORDER GRANTING THE B&D PARTIES’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION [DKT. NO. 138]
6/13/2017; AMENDED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S DAUBERT MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT

 

7/10/2017; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GARY KRUGER FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
7/10/2017; DEFENDANT’S AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GARY KRUGER FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL

7/12/2017; NOTICE OF LODGING [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7/12/2017; STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7/17/2017; THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GARY KRUGER FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
7/17/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS ISO THE B&D PARTIES’ OPPOSITION TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GARY KRUGER FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
7/17/2017; OBJECTIONS TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GARY KRUGER FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL (Dkt. No. 142-1)

7/24/2017; CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7/24/2017; DEFENDANT’S AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GARY KRUGER FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL
7/24/2017; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE GARY KRUGER FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL

7/27/1027; (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER VACATING PENDING HEARING DATES

10/17/2017; CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

10/27/2017; JOINT STATUS REPORT [ADVANCED BY COURT TO 11/1/2017 @ 1 PM]

11/1/2017; CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL

 

1/10/2018; (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER: COUNSELING PARTIES TO CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/30/2018; AUDIO RECORDING ORDER

1/31/2018; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/31/2018; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/31/2018; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/31/2018; DECLARATION OF PAUL S. DRAYNA IN SUPPORT DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMARY JUDGMENT

1/31/2018; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMARY JUDGMENT

1/31/2018; PROPOSED ORDER

 

2/1/2018; JOINT STATUS REPORT

2/8/2018; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [D.E. 154]

2/8/2018; THE B&D PARTIES’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2/8/2018; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2/8/2018; DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN OPPOSITION TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

2/8/2018; NOTICE OF LODGING [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/8/2018; STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/26/2018; CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL. COURT WILL HEAR OUTSTANDING MOTIONS 4/3/2018 @ 10 A.M

 

3/21/2018; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
3/21/2018; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT [Document No. 157-2]

4/3/2018; CIViL MINUTES - GENERAL: [TRIAL SET FOR JULY 10, 2018 @ 8:30 A.M.]

4/11/2018; CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL [Ruling on motion]
4/11/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL [Rulings on motions]

4/19/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL: DEADLINES, EXHIBITS, CONDUCT AT TRIAL

4/26/2018; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINION OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL RE: NET VALUE
4/26/2018; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINION OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL RE: NET VALUE
4/26/2018; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINION OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL RE: NET VALUE
4/26/2018; NOTICE OF ERRATA RE: DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINION OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL RE: NET VALUE

 

5/9/2018; PLAINTIFF WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINION OF EXPERT PETER WROBEL RE: NET VALUE

5/16/2018; REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE OPINION OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT PETER WROBEL RE: NET VALUE

 

6/11/2018; DEFENDANT AND COUNTER CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE
6/11/2018; PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED VOIR DIRE SPECIAL QUESTIONS
DEFENDANT AND COUNTER CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S PROPOSED SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
DEFENDANT AND COUNTER CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED VERDICT FORMS
PROPOSED JOINT JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND OBJECTIONS
PROPOSED AMENDED JOINT JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND OBJECTIONS

6/15/2018; NOTICE OF LODGING [PROPOSED] SECOND AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERNC ; [PROPOSED] SECOND AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER
6/18/2018; CIVIL MINUTES FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

6/21/2018; CIVIL MINUTES PROCEEDINGS

6/22/2018; SECOND AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

6/27/2018; WSC TRIAL BRIEF

 

7/10/2018; [PROPOSED] SECOND AMENDED JOINT EXHIBIT LIST
7/10/2018; SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

7/11/2018; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE NEWLY DISCLOSED DAMAGES EVIDENCE

7/11/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – TRIAL; WITNESSES CALLED, SWORN, TESTIFIED; EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED & ADMITTED; CASE CONTINUED

7/12/2018; CIVIL MINUTES - TRIAL

7/13/2018; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENT THAT THE LAW REQUIRED IT TO SUBMIT THE AREA REPRESENTATIVE’S AUDITED FINANCIALS AS PART OF THE FRANCHISE REGISTRATION

7/15/2018; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT RELATED TO CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES
7/15/2018; DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT’'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE NEWLY DISCLOSED DAMAGES EVIDENCE

7/14/2018; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE DAMAGES EVIDENCE
7/14/2018; CIVIL MINUTES TRIAL

7/16/2018; CIVIL MINUTES - TRIAL
7/17/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL (MOTION GRANTED IN CHAMBERS)

7/17/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – TRIAL

7/17/2018; DEFENDANT AND COUNTER CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

7/18/2018; CIVIL MINUTES - TRIAL

7/18/2018; PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED SPECIAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

7/19/2018; CIVIL MINUTES - TRIAL

7/20/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – TRIAL

7/22/2018; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM ARGUING THAT WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.’S FAILURE TO SERVICE WINDERMERE HOMES AND ESTATES WAS A MATERIAL BREACH OF THE AREA REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT
7/22/2018; DEFENDANT AND COUNTER CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S OBJECTION TO B&D PARTIES’ PROPOSED SPECIAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 – MATERIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT REQUIRES DAMAGES AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED AMENDMENED INSTRUCTION
7/23/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – TRIAL (CLOSING STATEMENTS MADE)
7/24/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – TRIAL (JURY RETIRES TO DELIBERATE)
7/25/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – TRIAL (JURY RESUMES DELIBERATIONS)

7/26/2018; SPECIAL VERDICT

7/26/2018; RELEASE OF EXHIBITS

8/2/2018; CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL [TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE]
8/6/2018; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF LODGING [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
8/6/2018; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT [$2,122,409.86]

8/8/2018; PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

8/16/2018; JUDGMENT of $2,122,409.86 entered by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick, in favor of Windermere Real Estate Services Company against Bennion and Deville Fine Homes Inc, Bennion and Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc., Windermere Services Southern California Inc.

 

SHAMBAUGH, BENNION & DEVILLE, WINDERMERE COACHELLA, WINDERMERE SERVICES and JOSEPH R. DEVILLE SETTLE: Notice of Ruing & Entry of Judgment— “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Motion for Good Faith Determination filed by Moving Parties PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY and JOSEPH R DEVILLE ("SETTLING PARTIES") came on for hearing on January 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 07 of the above-reference court, located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California. Cheryl D. Davidson, Esq. appeared for SETTLING PARTIES. Gordon Bosserman, Esq (appearing telephonically) and Scott Spolin, Esq. appeared for Plaintiffs. Connie Anderson, Esq. appeared telephonically for David Alan Heslop and Diversification Resources. [¶] The Court, after considering the moving papers and the lack of opposition thereto, found that the proposed settlement was within the ball park of SETTLING PARTIES' proportionate share of liability and was reasonable and equitable pursuant to the terms of Tech-Bilt, Inc. vs. Woodward-Clyde and Associates (1989) 38 Cal.3d 488. The court found no evidence of collusion or conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling parties. The Court granted the Motion for Good Faith Settlement…”

Back to Top

©2005-2021 by WindermereWatch.com | If you have a question, comment or Windermere story, please email: windermerewatch@aol.com