CLICK BLUE TEXT LINKS TO

REPORTS & COURT CASES AS OF:

Do franchise fees buy WSC more offices to compete against its own franchisees?

WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY OWNERS OFFERED $13,500,000.00 FOR THE BENNION & DEVILLE COMPANIES JUST PRIOR TO B&D SUING WSC: READ THE 2015 EVIDENCE LETTERS OF INTENT TO PURCHASE B&D—Sent from a Jacobi Home Address—by JILL JACOBI WOOD, JOHN O. JACOBI, CATHERINE JACOBI, and MOLLY PITTS JACOBI...

...BUT WSC DOESN’T WANT THE TRIAL JURY TO KNOW: WSC's MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ITS OFFER TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS [BENNION & DEVILLE]

New Case
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-2-27937-4 SEA

WINDERMERE BUSINESS ETHICS: ANYTHING AT ALL, JUST GET THE MONEY...

Sandpoint Windermere Real Estate Company, a Jacobi-Owned Windermere Office, and its Managing Broker, Edward Krigsman (left), Sued for Negligent Misrepresentation and CPA Violation in Alleged False Marketing of $1.7M Home Represented as Remodel Design and Implementation by Famous Northwest Modernism Architect Ralph Anderson.

(DOWNLOAD THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE)

"1. This suit involves claims arising out of a real estate transaction involving the purchase and sale of a residential home and property located at 9752 Lake Shore Blvd., NE, Seattle, Washington ("9752 Lake Shore"). The home was advertised and marketed as an architecturally significant home with a major remodel conducted in or about 1972 and offered for sale at $1,700,000. The marketing efforts represented that the home remodel was designed and implemented by the famous architect Ralph Anderson ("Anderson"), a father of the school of architecture called Northwest Modernism, "in partnership" with the homeowner, Evert Sodergren. Anderson, now deceased, is nationally recognized and homes designed by him are prized and gamer higher prices. He was inducted as a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects; this honor is reserved for those who are nationally recognized for excellence in design and contributions to the architectural profession and society.

2. [Windermere Managing Broker] Defendant Edward Krigsman ("Defendant Krigsman" or "Krigsman"), on behalf of all Defendants, posted advertising on the Internet, and enlisted the support of DOCOMOMO WEW A, a non-profit dedicated to the preservation of Northwest Modernism and Anderson's legacy, to publicize the availability of 9752 Lake Shore as a home allegedly designed and remodeled with the active involvement of the licensed architect Anderson. Krigsman, on behalf of all Defendants, also caused the publication of an article in the Internet-based magazine Curbed Seattle which specializes in real estate issues.

3. The representations regarding Anderson's involvement in the alleged design and renovation which were made to the public, prospective buyers, and Plaintiffs by publication of a Facebook posting and website on the Internet and in the Curbed Seattle article on the Internet were false."

BENNION & DEVILLE v. WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY [WSC] TRIAL:

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.

(Jump to the complete case here) (Complete list of case documents here)

The Court decides B & D v WSC pre-trial motions in limine:

In its motion for partial summary judgment, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ damages analysis violates the ARA’s express language about how the Termination Obligation should be calculated. Defendant asks this Court to find therefore, as a matter of law, ... GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #1: Plaintiffs move to prohibit Defendant from introducing evidence that it terminated the Area Representation Agreement (“ARA”) with Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. (“WS SoCal”) for any reason other than the grounds in Defendant’s February 26, 2015 termination letter—i.e., that WS SoCal failed to collect fees from licensees ... DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #2: Plaintiffs seek to exclude evidence relating to loans issued to Robert Bennion and Joseph Deville by entities owned by Defendant’s owners or principals. Dkt. 86. Defendant argues that this evidence is relevant because (1) the loans give context to the relationship between the parties and (2) renegotiation of one of these loans bears on a “central issue” in this case. ... DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #3: Plaintiffs ask that Defendant be prohibited from introducing evidence of Bennion or Deville’s wealth. Dkt. 87. Defendant concedes that references to their “net worth” are irrelevant, but argues that evidence of “the millions of dollars in wages and personal expenditures . . . extracted from their related entities” should not be excluded ... GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #4: Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendant from introducing evidence regarding B&D Fine Homes’s obligation under its franchise agreement to “transfer . . . the Windermere mark” on terminating its franchise agreement, and evidence of expenses associated with retrieving certain domain names. ... GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #5: Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendant from introducing evidence of “work that was performed on the Sundberg Report” before October 2013. ... DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #6: Plaintiffs seek to preclude Defendant from introducing evidence about why Defendant did not respond to three e-mailed requests for updates about the Windermere Watch efforts. ... DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ motion in limine #7: Plaintiffs seek to prohibit Defendant from referring to B&D Fine Homes, B&D SoCal, and WS SoCal “collectively.” Dkt. 102. Plaintiffs cite Defendant’s expert’s report, which states that “B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal were struggling financially,” and then states that the “Bennion & Deville Entities” (which included WS SoCal) “were paying millions of dollars of personal, non-business expenditures.” Id. at 3 (citing report). ... DENIED.

Defendant’s motion in limine #2: Defendant moves to exclude portions of Plaintiffs’ rebuttal expert, Marvin Storm’s, report as beyond the scope of a “rebuttal.” Dkt. 104-1. After the hearing, Plaintiffs informed the Court that they do not intend to call Storm as a witness. ... DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant’s motion in limine #3: Defendant seeks to prohibit Plaintiffs from admitting 23 annual Financial Disclosure Documents (“FDDs”) for years other than 2014. GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Defendant’s motion in limine #4: Defendant seeks to preclude Plaintiffs from offering evidence regarding an offer made by Defendant’s principals to purchase Plaintiffs for about $13 million in mid-2015, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ proposed exhibits 249 and 250. ... GRANTED.

Defendant’s motion in limine #5: Defendant moves to prevent Plaintiffs from calling ... creator and operator of WindermereWatch, as a witness at trial. ... GRANTED.

“...WSC [Windermere Services Company] had sunk to a new low.”

“...While TouchCMA proved to be a contentious topic between Windermere representatives in Southern California and WSC, WSC's sale and offering of this product to non-Windermere brokerages was not known to be an issue for some time.

...this technology was now being used in direct competition with our agents and brokers in Southern California.

...he immediately began negotiating the sale of WSC's technology to competitors within our same geographic region. I also learned from Mr. Baur's deposition that Windermere Solutions used the same pool of funds paid by franchisees to develop and support TouchCMA that it is now selling to competitors.

...It had been apparent for some time that WSC was more concerned about its bottom line than its owners and agents; however, when I learned of this direct competition with the owners and agents, I was astounded. WSC had sunk to a new low.

...While we have not been able to quantify the harm that we suffered as a result of WSC's sales to our direct competitors of the same technology that was supposed to set us apart from the competition, this was a high consideration of mine when deciding to stop paying franchise fees to WSC and to leave the Windermere system early.”

Windermere ReaL Estate: Where the franchise fees pay for lawyers...

BENNION & DEVILLE v. WSC FRANCHISE FIGHT—1/10/2018 ORDER COUNSELING PARTIES TO CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Jump to the complete case here) (Complete list of case documents here)

The Court Decides Motions In Limine:

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DA VID E. HOLMES: "Holmes’s proposed testimony will assist the fact finder by providing a background to these types of arrangements as well as giving the fact finder a baseline understanding of conduct commonly accepted in the industry. Holmes will not be permitted to testify as to his opinion of whether a party breached or whether the Area Representation Agreement was terminated for cause."

WINDERMERE FRANCHISEE DENIED INSURANCE ALLEGED: “...insurance carrier Lloyd's of London had recently refused to insure a franchisee in Plaintiffs' region after discovering the Windermere Watch websites on the internet...” and "...Plaintiffs' competitors in Southern California were using elaborate PowerPoint presentations - based entirely upon information the competitors obtained from the Windermere Watch websites..."

WINDERMERE'S CRASHING PR IMAGE, DISAPPEARING BRAND SUPPORT and FRANCHISE VALUE DECLINE...

As Attorney Fees Near One Million Dollars, and Millions More in Trial Costs and Damages Loom, Are Windermere Franchisees and Their Agents Footing the Bill for BENNION & DEVILLE v. WSC ?

MAJOR CASE UPDATE: ORDER DENYING WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY'S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT [AGAINST BENNION & DEVILLE]:

“WSC seeks attachment of $1,777,323.76… Cross-Claimant [WSC] has not met its burden to prove that its claims for breach of contract are more likely to obtain a judgment than not…

In its reply, WSC argues that the B&D Parties failed to produce any admissible evidence regarding what constitutes "commercially reasonable efforts." However, the evidence shows that WSC took no action to address the Windermere Watch concerns…

WSC's Vice-President, Michael Teather, testified that he could not think of a single action that WSC took to combat Windermere Watch after entering the Modification Agreement…

...it is apparent based solely on the deposition testimony of WSC's own employees and officers that it did not make a "commercially reasonable effort" to combat Windermere Watch.”

Download the complete Denial Order here

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO: 17-2-01561-0 SEA
(Download the complete Complaint here)

Windermere Managing Broker Julie Beall (left) and Windermere Real Estate Company, Sued for Negligent Misrepresentation in Case Alleging Undisclosed Permitting Status, and that Defendants:

“…had a duty to disclose to plaintiffs Sarah and Ethan Schaffer that the Schaffer Property was not built as permitted by the City of Seattle and does not legally contain three (3) separate living spaces with a kitchen in each areas as marketed,” and; “At all times relevant to the purchase of the Schaffer Property, the two brokers, Julie Beall and David Asplund, represented to the Schaffers that the property had three (3) separate living spaces with a kitchen in each area; and that the three living spaces were permitted for occupancy.”

PREDATORY BUSINESS ETHICS & TACTICS: IT'S NOT JUST WELLS FARGO and VOLKSWAGEN.

DO REALTY FRANCHISE OPERATORS WINK-FOR-PAY AT ADJUDICATED UNETHICAL MISCONDUCT? AND WHAT SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL REALTY DOESN’T TELL CONSUMERS:

Aaron Shriner, Managing Broker of the Defunct, Family-Owned, Million-Dollar Judgment Losing Windermere Redmond SCA, has switched to operating a Sotheby's franchise. But what about the public’s right to know the record? Or that as of this 1/9/2016 report, Shriner has not even an active Washington real estate license.

Download the $1,030,427 judgment against the Shriner Family's

Windermere Redmond SCA & Paul Stickney here.

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. 16-2-04897-8 SEA:

CASE UPDATE: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Consumer Protection Act Claim GRANTED

Former Windermere Redmond SCA Managing Broker Aaron Shriner (left), Now Owner-Operating Main Street Brokerage Under the Realogic’s Marketplace Sotheby’s International Realty Brand; and Sotheby’s Broker Erin Harold (also left), Sued for Negligent Misrepresentation, Violation of RCW 18.86.030, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, in Case Alleging Non-Disclosure of Commercial Property’s Use & Permitting Status.

Shriners present Co-Defendant, Broker Erin Harold (left, center), a Marketplace Sotheby's TOP 10% award: HE JUST DIDN'T KNOW—Aaron Shriner says in Declaration, “At no time did Erin Harold disclose to Marketplace Sotheby’s, its owners or managers any information related to her activities regarding the sale of her business interest or leasehold interest in 3000 Market Street in Seattle, Washington”.

(Second image from left) Co-Defendant Harold also thanked Mom & Dad Shriner, former Windermere Redmond SCA owners and million-dollar judgment defendants, “...for everything you do for all of us at MSIR.” Mom & Dad Shriner forced the unsuspecting plaintiffs in their case through 7 years litigation with Windermere lawyers—all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court—and made them spend $463,427 on attorney fees before finally prevailing, but their lives will never be the same.

FOLLOW THE CASE DOCS ON DEMAND:

Download the full Complaint here
Download the Marketplace Sotheby’s International Realty Answer here

Aaron Shriner Declaration

Summary Judgment Motion DENIED on certain claims

Order GRANTING in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Consumer Protection Act Claim
[Defendants’] Motion to DISMISS RCW 18.86.030 Claim Pursuant to CR12

Notice of Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel; Defendant

Main Street Marketplace Sotheby's Review—Consumers have a right to know the Shriner family’s Windermere Real Estate record before enlisting their Sotheby’s brokerage:

CASE #1: Shriners' Windermere SCA Redmond was proud home to certified Windermere swindler, Paul Stickney (left), officially adjudged by Washington courts (Click to the Court's Opinion here) as having a conflict of interest and failing to disclose it to his Windermere SCA clients. Download the $1,030,427.00 judgment against Windermere Real Estate SCA and Paul Stickney here.

CASE #2: Windermere Chairman John W. Jacobi's Washington Loan Company, Windermere Real Estate SCA Redmond and agent Christopher Judd, sued for Intentional Misrepresentation and other claims in alleged "...unlawful scheme to enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiffs and others..." Click to the full Complaint in the case here.

LATEST COURT DOCS IN BENNION & DEVILLE v. WSC FRANCHISE FIGHT

(Jump to the complete case here)

BENNION & DEVILLE SELLING TO BETTER HOMES and GARDENS?

WSC CO-PRESIDENT MICHAEL TEATHER STATES IN REPLY DECLARATION: “...I have been told that Messrs. Bennion and Deville have been trying for some time to sell their real estate companies, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. and Bennion and Deville Fines Homes SoCal, Inc. I was also recently told that Messrs. Bennion and Deville had a deal to sell those companies to a competitor, Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate, and that a potential sale may be closing on or about February 1, 2017.”

Judge Makes Partial Summary Judgment Ruling:

11/30/2016: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

“...Counter-Plaintiff Windermere Real Estate Services Company ("WSC") abandons this claim as to Services SoCal. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favor of Services SoCal on the fourth cause of action in the F ACC...

...Accordingly, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted as to Counter-Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract based on an alleged failure to provide prompt, courteous, and efficient service as well as any failure to deal fairly and honestly...

...Counter-defendant's objections to the admission of the registration evidence is unpersuasive. The registration documents presented by WSC are publicly available government records. As such they are easily authenticated, their accuracy is not reasonably questioned, and they may be relied upon by this Court. Thus, summary judgment is denied on Counter-Plaintiff's trademark violations and misuse claims against Services SoCal and B&D SoCal.”

WSC Loses Motion for Right to Attach Bennion & Deville:

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 [AGAINST BENNION & DEVILLE]

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

11/28/2016: 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

11/29/2016: 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

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

Despite Yet More Franchise Defections, Prevaricating Paul Drayna (left) Claims Settlement Judge Charles Mertel "...frankly, agreed with our assessment that he [WindermereWatch Publisher] was, if not clinically mentally ill, certainly unstable," in Videotaped Deposition

Absolutely Anything For A Buck...

Windermere Involved In Yet Another Methamphetamine Lab:

SUPERIOR COURT KITSAP COUNTY WA — NO. 15-2-01226-8
(Download the complete Complaint here)

West Sound Property Management, dba Windermere Property Management / West Sound (Owner Tori Dotson and Agent Bobbi Neal, left), Sued for Intentional or Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Violation of Consumer Protection Act, in Complaint Alleging “...Windermere did not share the Background Screening Report with the Hoffmans, nor did it ever provide the Hoffmans with any additional information about the Tenants' credit history or amend Ms. Neal's characterization of the Tenants' "slight credit issues," and;

“...Windermere's website promises "worry-free, full service management," to its customers, including annual inspections and quarterly drive-by inspection reports. It also represents that "[t]o protect your investment and ensure your property will be well maintained," it will obtain "credit and criminal records, rental or ownership history and personal references," as well as employment history, prior to accepting a tenant.

...Windermere agent Bobbi Neal represented to the Hoffmans that the Tenants had some "slight credit issues that are keeping their score just a hair to [sic] low" to qualify for a mortgage...

...a company called Alliance 2020 generated a Background Screening Report at Windermere's request. That Background Screening Report included a credit summary showing that Bre' Ann Simms had fifteen different accounts sent for collection (the majority of which were still unpaid), and a credit score of 498. Joshua Parmelee also had an account sent for collection. ...Tenants also had criminal histories...

...Subsequently, testing revealed high levels of methamphetamine residue... On July 14, the Kitsap County Health District ordered that the Property not be occupied and that Plaintiffs engage a decontamination contractor to clean up the property within 45 days

Stipulated order of dismissal was filed on 6/20/2016; remaining case removed to federal court.

READ ANOTHER WINDERMERE METH LAB CASE:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II—NO. 35740-2-II: Windermere Real Estate Agent Lance Miller's (left) Deliberate Non-Disclosure of Home's Prior Pot Farm and Meth Production Site.

Former Windermere Franchisees Suing Franchisor Windermere Services Company:

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—Case No. 5:15-cv-01921-R-KK

On Producing Documentary Evidence, Franchisor Windermere Services Company Tells Plaintiffs and the Court...

"...OTHERS [EMAILS] REMAINED INACCESSIBLE."

CRUCIAL CASE UPDATE—After Months of Defendant Delay, Bennion and Deville Bring Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses from Defendant, Counter-Claimant, Franchisor Windermere Services Company (WSC):

“Plaintiffs have attempted to work in good faith with WSC for 4 months to obtain responsive documents. Despite these consistent efforts WSC has not produced the documents it stated would be produced. Most notably, WSC's production does not include emails from key custodians such as Senior Vice President of Client Services Michael Teather and WSC's General Counsel, Paul Drayna.” — Joint Stipulation Re: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses

"WSC ran into problems with its attorneys' ability to access the emails that had been put on the VPN site. This required WSC to work extensively with Microsoft to resolve the issue. While the issue was resolved with regard to the majority of the email files, others remained inaccessible. Christenson Decl., ¶ 9. WSC has since found a workaround such that all of the emails can be reviewed and produced if responsive. Feasby Decl., ¶ 8."

Read Supporting Declarations by: Plaintiff Attorneys Kevin A. Adams and Jame M. Mulcahy; Defendant Attorneys Jeffrey A. Feasby, and Windermere Services General Counsel, Paul Drayna; and Windermere Services IT Provider, Moxi Works Windows Administrator, Josh Christensen.

UPDATE — ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL: “Additionally, Defendant [WSC] is ordered to provide declarations or affidavits detailing the extent of its efforts to comply with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. And if Defendant claims that its discovery obligations are complete, the declaration or affidavit shall additionally state so.”

SINGLE LARGEST WINDERMERE FRANCHISEE DUMPS THE WINDERMERE BRAND and SUES FRANCHISOR:

“I respectfully mention again we feel this is a responsibility of the Franchisor to protect its brand and the brand we are selling ... Deville continued by identifying specific instances in which several franchisees in the Southern California region were prevented from hiring new agents because of Windermere Watch.”

Windermere SoCal / Bennnion & Deville Quit Windermere; 29 California Offices, 1,200+ Agents Become "bennion deville HOMES" Independent Brand

STUNNING ALLEGATIONS

Windermere SoCal / Bennion & Deville Sue Franchisor Windermere Services Company for

"...an utter disregard for California's franchise laws violating both the California Franchise Relations Act and the California Franchise Investment Laws," and because "...WSC has failed to make any material effort to combat Windermere Watch.

RECENT CASE UPDATE: THE COMPLETE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES IN PART: “...While neither Bennion nor Deville were involved in the solicitation, negotiation, or sale of these new franchises, Drayna still directed Deville to sign each of the agreements on behalf of Services SoCal. Again, these offers and sales constitute the unlawful sale of an unregistered franchise under the CFIL. Drayna's continued efforts to cover up WSC's failure to register the Southern California FDD in 2014 represents separate breaches of the Area Representative Agreement.”

FROM THE ANSWER OF COUNTER-DEFENDANT JOSEPH R. DEVILLE TO FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM: "Deville denies the allegations that "Bennion and Deville approached WSC explaining that they were in such financial distress they were in imminent danger of insolvency..."

PARTIES STIPULATE TO PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS & MATERIALS

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—Case No. 5:15-cv-01921-R-KK

(Transferred to U.S. District Court Central District, Eastern Division)

TRIAL DATE SET FOR OCTOBER 18, 2016, AT 9:00 A.M.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT HERE

DOWNLOAD FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EVIDENCE 1 HERE

DOWNLOAD FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EVIDENCE 2 HERE

Franchisor Windermere Real Estate Services Company (WSC) Sued by Former Multi-Windermere-Franchisee Bennion & Deville Fine Homes and Windermere Services Southern California, on Three Breach of Contract Claims, also Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Violation of the California Franchise Relations Action (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 20020), in a Forty-Seven-Page First Amended Complaint, Alleging in Part:

"The Windermere Watch anti-marketing campaign has had a very significant and monetarily damaging effect on Plaintiffs...” and "...insurance carrier Lloyd's of London had recently refused to insure a franchisee in Plaintiffs' region after discovering the Windermere Watch websites on the internet," and "By June 2013, Windermere Watch had severely impacted Plaintiffs' ability to function in Southern California. They were losing listings, clients, and agents on a regular basis."

"By July 2013, Plaintiffs' competitors in Southern California were using elaborate PowerPoint presentations - based entirely upon information the competitors obtained from the Windermere Watch websites and mailings - with both clients and agents painting Windermere as an untrustworthy real estate firm."

"As reflected below, representatives of WSC - most notably, WSC's General Counsel Drayna - attempted to cover up WSC's failure to maintain the registration of the 2013 Southern California FDD in breach of the Area Representation Agreement by instructing Plaintiffs to offer prospective franchisees the wrong FDD. This blatant violation of the CFIL was not apparent to Plaintiffs who are not attorneys and relied entirely upon Drayna for support and guidance with respect to any legal issues involving the Windermere FDD."

"Drayna was not the only representative of WSC directing Plaintiffs to unknowingly violate the franchise laws. As is reflected in an email dated June 21, 2013, Drayna included WSC's President, Geoff Wood, in an email instructing Plaintiffs that the Southern California FDD was mailed to the State of California "last week," and [i]n the mean time (sic) you may proceed with the Northern California [FDD] as we discussed." A true and accurate copy of Drayna's June 21, 2013 email is attached hereto as Exhibit O. Wood - the President of a large national-wide franchisor - did nothing to correct the misleading direction of Drayna or stop Plaintiffs' from offering the Northern California FDD to Southern California prospects in violation of the CFIL," and...

"In spring 2014, [WSC Senior Vice President Michael] Teather traveled to Southern California to meet with Deville about the region and to discuss WSC's new strategy intended to "bring on" as many franchisees as possible, and if/when they failed, resell the territory to a new franchisee."

"Notwithstanding the importance of this service by WSC, the technology provided by WSC was underwhelming at best, and more recently had become unusable and irrelevant... 144. Examples of the recent shortcomings of WSC's technology includes the following: a. Properties listed by the Windermere Southern California agents often did not properly display (if at all) on WSC's websites; b. WSC's technology team was inexperienced at best, often causing numerous unnecessary delays to the posting and visibility of Southern California real estate listings; c. Repeated listing syndication problems for agents' listings on third-party websites, often resulting in extended disruption in the syndication (i.e., publishing) of the listings of Bennion and Deville's agents; and d. WSC removed entirely the listings and/or pictures of real estate listing belonging to numerous Southern California agents resulting in lost clients and, ultimately, the loss of agents.

...By the end of 20l3, virtually all of Windermere's competitors had incorporated information from Windermere Watch into their sales pitches to both agents and clients."

FOLLOW THE CASE DOCS ON DEMAND:

9/17/2015; INITIAL COMPLAINT—EVIDENCE 1—EVIDENCE 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 COMPLAINT—FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EVIDENCE 1—FIRST 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.

PERTINENT SIDEBARS: LEGACY OF WINDERMERE'S UNETHICAL and PREDATORY FRANCHISING PRACTICES:

A WINDERMERE FRANCHISE OWNER'S ULTRA-NIGHTMARE: "...Jacobi decided to open another Windermere office in the territory in which WPCR was operating..."

"On September 14, 2010, Maxwell heard from a real estate agent working at WPCR that the agent had received an email from WSC [franchiser Windermere Services Co.] notifying him WPCR's franchise had been terminated. This notice was sent to WPCR's real estate agents before Maxwell learned of the termination of WPCR's franchise." (Current WSC president, John OB Jacobi, and his Windermere founder daddy, John W. Jacobi, left.)

LIAR, BULLY, COWARD and CROOK—SUING WINDERMERE VICTIMS WHO TELL THE TRUTH, THEN RUNNING AWAY: Lying to judges and deliberately filing false documents in their courts. Violating defendant civil rights and coercing illegal, unjust settlement agreements with intimidating emails, excessive legal expense and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Voluntarily dismissing his false and process-abusive lawsuits on the eve of trial. He'll even try subverting a previously demanded, paid jury proceeding through surreptitiously ordering a bench trial in an unrelated motion. Is Windermere general counsel, legal process cheat, craven Jacobi yes-man and lying crook, Paul Stephen Drayna (left), the nation's most shameless and unscrupulous corporate attorney?

Why Windermere agents quit Windermere: Is a WIndermere desk worth it anymore?

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ORANGE COUNTY—No. 30-2013-00663429-CU-FR-CJC

Former Windermere agent sues Windermere Brea franchise owners James and Andrea Marquez, for Fraud, Conversion, and Negligence, seeking unpaid commissions owed of $22,938.75, in Complaint alleging: "Defendants instructed Plaintiff to commit perjury when he testified," and "...alleges that Defendants falsified a document signed by Seller..."

SUPERIOR COURT WASHINGTON, SPOKANE COUNTY—Cause No. 15203564-3

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE COMPLAINT HERE

Windermere Agent Don Hay and, Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Statutory Washington Real Estate Law, in Complaint Alleging “...Hay's many failures as alleged above, including but not limited to, his failure to verify that the repairs were safely completed, his failure to provide the radon results or advise Plaintiffs to seek the expertise of another, breached the duty as a broker and a buyer's agent." and;

6.2 Defendant Hay, acting as an agent on behalf of Windermere Real Estate, owed Plaintiffs the non-waivable duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, to deal honestly and in good faith, and to disclose all existing material facts known by the broker or agent and not apparent or readily ascertainable to a party. RCW 18.86.030.

Pertinent Windermere Spokane Valley Sidebar:

After Nearly 7 Years Producing Commissions for Windermere Services and Windermere Spokane Valley Owner Cate Moye, Convicted Robbery Felon and Shotgun-Shootout Windermere Agent, Nicholas Granly, Mysteriously Disappeared from the Windermere Roster—just as Owner Moye is Nominated for Vice Chair of Washington’s Real Estate Commission.

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, KING COUNTY—NO. 15-2-17975-6 KNT
(Download the Complaint here.)

James & Tyra Wong; Windermere Agent Lisa Lam (left) & Gordon Lam; Windermere Broker Marcie Maxwell (2nd from left); Windermere Renton (Owner Jason Moore, left) Sued for Allegations of Fraud & Deception, Fraudulent Concealment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, in Home Flipper Construction Nondisclosure Case.

MAXWELL SUED AGAIN: READ ANOTHER MARCIE MAXWELL ALLEGED NONDISLlOSURE CASE NEXT: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 98-2-17607-5

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, KITSAP COUNTY—NO. 15-2-00369-2

(Download the Complaint here.)

CASE UPDATE: 02/01/16 ORDER OF DISMISSAL – STIPULATED; “...each and every portion thereof has been fully settled...”

Windermere Bainbridge Island (owner Carter Dotson, left) and Agents Diane Sugden and Jan Johnson, Sued by Muscular Dystrophy Victim for Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, in Arsenic Contaminated Water Well Non-Disclosure Case, Alleging:

“For a number of years, Ms. Engle was well aware of the fact that the well and water on the Premises was contaminated with arsenic. Over the years, she took action to attempt to ameliorate the negative repercussions of the arsenic contaminated well and water. She installed an arsenic filter and had a significant amount of work performed on the well to deal with the arsenic contamination.

Ms. Engle notified her real estate broker, Jan Johnson, of the arsenic issues prior to the Premises being sold. Ms. Engle shared with Ms. Johnson and Ms. Sugden her understanding of the arsenic problem at the Premises.

Neither Mrs. Engle, Mrs. Sugden, nor Ms. Johnson ever disclosed the arsenic problem...”

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

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

(Download the complete Answer here.)

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

Pertinent Sidebar: Another Windermere Bainbridge Island Case:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA—NO. CV-05401: Windermere Real Estate Bainbridge Island and Associate Broker Debbie Nitsche (left) Sued for Copyright Infringement, Violation of the Lanham Act, and Unfair Competition:

Windermere franchise owner twice builds allegedly defective multi-home developments, then sells the homes to unsuspecting buyers who are forced to sue:

CASE #1: SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, FOR PIERCE COUNTY—CASE NO. 14-2-08793-0

(Download the Complaint here)

(Download the Motion to Compel Discovery here)

Valley Haven Home Owners file MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY from Windermere Auburn-Lakeland Hills, Bonney Lake, Lake Tapps Owner Tom Tollen, and his Highmark Homes brand, in construction defects case. Plaintiffs want Tollen/Highmark to identify “...each home that has an associated "Warranty of Construction Completion" (a document Defendant Highmark signed on behalf of each purchaser who has an FHA insured loan)” and;

“As Highmark is aware, for every home where the mortgage is FHA insured (more than 17 of the 29) Highmark was presented with a one page FHA document it must sign. The document is entitled "Warranty of Construction Completion” and provides written assurances in the body of the document that the homes Highmark constructed are free from defective construction or materials," and;

“...it shouldn't take 8 or 6 months and it shouldn't take a Court Order to get Highmark to respond."

THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT STATES: "37. Defendant Tom Tollen is a licensed Real Estate Agent. 38. Defendant Tom Tollen is a licensed Real Estate Broker. 39. Defendant Tom Tollen acted as Broker on behalf of Highmark for the purchase and / or the sale of the Valley Haven homes constructed by Defendant Highmark. 40. Defendant Tom Tollen acted as Broker on behalf of one or more named Plaintiffs pertaining to his/her or their purchase of a Highmark constructed home located within Valley Haven community development, located in Fife Washington." JUMP TO THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE

CASE #2: SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, SNOHOMISH COUNTY—CASE NO. 13-2-07751-3

(Download the First Amended Complaint here)

Lambert Creek Condominium Association, and 32 Lambert Creek Resident Homeowners, sue Windermere Auburn-Lakeland Hills, Bonney Lake, Lake Tapps Owner Tom Tollen, and his Highmark Homes brand; SDE Holdings; First Savings Bank Northwest; plus other coporate entitities and individual defendants, for Breach of Warranty, Violation of the Washington Condominium Act, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Misrepresentation, and Breach of Contract, in condo construction defects action alleging:

“Defendants were required to deliver to the Association copies of Certificates of Occupancies or the equivalent for each home constructed and sold. Defendants failed to provide the information and documentation identified herein and the Plaintiff is harmed thereby in an amount to be proven at time of trial,” and;

“Defendants violated their fiduciary duty, in part, by failing to ensure the construction of the homes complied with applicable standards, including ensuring each is in receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy or other indication the homes are adequately inspected and habitable prior to their occupancy.” JUMP TO THE FULL FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT HERE

PERTINENT SIDEBAR: "We don't date, you don't have a job!

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE—CASE NO. 08-2-13824-6: Windermere Real Estate Auburn, Inc., sued by employee for Constructive Discharge, Hostile Work Environment, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Civil Conspiracy in Pierce County, Washington, Complaint. Owner of Windermere Real Estate Auburn and Windermere Real Estate Lake Tapps, Thomas Tollen, sued for Civil Assault and Battery, Trespass, Invasion of Right to Privacy, Civil Stalking and other charges—Pleads guilty to related criminal counts.

Visit Highmark Homes Victims’ Website:

KNOW BEFORE YOU BUY. Knowledge is power. But Windermere franchise owners Tom Tollen (Thomas Tollen) and Tiffinie Clark-Tollen, owners of Highmark Homes LLC, don’t want YOU to know how poorly this business is run. Visit highmarkcomplaints.com, a website created by current and former customers of Highmark Homes to help prospective home buyers make informed decisions. These customers purchased homes in Highmark’s developed communities around Puget Sound, WA: "Highmark Homes, LLC has a bad reputation. Don’t be a victim of fraudulent advertising. Before purchasing a new home from Highmark Homes LLC (based in Tukwila, WA), read the bad reviews, poor BBB ratings, and complaints from current and past customers."

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

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

(Download the complete Amended Opinion here.)

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

Prior Defendants Do Business "The Windermere Way," Under New Name at New Location: Kalafatich and Robinson Reappear at Windermere Gig Harbor Builder’s Choice

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF PIERCE—CASE NO. 09 2 08671 6

(Download Complaint here.)

Windermere Agent Maria Kalafatich, Sued for Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud and Fraudulent Concealment, Rescission, Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Professional Negligence and Violation of RCW 18.86.030; and Former Windermere Professional Partners Owner Michael Robinson, Sued for Vicarious Liability Under RCW 18.85.155 as Liable for the Tortius Conduct of Defendant Kalafatich. Allegations Complained of Include:

“...KALAFATICH was a licensed real estate salesperson... employed by broker PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS LLC as a real estate agent.

KALAFATICH availed herself of certain real estate services from defendant PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS-LLC d.b.a. WINDERMERE/ PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS to facilitate the sale of the residence... The Form 17 disclosure provided by KALAFATICH to Plaintiffs is inaccurate in that there are serious and systemic defects in the Project common elements...

...KALAFATICH knew of the intrusive investigation and concealed defective conditions in the Project common elements and limited common elements. KALAFATICH negligently or intentionally did not update her Form 17 disclosure, or otherwise communicate this knowledge to Plaintiffs.”

CASE SIDEBAR: More Windermere Defendant Owner Parties in Kalafatich-Pro Partners Action Go Bankrupt...

BK Petitions of Windermere Real Estate Commencement Associates Owners Dick Beeson and David Sinding: Total Assets of (left) Richard E. Beeson—aka Dick Beeson—and Robin L. Beeson, $556,426.00; Total Liabilities, $2,795,696.00. Download the Beeson Bankruptcy Petition here. Petition States Beeson is Currently a Real Estate Broker at RE/MAX Professionals, Tacoma. Total Assets of (2nd from left) David C. Sinding, $482,600.00; Total Liabilities, $1,952,497.00. Download the Sinding Bankruptcy Petition here.

“...the other buyer had higher potential to provide defendants with future business...”

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY— Case No.: 15-2-01977-5 SEA
(Download the full Complaint here)

Windermere Capitol Hill Agents Dustin Van Wyck and Ian Porter (at left, respectively), and Windermere Capitol Hill (owner/broker Patrick Grimm, third from left) sued by SolTerra Cities for Negligent Misrepresentation, Intentional Misrepresentation, Violation of RWC 18.86.030, Consumer Protection Act Violations, and Interference with Business Expectancy, when after Solterra invested $18,450 in site development, feasibility, architectural plans, and building floor plans, Van Wyck and Porter allegedly “...advised plaintiff they were advising ID Investments, LLC to sell the Property to another buyer. The stated reason was that the other buyer had higher potential to provide defendants with future business than could be expected from plaintiff.”

Windermere Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint:

'... Deny that Dustin Van Wyck was at all material times "acting in the course and scope of his employment with Windermere Real Estate/Capitol Hill". and, "...Deny that Ian Porter was at all material times "acting in the course and scope of his employment with Windermere Real Estate/Capitol Hill".'

FOLLOW THE CASE DOCS ON DEMAND:

1/23/2015, Initial Complaint filed

2/2/2015, Demco's Lars E. Neste and Jennifer L. Johnson appear for Dustin Van Wyck, Ian Porter & Windermere Capitol Hill

7/9/2015, Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Complaint

WINDERMERE OWNER DEMANDS AGENTS PAY EVEN WHEN THEY SELL NO HOMES...

"It's time for the MLS grievance committee to take action and stop her from stealing commissions from agents."

Current John L. Scott managing broker and former agent at Windermere Real Estate North in Lynnwood says owner Lena Maul (left) “...cheats her agents out of commissions...” and "...breaks all the rules. If an agent leaves her office, she escalates the threshold amount and expects the agent to write her a check for the balance. That's even if they haven't earned enough commissions to pay it.”

I have been a real estate agent for over 35 years. In May of 2013, my daughter came into the business. We were to work together as a team and eventually she would take over my business. Since moving to the Pacific Northwest in 2005 I had worked at a John L. Scott office.

Lena Maul of Windermere Real Estate North, in Lynnwood, WA, spent months trying to hire me away from the John L. Scott office. When she learned I had brought my daughter into the business, she gave us a song and dance promise that she could help us build a successful team. We moved to her Windermere office in November, 2013. Nothing she told us was true. We got no special assistance for team building, and, in fact, the opposite was true. The working conditions and lack of support were so bad, my daughter checked out completely. By June, 2014, I announced to Lena Maul that we were disappointed and would be leaving her office. We returned to my original John L. Scott office immediately. Our total time at her office was 7 months. Those were the worse 7 months of my real estate career.

My main complaint is that Lena Maul, as a franchise owner, cheats her agents out of commissions. All agencies have their agents sign a contract that they will pay a portion of their commissions back to the agency. The threshold amounts vary, and the payments usually run at 50-50 until the threshold is met. Once the threshold amount is met, the agent then gets 100% of the commissions, less incidental charges by the office.

Lena Maul breaks all the rules. If an agent leaves her office, she escalates the threshold amount and expects the agent to write her a check for the balance. That's even if they haven't earned enough commissions to pay it. She ignores the contract provision of 50-50 commission split, and demands a balloon payment of the difference between the threshold amount and the amount earned and paid to date. No other broker in the industry does that. This is totally unethical and she has burned many bridges with agents in our real estate community. Since I left the Windermere office (now 6 months ago), there have been 4 other agents call me who experienced the same unethical practices with Lena Maul. We have banded together and hired an attorney who supports our quest to get the commissions from her that we earned.

"New agents, who do not yet have a book of business, are particularly at risk"...

Agents beware! The charming Lena Maul will tell you anything to get you in the door. But cross her by leaving, and the claws come out. It's time for the MLS grievance committee to take action and stop her from stealing commissions from agents. New agents, who do not yet have a book of business, are particularly at risk. The threshold amount for a new agent would be $25,500, but if they leave or have to quit and haven't sold any houses, she would come after them for the full $25,500. Again, her contracts do not support that action according to our attorney. It's her greed and anger that runs that engine.

She also promotes to the community that she donates to many charitable institutions. She does not. She mandates withdrawals from each agent's commission checks to make those contributions. They do not come from her but she wants the community and organizations to believe otherwise.

Lonnadeen Bullock

Managing Broker

John L. Scott

RELEVANT SIDEBARS—Former Windermere Personnel Sue Windermere:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION 1—No. 65159-5: Windermere’s legal strategy of costly, interminable, vexatious litigation drives a dispute over a $16,800 agent commission to a judgment of $186,195.41, in favor of the agent: "In Retaliation Windermere Sought to Make the Litigation as Expensive and Time Consuming as Possible to Dissuade Mr. Rodriguez and other Agents from Asserting Claims against Windermere."

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ORANGE COUNTY—No. 30-2013-00663429-CU-FR-CJC: Former Windermere agent sues Windermere owners James and Andrea Marquez for Fraud, Conversion, and Negligence, seeking unpaid commissions owed of $22,938.75, in Complaint alleging: “Defendants instructed Plaintiff to commit perjury when he testified," and "...alleges that Defendants falsified a document signed by Seller..."

SUPERIOR COURT, WASHINGTON STATE, COUNTY OF PIERCE—Case No. 12-2-15705-2: Homestreet Bank Countersued for Violation of Fiduciary Duties in Crossclaims Alleging Improper Kickbacks and Conspiracy to Commit Bribery with Third Party Defendant Windermere Mortgage Services Company: "WSC [franchiser Windermere Services Company] tracks loan and Title referrals by WRE office and individual agent. ... It is believed that WRE agents are generally ignorant that their "legal fund" is a profit center for the WRE office in which they work."

WINDERMERE'S SALES ASSOCIATE and COMMISSION AGREEMENT: Read the Windermere “2008 Broker/Sales Associate Agreement and Addendum A, Windermere Commission Agreement – Fee Office” revealed in case evidence, listing MANDATORY AGENT CONTRIBUTiON TO THE WINDERMERE FOUNDATION.

"...our commission issues with Lena have been resolved. The fact that she has listened to our protests and corrected the injustice speaks volumes."

WINDERMERE BELLEVUE COMMONS SUED YET AGAIN IN STUNNiNG "COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD"

SUPERIOR COURT KING COUNTY—CASE NUMBER: 14-2-13149-6 SEA

(Download Complaint here.)

Windermere Real Estate Bellevue Commons and Agent Kenny Pleasant, RE Investors Sean and Margaret Stewart, Sued for Fraud, Fraudulent Concealment, Negligent Misrepresentation, Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and Breach of Broker Duties, in Complaint Alleging:

"...At the time of the listing, Windermere and Pleasant knew that the seller was required to obtain necessary permits and inspections for the extensive remodel as required by the City Residential Code..." and "...Pleasant and Windermere represented both the buyer (Wubbels) and the seller (Stewart) in the transaction as dual agent.

Shortly after receiving a copy of the NOV [Notice of Violation], Pleasant telephoned Simpson and asked what would happen if the pending sale went through without the required permits and inspections. Simpson explained to Pleasant that the new owner would be responsible to obtain the permits and make the required corrections. Defendants persisted in concealing the facts of the illegal remodel and resulting NOV from Wubbels, knowing that when she closed, she would be responsible for the expense and consequences of the City Residential Code violations. "

(L to R) Windermere Bellevue Commons agent Kenny Pleasant, who states on his Windermere web page, "I know that buying or selling a home is one of the most important things you will ever do, and I want to help make that experience as smooth and successful as possible." Windermere Bellevue Commons owners Courtney Adams, and Amy Adams—whose Windermere web page states, "I strongly believe that everyone should be treated with kindness, fairness, caring, and honesty."

WINDERMERE DEFENDANT'S "SHAM TRANSACTION"—Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants Stewarts' Counterclaim Regarding Promissory Note and Cross Claim Against Defendants Windermere and Pleasant for Indemnity, alleges:

“...State that the so-called loan was initiated and directed by Kenny Pleasant, in order to cause Wubbels to proceed with closing of the sale, for the financial benefit of Pleasant and Stewart. Further state that the "loan" was a sham transaction whereby the $16,000 delivered by Stewart prior to closing was re-delivered to him at closing in the form of sale proceeds...
...Sham transaction concocted by defendant Pleasant and Stewart...” and “...Hence, Pleasant maneuvered Wubbels into a position where she was required to sell her house and move out without any knowledge that Stewart house was defective due to the NOV..." and “...By initiating and directing the "loan", Kenny Pleasant violated statutory and common law duties of an agent and broker owed to Wubbels."

WINDERMERE PROFESSIONAL INCOMPETENCE AS ITS OWN DEFENSE:

—Agents with no experience or understanding of industry documents and procedure.

The Windermere Bellevue Commons Answer and its "...did not know..." defense:

“...but Defendants Windermere Real Estate/Bellevue Commons, Inc. and Kenny Pleasant did not know that Defendant Sean Stewart had failed to obtain the necessary permits and inspections until after the NOV was faxed to Defendant Kenny Pleasant," and "Admit that Defendant Kenny Pleasant called Victoria Simpson because he did not know what the NOV meant or what was required...”

BEWARE WINDERMERE DUAL AGENCY DOUBLE-DIPPING: The Windermere Bellevue Commons “...did not know...” Answer strategy necessarily forces admission that Windermere agent Kenny Pleasant did not know what the City Notice of Violation (NOV) “...meant or what was required,” despite that Pleasant was acting as a dual agent, allowing Windermere Bellevue Commons to collect commission FROM BOTH PARTIES TO THE SAME TRANSACTION. In another case, the Court has already warned that "DUAL AGENCY IS PERILOUS" and "...Windermere did not advise the Lunsfords that it would present the Thomas offer." in LUNSFORD v. FRALEY

FOLLOW THE CASE DOCS ON DEMAND:

5/8/2014, Initial Complaint filed: "Defendants persisted in concealing..."

5/13/2014, Demco's Lars E. Neste and Jennifer L. Johnson appear for Windermere Bellevue Commons and Kenny Pleasant.

6/6/2014, Defendants Windermere Bellevue Commons and Kenny Pleasant Answer to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses and Cross Claim for Indemnity: “...but Defendants Windermere Real Estate/Bellevue Commons, Inc. and Kenny Pleasant did not know that Defendant Sean Stewart had failed to obtain the necessary permits and inspections until after the NOV was faxed to Defendant Kenny Pleasant.”

6/6/2014, Declaration of Lance C. Dahl in Support of Motion to Approve Service by Mail:. “Between May 9 and May 28, three attempts were made to serve Sean Stewart at his business office during business hours. Mr. Stewart either was absent or declined to come to the reception desk. To date, Mr. Stewart has not responded.” Motion to Serve by Mail; and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Serve by Mail.

6/23/2014, Notice of Appearance: Jordan M. Hecker of Hecker Wakefield & Feilberg, P.S., appears for Sean and Margaret Stewart.

6/27/2014, Stipulated E-Service Agreement.

7/21/2014, Defendants Sean Stewart and Margaret Stewart's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims to Plaintiff's Complaint: "...Stewart denies that the Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested," and "Complaint for Beach of Promissory Note."

7/23/2014, Stewart attachment to Answer: Exhibit A Promissory Note.

8/8/2014, Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants Stewarts' Counterclaim Regarding Promissory Note and Cross Claim Against Defendants Windermere and Pleasant for Indemnity.

8/12/2014, Windermere Real Estate/Bellevue Commons, Inc. and Kenny Pleasant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendants Sean Stewart and Margaret Stewart’s Cross-Claims Against Windermere Real Estate/Bellevue Commons, Inc. and Kenny Pleasant.

12/23/2014, Parties Stipulate to Dismissal.

Windermere's most dishonest franchise? Read more Bellevue Commons cases: WINDERMERE BELLEVUE COMMONS ASSOCIATE BROKER DICK PELASCINI'S FORECLOSURE RESCUE RIPOFF SCAM; WINDERMERE BELLVUE COMMONS TONY FERELLI'S "NOT MY PROBLEM" CASE.

From the WindermereWatch E-Mailbag:

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

Windermere SoCal Coachella Valley, Brokers Thomas Angone and Joseph R. Deville, Sued for Fraud and Deceit, Failure to Disclose Material Facts

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, PALM SPRINGS BRANCH—CASE NO. PSC 1405468

(Download The First Amended Complaint here.)

Windermere SoCal and Rancho Mirage Broker Thomas A. Angone, and Windermere SoCal Owner-Broker, Joseph R. Deville (at left, respectively); Bennion and Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc., dba Windermere Real Estate Southern California; dba Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley; and Individuals Mark. B. and Janice L. Gordon, Terri Lynn Munselle, Sandra Ann Deering, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, Peter E. Theophilos and Saxony Real Estate, Inc., Sued for Claims of Civil Code Violation, Failure to Disclose Material Facts, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Constructive Fraud, Fraud, and Negligence, in First Amended Complaint Alleging:

"46. Prior to the close of tho Property transaction, Sellers, Sellers' Agents and DOES 1-20 became aware of the planned Clubhouse Expansion, but concealed the same from Plaintiffs with the intent to induce Plaintiffs to complete the purchase of the Property. Specifically, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Sellers were personally advised of the planned Clubhouse Expansion by the developer of Andalusia at Coral Mountain (T.D. Desert Development) and/or by the common interest association that governs the Property sometime prior to the close of the Property transaction. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Angone was previously employed by the developer of Andalusia at Coral Mountain (T.D. Desert Development) and was aware of the full build-out plans for said development; that he had full access to the sales office at Andalusia at Coral Mountain, as well as to information published by Andalusia at Coral Mountain on its website, Facebook page and in printed materials; that he visited the sales office at Andalusia at Coral Mountain and reviewed the Information published by Andalusia at Coral Mountain on its website and/or Facebook page and/or in printed materials; and that he was thereby made aware of the planned Clubhouse' Expansion sometime prior to the close of the Property transaction...

48. The aforementioned conduct of Sellers, Sellers' Agents and DOES 1-20 was an intentional deceit or concealment of a material fact known to Sellers, Sellers' Agents..."

Windermere Charged with Financial Elder Abuse—AGAIN.

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, PALM SPRINGS COURTHOUSE—CASE NO. PSC 1400430

(Download Complaint here.)

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

"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," (emphasis added) 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."

RECENT CASE UPDATES: Glancz Case Management Statement. Bennion & Deville Case Management Statement. 2/18/2015 UPDATE: Plaintiff’s counsel files Notice Of Settlement Of Entire Case, conditional upon satisfactory completion of specified terms.

The boilerplate ANSWER of Defendants Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. dba Windermere Real Estate Southern California and Faith Messenger to the Glancz Complaint does not directly address any of the Plaintiff's Causes of Action, but merely asserts twenty-six (26) Affirmative Defenses.

Read Another Windermere Elder Abuse Case Next:

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

WINDERMERE AGENTS' ABUSE, UNDUE INFLUENCE and EXPLOITATION OF A VULNERABLE ADULT AT WINDERMERE ATTORNEY JOHN DEMCO'S SOUTH WHIDBEY ISLAND FREELAND WINDERMERE FRANCHISE: Windermere mother-and-daughter agents Saul and Gabelein take advantage of an elderly woman: “Emma has sold property to members of the Gabelein family for a fraction of its value, jeopardizing her ability to remain in her home for the remainder of her life." (Demco, Saul and Gabelein at left.) Court's Opinion Here

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

(Download the full Complaint here.)

Windermere Agent John Piro (left), Windermere Real Estate SoCal and Franchisor Windermere Real Estate Services Company, Individuals Cesare and Marzia Mannini Rossi, Sued for Nondisclosure of Material Facts, Negligent Misrepresentation, Concealment and Deceit, Suppression of Material Fact; Rossis Additionally Sued for Breach of Contract, in Complaint Alleging:

"...All Defendants knew that the garage-to-dining room conversion was not permitted," and "...All Defendants knew that the house was located in Palm Springs, where Palm Springs Municipal Building Codes apply. Section 93.06.00(29)(a) of the Zoning Code states that single family residences in the City of Palm Springs must have two (2) covered parking spaces. Defendants were aware that the home, having no covered parking spaces, was non-compliant."

BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. DBA WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND JOHN PIRO'S CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE INDEMNITY, CONTRIBUTION, APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT AND DECLARATORY RELIEF: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Indemnity Against all Cross-Defendants); SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Equitable Contribution Against All Cross-Defendants); THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Apportionment of Fault Against all Cross-Defendants); FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief Against All Cross-Defendants)

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INDIO—CASE NO. INS1401100: Small claims action names Windermere Real Estate Services Company and Windermere agent George Colombotos (left) as Defendants, and alleges, “Real estate agent Colombotos sabatoged [sic] the sale of my home by picketing and verbally disuading potential buyers at a real estate open house.” DOWNLOAD THE FULL SMALL CLAIMS COMPLAINT HERE

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

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

(Download the Complaint here)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Affirmative Defense from the Highmark Answer: "...Any damages were caused by an unforseen act of nature that caused, prevented, or precluded the activities defined in RCW 4.16.300 from meeting the applicable building codes, regulations ot ordinances in effect at the commencement of construction." (Download the complete Highmark Homes, Tom Tollen Answer here) Partial Dismissal Case Update 9/9/2014: Parties stipulate to dismissal of plaintiff’s Breach of Washington Condominium Act claim.

MORE WINDERMERE AUBURN-LAKELAND HILLS-BONNEY LAKE-LAKE TAPPS / TOLLEN CASES:

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE—CASE NO. 08-2-13824-6

Female employee sues Windermere for Hostile Work Environment...

Windermere Real Estate Auburn, Inc., sued by employee for Constructive Discharge, Hostile Work Environment, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Civil Conspiracy in Pierce County, Washington, Complaint. Owner of Windermere Real Estate Auburn and Windermere Real Estate Lake Tapps, Thomas Tollen, sued for Civil Assault and Battery, Trespass, Invasion of Right to Privacy, Civil Stalking and other charges—Pleads guilty to related criminal counts.

...Windermere franchise owner tells her, "We don't date, you don't have a job!"

Complaint alleges Windermere Auburn and Lake Tapps owner, Thomas Tollen, told employee: "You're nothing without me! We don't date, you don't have a job! ... Tollen grabbed Clark and threw her against garbage cans. She fell. While she was lying on the ground Tollen kicked her at least ten times, yelling 'You're a piece of shit! You're nothing without me! You won't have a job!'"

OWNER OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE AUBURN AND WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE LAKE TAPPS, THOMAS TOLLEN, SUED FOR CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY, TRESPASS, INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY, CIVIL STALKING AND OTHER CHARGES—PLEADS GUILTY TO RELATED CRIMINAL COUNTS.

Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Damages and Foreclosure of Landlord's Lien against Windermere Real Estate/Auburn, Inc., and Windermere Real Estate/Cascades Group, Inc. Judgment for Plaintiff: $128,105,63, costs of $342.80 and attorney's fees of $7,420.00 CASE HERE

Filed 05/06/2013 in King County Superior Court, NO. 13-2-17004-3 SEA: Highmark Homes and Tom Tollen sued for Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Conversion and Restitution of Money. Filed 07/03/2013 in King County Superior Court, NO. 13-2-24916-2 SEA: Highmark Homes sued in Complaint for Money Due and to Enforce Claim Against Contractor's Assignment of Savings Account. SETTLEMENT: "Defendant has settled Plaintiff's claims..." Motion and Declaration for Order Granting Voluntary Non-Suit. WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE BONNEY LAKE - LAKE TAPPS Owner Tom Tollen's Highmark Homes WARRANT NO. 13-00771-SC For Unpaid Construction Compliance Penalties, An Unregistered Contractor, Infraction No. NSLOD00507, Compliance Penalty, Interest, Filing Fees and Surcharges, $3070.00. Satisfaction of Warrant No. 13-00771-SC.

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 13-2-00452-6 KNT

COMPLAINT ALLEGES:

"In fact, the copy of the Repair Recommendations forwarded by Mr. Freed HAD BEEN MANIPULATED TO CONCEAL the portion of the repair recommendations which informed the Boyers that the drain field piping was collapsing and needed to be replaced." (Emphasis added.)

WINDERMERE BONNEY LAKE-LAKE TAPPS and OWNER / DESIGNATED BROKER KEN FREED (left), SUED FOR FRAUD, FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, BREACH OF CONTRACT, CPA VIOLATION and RESCISSION.

COMPLETE CRIMINAL TRIAL COVERAGE of Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Windermere Coachella Valley Agent Peggy Shambaugh, Charged in Parallel Criminal and Civil Cases. Windermere SoCal / Coachella Valley Owner Bob Deville Charged in Companion Civil Case; Windermere Services Charged with Unfair Trade Practices in Complaint Alleging it is an "Unlicensed Entity."

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE—CASE NO. RIC10006101

Federally Indicted Windermere Coachella Valley Indian Wells Agent Peggy Shambaugh, Windermere Coachella Valley and Owner Bob Deville, Charged by Spotlight 29 Casino Owner Indian Tribe with Breach of Conract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Shambaugh, Deville, Windermere Coachella and Windermere Services, Charged with Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Professional Negligence; Windermere Coachella, Bob Deville and Windermere Services Charged with Unfair Trade Practices in $30 Million-Plus Deal—Complaint Alleges Windermere Services is an Unlicensed Entity:

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."

MEMORANDUN OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS PEGGY SHAMBAUGH AND BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY TO TRANSFER ACTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS: "A grand jury and FBI investigation have been instituted to discover whether any criminal wrongdoing arose out of Plaintiff's allegations in this case."

Shambaugh, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Windermere Coachella Valley, Windermere Services Company and Joseph R. Deville, Settle Before Trial:

Notice of Ruing & Entry of Judgment—“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Motion for Good Faith Determination filed by Moving Parties PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY and JOSEPH R DEVILLE ("SETTLING PARTIES") came on for hearing on January 14, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., in Department 07 of the above-reference court, located at 4050 Main Street, Riverside, California. Cheryl D. Davidson, Esq. appeared for SETTLING PARTIES. Gordon Bosserman, Esq (appearing telephonically) and Scott Spolin, Esq. appeared for Plaintiffs. Connie Anderson, Esq. appeared telephonically for David Alan Heslop and Diversification Resources. [¶] The Court, after considering the moving papers and the lack of opposition thereto, found that the proposed settlement was within the ball park of SETTLING PARTIES' proportionate share of liability and was reasonable and equitable pursuant to the terms of Tech-Bilt, Inc. vs. Woodward-Clyde and Associates (1989) 38 Cal.3d 488. The court found no evidence of collusion or conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling parties. The Court granted the Motion for Good Faith Settlement…”

WINDERMERE TRIAL DELAY STRATEGY: MOTION OF DEFENDANTS PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC. dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY and JOSEPH R. DEVILLE TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, "This motion is made pursuant to the Court's authority to Stay civil proceedings where defendants are also the subject of criminal investigation and/or prosecution..." NOTICE OF RULING CASE UPDATE: "The Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion, and to stay the entire action until completion of the related criminal action. FIFTH AMENDMENT CASE MANAGEMENT UPDATE: "...the following additional matters be considered or determined at the case management conference (specify): Fifth Amendment Privilege issue as to Peggy Shambaugh, defendant and major witness."

THE COMPANION CRIMINAL ACTION:

Federal Indictment No. CR12 00441:Windermere Coachella Valley Indian Wells, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes Agent Peggy Anne Shambaugh and Husband, Attorney Gary Edward Kovall (left), Indicted on Federal Bribery, Conspiracy and Money Laundering Charges in Palms Springs Region Spotlight 29 Casino Kickback Scheme. Also named are Paul Phillip Bardos and David Alan Heslop.

Filed April 2, 2014—Defendant Heslop's Memorandum Regarding Stipulated Facts: "...Shambaugh and/or Kovall produced the emails to the government after they offered to cooperate with the government. For purposes of the plea, Heslop stipulated to their consideration by the Court..." and; "...Kovall, Heslop, Bardos, and Shambaugh agreed that money earned by DR would be shared among Heslop, Bardos, and Kovall, with Shambaugh receiving Kovall’s share because Kovall wanted to keep his income secret." Heslop has reportedly accepted a deal pleading guilty to one count of Felony Conspiracy to Commit Bribery. Per the plea agreement, he faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss from his offense, whichever is greatest. According to online court records, he will appear before Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald on June 30 for senetencing.

Stipulation Regarding Request for (1) Continuance of Trial Date and (2) Findings of Excludable Time Periods Pursuant to Speedy Trial Act fo Defendant Peggy Anne Shambaugh. Current Trial Date: 03-11-2014 [Proposed] Trial Date: 06-02-2014: “b. The government has requested that defendant be evaluated by the United States Pretrial Services Office (“PSO”) to determine her suitability for pretrial diversion. On March 5, 2014, the PSO advised the government that it would need approximately 60 days to complete defendant’s diversion paperwork for the Court.”

Pleading Out: Defendants Gary Kovall and Windermere Coachella Valley Indian Wells Agent Peggy Shambaugh to cooperate with the government: While the case is still pending against Shambaugh, Kovall agreed on Feb. 21 to plead guilty to felony conspiracy to commit bribery in exchange for the remaining counts against him being dropped. He also faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and will be sentenced on Sept. 29.

"6. On February 21, 2014, defendant Gary Edward Kovall pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement. That same day, defendant Shambaugh represented that she wished to cooperate with the government, and intended to resolve her case prior to trial. In light of defendant Kovall and Shambaugh’s cooperation, defendant Heslop represents that he requires additional time to confer with counsel and prepare his defense.

Stipulation Regarding Request for Continuance of Trial Date and Findings of Excludable Time Periods Pursuant to Speedy Trial Act for Defendant Peggy Shambaugh: "...An eighteen month continuance of the trial date would allow the parties and the Court to know whether the defendant has complied with pretrial diversion. If she does, the government will dIsmiss the indictment against her." Order Continuing Trial Date: Current Trial Date: 06-02-2014; [Proposed] Trial Date: 12-02-2015.

7. In light of the foregoing, counsel for defendants need additional time to confer with defendants, conduct and complete an independent investigation of the new information obtained in the case, conduct and complete additional legal research including for potential pre-trial motions, review the new discovery and potential evidence in the case, and prepare for trial in the event that a pretrial resolution does not occur." Download the complete Order here.

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendant David Alan Heslop [160] and Joinders Filed by Gary Edward Kovall and Peggy Anne Shambaugh [165, 169]—Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED in its entirety. Court Order Re: Motions In Limine—DENIED and GRANTED IN PART

LAST MOMENT MANEUVERS, MARCH 10, 2014: Windermere Agent Peggy Shambaugh Criminal Minutes—Status Conference: "Case is called and counsel state their appearance. The Court hears from counsel regarding the status of the case. A continuance of trial is requested. The Court orders the parties to submit a formal stipulation in that regard. The Defendant agrees to the continuance of trial and waives her rights under the Speedy Trial Act."

Click here to the Government's complete trial memorandum, alleging: "After initially agreeing to a price of approximately $29 million, Kovall learned that the seller was unwilling to pay commissions to the buyer's [Windermere] real estate agent (Shambaugh). Kovall convinced the Tribe to authorize Heslop to offer $31.7 million to purchase the property, which more than covered Shambaugh's commissions. At the time, Shambaugh had neither found the property (it was adjacent to the Tribe's land) nor negotiated its price (Kovall had done so). Regardless, she ultimately received a commission of approximately $800,000 based on the transaction. Heslop signed the closing documents and, a few weeks later, received a check from Shambaugh's company (called AINA Concepts) for $10,000. The check indicated that it was for the "47 Acre Project."

The First Superseding Indictment in the case alleges: "... b. Defendant KOVALL attempted to have the seller pay a commission to Shambaugh's [Windermere Coachella Valley] real estate agency as the Tribe's purported real estate agent, despite the fact that, as KOVALL knew, Shambaugh and her agency had done little work to assist the Tribe in its purchase of the 47-acre parcel.

c. When the seller refused to pay the commission to the Tribe's purported agent, defendant KOVALL convinced the Tribe to authorize Heslop to increase Echo Holdings, LLC's offer for the 47-acre parcel for the purpose of paying a significant commission to Shambaugh through her [Windermere Coachella Valley] real estate agency.

d. On or about September 19, 2007, defendant KOVALL negotiated an option agreement for the Tribe to purchase the 47-acre parcel for $31.7 million, which called for Shambaugh and her [Windermere Coachella Valley] real estate agency to be paid a commission of several hundred thousand dollars from the amount of the purchase price paid by the Tribe..."

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE FIRST SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT HERE • CLICK HERE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLEADINGS, MOTIONS and CASE BUSiNESS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY—No. RIC 10019843:

CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE ABOVE

"..Fair market value, at the time Plaintiff purchased it, was only $80,000, or $230,000 less than Plaintiff had paid for it, on the advice of Windermere."

BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, DBA WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, SUED FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD AND OTHER CLAIMS, ALLEGING : "...10. As Plaintiff’s real estate broker, Windermere owed an affirmative obligation to Plaintiff to exercise the utmost care, integrity, honesty and loyalty to Plaintiff. Despite the recognition and acknowledgment of this relationship, Windermere never disclosed the fact that Heslop had a preexisting and ongoing financial arrangement with Windermere, through Shambaugh and her then boyfriend, now husband, Gary Kovall ("Kovall"), or the fact that the Tribe was paying substantially more than the market value for the Baseline Property..."

The Complaint states, " ...the purchase price was raised to $31 million, apparently to compensate for the reduction in the percentage of the commission to Windermere and Shambaugh."

Nada L. Edwards, Gary E. Kovall, Robert A. Rosette, Rosette & Associates PC, Monteau & Peebles LLP, Fredericks & Peebles LLP, Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP, sued in case referencing Windermere Coachella Valley's Peggy Shambaugh, officially listed as an "Interested Party."

TRIAL BRIEF: "...To close the transaction, the Tribe used Peggy Shambaugh as its real estate broker who, through her employer Windermere Real Estate, received a little under $1 million as a commission for the sale..."

CASE UPDATES: Following his federal indictment on bribery and conspiracy charges, the Court granted a stay of this civil action against Defendant Gary Kovall, based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Defendants Robert A. Rosette, Rosette & Associates PC, and Nada L. Edwards, have settled with the Plaintiffs. CASE FOCUS IN-DEPTH: COURT ORDERS PRODUCTION OF RECORDS FROM BANK OF AMERICA REGARDING GARY E. KOVALL AND [WINDERMERE REALTOR] PEGGY SHAMBAUGH—GET THE UNSUCCESSFUL "OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO ENFORCE BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS" HERE.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT—N0. INS1201085

"We are still experiencing cash flow issues...." —Windermere Controller Marie D. Wooten

Judgment Against Bennion & Deviile Fine Homes Inc., dba Wundermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, Sued for Rent Paid Late and Unpaid Rent:

Documents in evidence state: "Late Fees which have accumulated for the last ten months total: $10,937.10... Rent has been delinquent January thru November. With the exception of a late fee paid for September... Please remit balance due of: $33,904.96 ..."

JUDGMENT DEBTOR WINDERMERE RELOCATION “…ABANDONED AND VACATED THE PREMISES” IN BREACH OF OFFICE LEASE,“…AMOUNT OF ALL DAMAGES IS $168,597.30…” In Complaint No. 09-2-12257-1 SEA, Filed in King County Superior Court on March 12, 2009, Plaintiff Legacy Partners in part states: "1. Defendant Windermere Relocation, Inc., is a Washington corporation, doing business in this state and county.... 5. Defendant leased the Premises from Plaintiff for the purpose of operating a commercial business. 6. Defendant has abandoned and vacated the Premises... The amount of all damages is $168,597,30, as detailed in Exhibit A.”Filed October 27, 2009: Order and Judgment on Answer of Garnishee and Order to Pay.

The Tragic and Predatory Social Conduct Shared by Windermere Real Estate and San Diego City Ex-Mayor Bob Filner: Subjecting Female Employees to an Abusive Work Environment.

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

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

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

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY—CASE NO: 37-2013-00058613-CU-OE-CTL

'Defendant Filner then stated "Come on. Give me a kiss."'

In Irene McCormack Jackson v City of San Diego; Robert ("Bob") Filner, Plaintiff Jackson's Complaint for Damages, Employment Discrimination and Sexual Harassment, alleges at ¶ 19 that her boss, San Diego Mayor Robert Filner (left), said to her in sum or substance, "you know you are beautiful. I have always loved you. Someday I know that you are going to marry me. I am so in love with you. Wouldn't it be great if you took off your panties and worked without them on?" Plaintiff was aghast and pushed him away. Defendant Filner then stated "Come on. Give me a kiss."

And Ms. Jackson further alleges at ¶ 35:"... (1) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was an employee of Defendant City of San Diego; (2) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because she is a woman; (3) the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive; (4) a reasonable woman in Plaintiff McCormack Jackson's circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; (5) Plaintiff McCormack Jackson considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; (6) Defendant Filner participated in the harassing conduct;" READ THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT HERE

Guilty Plea to Criminal Charges: San Diego Ex-Mayor Bob Filner Pleads Guilty to Felony False Imprisonment and Battery In the same California Jurisdiction where Windermere Real Estate Operates its San Diego Windermere Homes & Estates Santaluz Franchise

San Diego Ex-Mayor Bob Filner pleaded guilty to a felony charge of false imprisonment by violence, fraud, menace and deceit, stemming from an incident where he forcibly overcame a woman's resistance at a fundraiser, violating her liberty. Filner also pleaded guilty about two misdemeanor counts of battery, one from an incident where he kissed a woman on the lips during one of his "Meet the Mayor" events; and another incident wherein Filner improperly touched a woman's posterior while posing for a photo.

Jackson v City of San Diego; Robert ("Bob") Filner Complaint here.

Defendant City of San Diego's Answer to Complaint here.

Defendant City of San Diego's Cross-Complaint Against Robert Filner here.

Jump to the Court's full Opinion for Little v. Windermere Relocation here.

Click to the Windermere Real Estate Santaluz San Diego page here

Profiting on agents with a legally adjudicated history of ethical and professional misconduct:

BELLEVUE'S "MORE TRUSTWORTHY" REALTY EXECUTIVES INTERNATIONAL BRIO EMPLOYS STICKNEY

REALTY EXECUTIVE BRIO TAX WARRANTS: Are Bellevue Realty Executive Brio’s Ken Bell and Co-Owner Crystal Herrmann employing Windermere Crook Paul Stickney in hopes that he’ll help them pay their taxes? Brio Professionals LLC/Realty Executives Brio, June 13, 2013, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WARRANT FOR UNPAID TAXES of $5,082.56 was SATISFIED on October 17, 2013; but Realty Executive Brio’s CURRENT January 23, 2014, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE WARRANT FOR UNPAID TAXES of $5,694.30 remains UNSATISFIED as of this report.

Windermere Conflict of Interest Crook, Paul Stickney (left), is now listed as an "Executive" at Realty Executives Brio, 13010 NE 20th St, #200, Bellevue, WA 98005. Realty Executives states about its brand, "The Realty Executives name represents a unique standard for our customers and inspires an unrivaled level of confidence. An "Executive" is perceived to be more than just an "Agent" by both our customers and the industry-at-large," and "Our Executives are perceived as: • Experienced • Knowledgeable • Professionals with integrity • Able to sell home faster for more money • Highly trained • Community and industry leaders • And more importantly -- MORE TRUSTWORTHY" (emphasis added). Jump to the Court's Opinion of Mr. Stickney's trustworthiness here. Download the $1,030,627.00 judgment against Paul Stickney here. Former Windermere "Stickney Team" member, Patty Ennis (left), is also now listed at Realty Executives Brio.

In King County Superior Case No. 13-2-17465-1 SEA, Stickney, who literally destroyed the home and finances of his Windermere Redmond SCA clients (story here), has been SUED FOR MONIES DUE AND OWING OF $5688.06 BY AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK. (Read the Amex Stickney Complaint here; and the Amex Motion for Default here.) Perhaps Predator Paul is tasting the same distress and disgrace that he and Windermere have provided to so many others.

After thoroughly wrecking his unsuspecting clients' lives for nearly six years, Windermere Redmond crook Stickney now whines to the court: "...Although innocent, I was found guilty of things I never did, by a jury that did not hear the other sides of the story at trial... Further, to add insult to injury, the on-line attacks have become supported by judicial credibility..." and "...I am now behind on my house payments, I owe money to the IRS, and I have four other debts that are in arrears. I have been paying on the debts until I could pay no more. This ordeal has exhausted my assets and I am barely hanging on." —Click here for Paul Stickney's complete response to Plaintiff American Express.

Update: Amex Motion to Strike Stickney's Answer as "...immaterial or impertinent..." Order Granted on Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Answer. 9/26/2013 Order of Dismissal.

SNEAKY: When the Craig Shriner family's former Windermere Redmond office became Windermere Redmond/East, conflict-of-interest swindler Paul Stickney was deleted from its roster, his listings tendered in the name of Windermere Redmond East agent Patricia "Patty" Ennis (left). But Ms. Ennis' email address was listed as "stickneyteam@windermere.com," and her "Cell/Direct: (206) 954-6475" was Paul Stickney's number. CONSUMERS BEWARE.

CONSIDERING A WINDERMERE FRANCHISE? The Windermere brand means fraud in real estate. Does franchiser Windermere Services Company disclose the Windermere network's pervasive professional misconduct, countless lawsuits and vast PR troubles to prospective Windermere franchisees? Under Federal Trade Commission Rules, Part 436, Disclosure Requirements, any franchiser has a legal duty to disclose, "16 CFR 436.2 (5)(n) ...any fact, circumstance, or set of conditions which has a substantial likelihood of influencing a reasonable franchisee or a reasonable prospective franchisee in the making of a significant decision relating to a named franchise business or which has any significant financial impact on a franchisee or prospective franchisee,"and "16 CFR 436.1(4) A statement disclosing who, if any, of the persons listed in paragraphs (a) (2) and (3) of this section: (ii) Has, at any time during the previous seven fiscal years, been held liable in a civil action resulting in a final judgment or has settled out of court any civil action or is a party to any civil action..."

ABOUT WINDERMERE FEDERAL WAY/TACOMA/GIG HARBOR AGENT JOHN SIRIDAKIS: Click here to WA Superior Court Pierce County Case No. 09-2-08369-5, alleging: "Defendant John Siridakis and his principal knew that the square footage would not support subdivision, but again failed to advise Plaintiff of the true significance of the actual square footage of the property as it related to potential subdivision."

Windermere City Group maintaining "...the highest ethical standards..."

Despite Two Washington State Criminal Counts for First Degree Theft in Realty Transactions, Windermere Spokane City Group Employed Accused Agent Ryan S. Bishop (left), and Exposed Unsuspecting Realty Service Consumers to Bishop's Predatory Ethics.

Shortly after John L. Scott, Spokane, terminated his employment for inappropriate conduct when his clients' transaction file was mysteriously not found by management, Spokane Realtor Ryan S. Bishop went to work the next three years at Windermere City Group, Spokane, and even continued working for Windermere City Group several months after Washington State officially charged Mr. Bishop with two counts of First Degree Theft in realty transactions.

Count #1 arose from the John L. Scott case “…by color and aid of deception, by means of failing to reveal essential information regarding a real estate transaction,” where Bishop allegedly manipulated loan documents to have himself paid an “assignment fee” of $196,435.00 from his clients' loan proceeds. The clients didn’t learn of the scheme until March of 2012, when they reviewed the complete and final HUD-1 Settlement Statement. Count #2 from the same case pertains to “...deception, by means of misappropriating rent money, with intent to deprive” the same clients of rent proceeds from the newly-purchased residence while they had yet to relocate and occupy it. Further, “…the defendant used his or her position of trust, confidence, or fiduciary responsibility to facilitate the commission of the current offense, as provided by 9.94A.535(3)(n).”

Although the criminal charges were filed in Spokane Superior Court on October 1, 2012, records indicate that Bishop was still employed by Windermere City Group, Spokane, well into 2013. A total of two civil actions plus the aforementioned criminal charges were pending against Bishop during his employment at Windermere City Group, where owner Joe Garst (left) states on his Windermere web page, “I will represent your best interest and be attentive to your needs, maintain the highest ethical standards, and conduct myself with integrity and honesty.” Bishop's criminal trial is set for 02-03-2014 in Spokane, and his real estate license is now reported as “Delinquent" by DOL. Incredibly, Bishop is currently listed on Linkedin as an Adult Family Home Administrator at Legacy Gardens of Spokane Adult Family Home. DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE RYAN S. BISHOP SPOKANE SUPERIOR NO. 12103480-1 CHARGING INFORMATION HERE

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, KING COUNTY—NO. 13-2-36032-2 SEA

Windermere Real Estate East and Agent Employee Stephen C. Hender (left), Sued in Complaint Alleging Negligent Breach of Duty, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Violation of the Consumer Protection Act and Claim for Injunctive Relief, by Plaintiff Charging Irretrievable Loss of $100,000.00 Earnest Money Deposit to Steven D. Smith Construction of Redmond. MORE HERE

The Complaint alleges: "Plaintiffs' aforesaid irretrievable loss and legal forfeiture of Plaintiffs' aforesaid One Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollar earnest money deposit was proximately caused by Defendant Hender's aforesaid tortious conduct of practicing law in violation of RCW 2.48.170-190..." and "...Plaintiffs allege that the unauthorized practice of law tortious actions of Defendant Hender and related negligent supervision of Defendant Windermere East are of such nature that other consumers are likely to be harmed by the Defendants' joint and several ongoing and continued repetition of such unauthorized practice of law..."DOWNLOAD THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE. CASE UPDATES—Confirmation of Joinder: “Plaintiffs expect to serve all presently identified Defendants next month, after doing further investigation of the Plaintiffs’ claims.” 12/1/2014, Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.

STEALING COMPETITOR STRATEGY:

IS PROMOTION THEFT THE WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE MARKETING PLAN?

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—CASE NO. EDCV-01242 JGB (OPx)

Coldwell Banker Sues Windermere Services Southern California for Lanham Act Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, and Common Law Unfair Competition in Federal Complaint Alleging:

"23. On or about March 2013, Windermere's Counsel indicated that Windermere would take immediate steps to change the formatting of its WINDERMERE@HOME magazine to alleviate Coldwell. Banker's concerns of trade dress infringement. 24. As of the filing of this Complaint, Windermere has not taken any steps to change the formatting of its WINDERMERE@HOME magazine and continues to incorporate the VIEW Trade Dress in the WINDERMERE@H0ME magazine." DOWNLOAD THE COMPLAINT HERE 11/13/2013: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice filed by Plaintiff Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company.

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE—NO. INC 1205192

Windermere Real Estate [Coachella Valley], Broker Chris Anderson DRE #01400606 and Agent Tony Otten DRE #01400038 (at left, respectively), Sued for Comparative Indemnity and Apportionment of Fault; and Total Equitable Indemnity, in Capitis Southeby's International Realty Cross-Complaint Alleging "...Windermere, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Otten owed a duty of honest dealing to Plaintiff..."

DOWNLOAD THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN THE CASE HERE; DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE CROSS-COMPLAINT HERE; DOWNLOAD THE CROSS-COMPLAINT OF BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., dba WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, CHRIS ANDERSON and TONY OTTE HERE.

Second Amended Cross-Complaint alleges: "...Stephen LoCascio and Michael Russell lived together as legally married spouses... the escrow under which Mr. LoCascio would buy the Subject Property was supposed to close on or about June 26, 2012... The Addendums allowed the buyer, Mr. LoCascio to rent the Subject Property and to take possession of the Subject Property, under the Addendums, on April 5, 2012, as a tenant, three months before the close of escrow... the truth was that Mr. LoCascio and Mr. Russell had no place to live...

While in sole possession of the Subject Property, Mr. LoCascio and Mr. Russell committed waste, in that inter alia they ripped large holes in the walls and ceiling, took down a wall, removed all the landscaping, including mature trees, either urinated or allowed their two dogs to urinate throughout the house on the carpeting, changed and damaged electrical wiring, damaged wallpaper, damaged the ceiling and custom made drapery, damaged the plumbing system,, and otherwise committed acts of destruction and waste to the Subject Property, physically rendering the house uninhabitable, and substantially lowering the fair market value...

...Mr. Anderson was the real estate broker and Mr. Otten the real estate agent for Mr. LoCascio and Mr. Russell... Windermere, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Otten breached the duties owed to Plaintiff when they failed to disclose to Plaintiff that LoCascio/Russell's property has been foreclosed upon and that they did not have the finances to purchase Plaintiff's home..."

12/03/2013 CASE UPDATE—WINDERMERE PARTIES’ DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT: "The Court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 3:00 p.m. on the court day prior to the hearing. Tentative rulings will be available on the Internet. To view go to: http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov and click on the tentative ruling link. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court unless, by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the scheduled hearing, a party gives notice of intent to appear to all parties and the court. The notice of intent to appear must be given either in person or by telephone. Where notice of intent to appear has been properly given, or upon direction of the Court, oral argument will be permitted."

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 13-2-00452-6 KNT

COMPLAINT ALLEGES:

Update 7/25/13: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Update 8/22/13: Plaintiffs' attorney files STIPULATION FOR AND ORDER OF DISIMISSAL OF FREEDS AND WINDERMERE LAKE TAPPS.

UPDATE 7/25/2013: Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability RE Plaintiffs' Claims Against Defendants Boyer for Fraudulent Concealment, Fraud and Breach of Contract. OTHER CASE UPDATES: MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS' BOYERS ANSWERS; Order Compelling Defendant Boyers' Answers 06/07/2013.

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

WINDERMERE AGENTS' ABUSE, UNDUE INFLUENCE and EXPLOITATION OF A VULNERABLE ADULT AT WINDERMERE ATTORNEY JOHN DEMCO'S SOUTH WHIDBEY ISLAND FREELAND WINDERMERE FRANCHISE: Windermere mother-and-daughter agents Saul and Gabelein take advantage of an elderly woman: “Emma has sold property to members of the Gabelein family for a fraction of its value, jeopardizing her ability to remain in her home for the remainder of her life." The single most despicable example of Windermere’s egregious contempt for justice and human decency—not to mention, its very own clients. (Demco, Saul and Gabelein, shown left.) READ THE COURT'S SHOCKING OPINION HERE.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II—NO. 35740-2-II

MORE INNOCENT AND UNSUSPECTING LIVES RUINED BY THE COST OF CHASING WINDERMERE CROOKS THROUGH THE COURTS: Windermere Real Estate Allen & Associates Agent Lance Miller's Deliberate Non-Disclosure of Home's Prior Use as Pot Farm and Methamphetamine Laboratory

Eva and Eddie Bloor relocated to Longview, in Washington State, and purchased a home from Charmaine and Robert Fritz through Lance Miller at Windermere Real Estate/Allen & Associates, who served as dual agent for both parties. The Fritzes and Miller both opted to withhold their knowledge that the one-time rental property had been a site for marijuana farming and methamphetamine production. Windermere and Miller were cognizant of the property’s prior use because Windermere staff managed the rental home months earlier when a drug raid occurred, and they subsequently issued a notice of eviction on the tenants after learning of their illicit operation. Locals all herd the news, including the Fritzes, who conversed about it with others. (At left, Lance Miller of Windermere Allen & Associates.) CLICK TO THE COURT'S OPINION HERE.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON—NO. 59321-8-I

WINDERMERE BELLEVUE COMMONS ASSOCIATE BROKER DICK PELASCINI'S FORECLOSURE RESCUE RIPOFF SCAM: "...When Pace-Knapp signed further documents at the closing agent’s office, she first realized she had sold her house to the Pelascinis. Nevertheless, she proceeded with the sale. As a result of this transaction, the trustee’s sale did not proceed... She lived in the house under lease agreements with the Pelascinis for two and a half years, during which time she paid rent to the new owners. She was evicted when the Pelascinis declined to renew her lease a third time." CLICK HERE TO THE COURT'S OPINION.

Check State Licensing Records Online to Learn the Business Ethics History of Local Windermere Franchisees and Personnel:

WINDERMERE'S HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS: Current Windermere Real Estate Chino Hills King Realty Group Owner, Richard Michael King, had his real estate license "...revoked; provided, however, a restricted real estate broker license shall be issued..." by Department of Real Estate, State of California, when previously operating as Century 21 King Realtors...

...From "In the Matter of the Accusation..." filed by the Department of Real Estate, State of California, June 11, 1998: "The overall conduct of Respondent KING [left], constitutes a failure on his part, as officer designated by a corporate broker licensee, responsible for the supervision and control over the activities conducted on behalf of MDR by its officers, managers and employees as necessary to secure full compliance with the provisions of the Real Estate Law including the supervision of the salespersons licensed to the corporation in the performance of acts for which a real estate license is required. This conduct is cause for the suspension or revocation of the real estate license and license rights of KING pursuant to the provisions of Sections 10159.2 and 10177(d) of the Code." Mr. King's license was reinstated on August 13, 2002.

RE/MAX Files Registration Statement for Proposed Initial Public Offering: (Denver, CO) – RE/MAX, one of the world’s leading franchisors of real estate brokerage services, today announced that it has publicly filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relating to a proposed initial public offering of its common stock. MORE HERE

Christy Rice (left) of Windermere Property Management JMW Seattle Review : "Tenants and Owners Beware!! Christy Rice is extremely unprofessional. I would have rented from one of her listings, but I refuse to work with her. Christy is extremely arrogant, short, curt, rude, and fails to take responsibility for her negative interaction. Unfortunately, the owners she represents know nothing of how she is representing them; therefore, the owners don't realize the business they are losing..."

REALTY PREDATOR and WINDERMERE CHAIRMAN (left) JOHN W. JACOBI'S VOLUMINOUS and HORRIFIC LEGACY OF GREED, LOSS, DISTRESS and FINANCIAL RUIN FOR WASHINGTON STATE HOMEBUYERS:

THE COMPLETE WINDERMERE WASHINGTON LITIGATION HISTORY IN COMPREHENSIVE LISTINGS OF WINDERMERE LAWSUITS from KING and PIERCE and SNOHOMISH counties, and all Washington counties where Windermere cases have been filed: Benton • Chelan • Clallam • Clark • Columbia • Cowlitz • Franklin • Grant • Grays Harbor • Island • Jefferson • Kitsap • Kittitas • Lewis • Mason • Pacific • Pend Oreille • San Juan • Skagit • Spokane • Stevens • Thurston • Wahkiakum • Walla Walla • Whatcom • Whitman • Yakima • Download the complete Windermere litigation history from ALL Washington counties here.

WINDERMERE EAST REVIEWS & WINDERMERE-VESTUS FORECLOSURE GROUP REVIEW & CASES

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON—CASE NO. 12-2-08537-4 SEA

March 13, 2012: Vestus LLC, Windermere Real Estate East, and "Investment Specialist & Foreclosure Expert" Christopher Hall, Sued for Negligent or Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Violation of Washington Real Estate Law, including Chapters 18.85 and 18.86 RCW, and Violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, Chapter 19.86 RCW, in Complaint Alleging :

"9. The Defendants hold themselves out as experts in the purchase of foreclosing real property. Defendants provide training and information on purchasing foreclosing property, and facilitate the financing and acquisition of foreclosing properties. 10. Vestus advertises that it gathers "real time market data" on foreclosing properties, "mines" the data, physically drives to the properties in order to ensure the accurate analysis of each property, and rigorously and carefully analyses the information it has collected.... 18. Information readily available to real estate professionals, but not to the public, included agents' remarks that the foundation of the Property had settling issues. 19. The Defendants did not disclose the settling problems to McGrath."

DOWNLOAD THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE; OR READ IT ON THE VESTUS FORECLOSURE GROUP REVIEW PAGE HERE; JUMP TO THE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER HERE

CASE HISTORY

January 11, 2013: After Windermere/Demco's FIRST Summary Judgment Motion, Judge orders that Plaintiff's claims for Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Concealment, Negligent Misrepresentation, CPA and violation of RCW 18.86 agency statute will remain. Windermere Vestus Demco Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff files jury demand. Vestus Foreclosure Group, Windermere Real Estate East, and Christopher Hall to stand trial for Fraudulent Concealment and other charges on August 12, 2013.

June 21, 2013: Vestus, Windermere East, Christopher Hall and Demco lawyers lose big again. Court denies SECOND Motion for Summary Judgment. DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE SECOND SUMARY JUDGMENT MOTION HERE; AND THE ORDER DENYING IT HERE

From Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgement: "Well before the April 7, 2011 meeting, Vestus acquired an Agent Detail Report on the Property. On March 13, 2011, Hugh Stewart, one of Vestus' principals, pulled the Agent Detail Report from the MLS site. Hall Dep 21-22. At about one third of the way down the page contains the words, "Partial Slope." At the bottom, in a section called "Agent Only Remarks," is "settling issues"... The Agent Detail Report is not available to the public. Hall, Dep 63-64 ("Can ordinary citizens go on the MLS site and get the agent remarks, the agent-only remarks?" "No; because it is agent-only remarks."). The Agent Detail Report for the Property WAS NOT IN the Auction Packet Vestus distributed on April 7,2011." (Emphasis added.)

July 22, 2013: Just 2 weeks before trial, a Stipulation and Order to Amend Complaint to Remove Claim and Parties has been filed with an Amended Complaint that removes Hall and the Fraudulent Concealment charge. The newly Amended Complaint names defendant parties as Vestus LLC, and Windermere Real Estate East, Inc., and states in part: "...Hall provided McGrath information and recommendations on properties... Information readily available to real estate professionals, but not to the public, included agents' remarks that the foundation of the Property had settling issues... Defendants did not disclose the settling problems to McGrath."

After Stipulation and Amended Complaint, Trial to Proceed against Vestus Foreclosure and Windermere East for Breach of Contract, Negligent Misrepresentation, violation of the Consumer Protection Act, and Breach of Statutory Duty, on August 12, 2013.

Plaintiff's Trial Brief: "Since the hearing on Vestus' motion, [Plaintiff] McGrath has notified Vestus' attorney that she intends to drop her claim for fraudulent concealment. She has decided to drop Christopher Hall as a defendant. She has filed a motion to amend to reflect these changes in a stipulation and order agreed upon by defendants' attorney." Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions and Proposed Special Verdict Form

Defendants' Trial Brief: "...Vestus does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information it makes available..." Demco Doubles Down: Vestus/Windermere East Proposed Jury Instructions and Proposed Special Verdict Form. Defendants' Motions In Limine.

Pre-Trial Updates: Joint Statement of Evidence; Defendants' Admissible Docs Notice, ER 904; Mediation Compliance: "The mediation did not resolve the dispute." Joint Confirmation of Trial Readiness, also filed on July 22, states trial is estimated to take 5 days. Defendants' Notice of Admissible Docs, Evidence Rule 904; Notice of Mediation Compliance: "The mediation did not resolve the dispute."

August 8, 2013: Notice Of Settlement Filed.

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SPOKANE—No. 13200611-6

"...so what if we are off $20,000 sometimes."

Vestus LLC and Windermere Spokane City Group agents Brian Sandusky and Aaron Cunningham (at left respectively) Sued in Class Action Complaint (Certification Pending) for Violation of the Consumer Protection Act, Alleging "...Vestus was not a licensed real estate brokerage firm." 10/18/2013: Previously litigated in lower court where plaintiff's claims were dismissed. Court awards summary judgment based on collateral estoppel.

Spokane Class Action against Windermere's Vestus Foreclosure alleges Plaintiff "...lost a significant amount of money... on her purchase of the Liberty Lake property based on the representations made by Vestus," and that Vestus Defendant Cunningham stated: "...so what if we are off $20,000 sometimes." Allegations further state that Cunningham told the Plaintiff that he requested another Vestus client bidder to refrain from bidding as a "favor" to the Plaintiff.

The Class Action Complaint's Prayer for Relief Includes: 4. That it be declared that Vestus' fee/compensation structure is unfair and/or deceptive in violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act; 5. That the Court rescind the contracts between Defendant Vestus and Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals; 6. That Defendant Vestus be held liable to Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals for any commissions or fees paid pursuant to rescinded contracts."

July 17, 2013:Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of Certain Claims Against Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham: "...Plaintiff, and Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham, through their respective counsel of record and hereby stipulate and agree that all claims against Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham in § IV of Plaintiff's Complaint for Violations of Consumer Protection Act, including ¶¶ 4.1 - 4.8 thereunder, may be dismissed without prejudice and without costs. UPDATE 8/29/2013: Trial scheduled for Monday, August 14, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.

Download the complete Class Action Complaint here. Jump to the Vestus Answer here. September 9, 2013: Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim of Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham. September 13, 2013: Defendant Vestus LLC's First Motion for Summary Judgement.

Spokane Association of Realtors and Vestus Class Action Parties File a Stipulated Motion for Protective Order of the Association's Records, Claiming Disclosure "...will cause damage to the Spokane Association of Realtors and/or its members...

...The confidential documents and information shall be used by the party to whom the documents are disclosed solely for the purposes of this lawsuit, and may not be copied, filed in court, disseminated, published, communicated, distributed or otherwise used except as provided In this order. Use of the confidential documents and Information for oral and/or written dissemination to any member of the public; any member of the media Including radio, television, print digital optical, or otherwise via computer, telephone, facsimile, or any other communication medium; or to any person not otherwise specifically authorized herein is strictly prohibited." DOWNLOAD THE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE MOTION & ORDER HERE.

SEPARATE COUNSEL: Attorneys Jeffrey P. Downer, and Allison J. Moon, of Lee • Smart P.S., Pacific Northwest Law Offices, are representing defendants Sandusky and Cunningham. Lars E. Neste of Demco Law Firm is representing defendant Vestus.

AFTER WRECKING HIS UNSUSPECTING WINDERMERE CLIENTS' LIVES FOR NEARLY 6 YEARS, WINDERMERE REDMOND SCA CROOK PAUL STICKNEY (left) NOW WHINES TO THE COURT: "...Although innocent, I was found guilty of things I never did, by a jury that did not hear the other sides of the story at trial... Further, to add insult to injury, the on-line attacks have become supported by judicial credibility..." and "...I am now behind on my house payments, I owe money to the IRS, and I have four other debts that are in arrears. I have been paying on the debts until I could pay no more. This ordeal has exhausted my assets and I am barely hanging on." —Click here for Paul Stickney's complete response to Plaintiff American Express. Update: Amex Motion to Strike Stickney's Answer as "...immaterial or impertinent..." Order Granted on Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Answer. 9/26/2013 Order of Dismissal.

In King County Superior Case No. 13-2-17465-1 SEA, Stickney, who literally destroyed the home and finances of his Windermere Redmond SCA clients (story here), has been SUED FOR MONIES DUE AND OWING OF $5688.06 BY AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK. (Read the Amex Stickney Complaint here; and the Amex Motion for Default here.) Perhaps Predator Paul is tasting the same distress and disgrace that he and Windermere have provided to so many others. Download the $1,030,627.00 judgment against Windermere Redmond SCA and Paul Stickney here.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF SPOKANE—No. 13201539-5

Complaint Alleges: "Durheim and Groves told Solerno not to inform the [buyer] Mitchells of this fact."

Husband and Wife Windermere Spokane Agents Greg Durheim and Carol Groves (left) and Windermere Manito Spokane (Joseph K. Nichols, Windermere Manito Owner, 2nd from left) Sued for Breach of Contract, Breach of Statutory Duties and Negligent Misrepresentation in Complaint Alleging that Durheim and Groves Told Co-Defendant "...not to inform..." Plaintiffs that Mortgage Lender Would Not Agree to Partial Release of Property.

"Sometime in the fall of 2011, Solerno told Durheim and Groves that his mortgage lender would not agree to a partial release of his property and that the closing on the Solerno property could not happen. Durheim and Groves told Solerno not to inform the Mitchells of this fact." DOWNLOAD A COMPLETE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE

Motion for default of defendants Windermere and Groves: " ...More than twenty (20) days have expired since service of process, and Defendants have failed to file or serve an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, and are now wholly in default... He told me that an Answer would be filed no later that May 29, 2013. May 29, 2013 has come and gone without any Answer having been filed or served."

Defendants Windermere and Groves finally file an Answer on June 14, 2013: "...Windermere admits contacting Solernos at Plaintiff's request, to seek Solerno's participation in a boundary line adjustment but denies that the adjustment was to operate a commercial dog kennel."

RECENT CASE UPDATES: 5/15/2014, Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Durheim, Groves and Windermere Manito. 6/25/2014, Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 6/23/2014, Defendant Paul Salerno's (Pro Se) Anser to Complaint and Counterclaim.

WINDERMERE'S UNLAWFUL SALES OF LOW-GRADE SECURITIES:

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING—CASE NO. 10-2-30838-5 SEA

Windermere Real Estate Northwest, Inc., Agent Howard Johnson, Broker and Branch Manager Loretta Larson, Sued for Violation of the Washington State Securities Act (WSSA), Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Negligent Supervision (Against Windermere and Larson), Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act

(Above left to right) President April Kieburtz, Designated Broker and Owner, Windermere Real Estate/Northwest; the generic silhouette head of Steven Kieburtz, CEO and Owner, Windermere Real Estate/Northwest; and Loretta Larson, Manager and Broker, Windermere Real Estate/Northwest.

ALLEGATIONS FROM THE COMPLAINT: "19. Windermere and Larson were “control persons” of Johnson under the WSSA with respect to Simmons’ SCI investment, pursuant to RCW 21.20.430 and common law... 20. Windermere and Larson had the power to control Johnson’s offers or sales of products to the public and Larson was the branch manager, charged with monitoring and managing the activities of the agents and brokers affiliated with such branch, including Johnson... 21. In connection with the SCI investment, Johnson misrepresented material facts to Simmons or omitted to state material facts necessary to make Johnson’s other material representations, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading." Read the complete report here

Case Updates: MOTION REGARDING PRETRIAL MATTERS: Windermere Northwest argues that the Court should not allow expert testimony interpreting the Securities Act: "The Court Should Exclude Witnesses from the Department of Financial Institutions." Parties stipulate to trial on June 4, 2012. Notice of Settlement dated 6/1/2012 filed on 6/5/2012.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA—2012 MT 144A

Montana Supreme Court Reverses the Partial Summary Judgment of Windermere Helena Broker Rick Ahmann's (left) "Acquiron" Real Estate and Business Brokerage After Elderly Victim Seeks Damages of $4,635,485.51, Claims Unlawful Sale of Securities, Negligence and Fiduciary Breach: "The examiner found that DBSI was running a Ponzi scheme."

HOMESTREET BANK REVIEW • WINDERMERE MORTGAGE SERVICES SERIES LLC REVIEW

The whole unsavory Windermere / Demco Law Firm / Homestreet Bank mess is required reading for the US Attorney, every citizen at large, and all Windermere personnel...

SUPERIOR COURT, WASHINGTON STATE, COUNTY OF PIERCE —Case No. 12-2-15705-2

Case Update 8/15/2014: Parties Fail to Appear; Court Orders Dismissal

Homestreet Bank Countersued for Violation of Fiduciary Duties in Crossclaims Alleging Improper Kickbacks and Conspiracy to Commit Bribery with Third Party Defendant Windermere Mortgage Services Company.

Allegation states Homestreet's Exec VP Residential Lending Director, Richard Bennion "...overstepped his role as managing board member and assumed the role of the lender," and "...Mr. Bennion exerted substantial pressure through Windermere Mortgage Services..."

Allegations against Homestreet Bank, Windermere Real Estate Services Company, Windermere Real Estate South, and Windermere Mortgage Services Series, LLC., all named as Cross-Claim Defendants:

john jacobi "WSC tracks loan and Title referrals by WRE office and individual agent. ... It is believed that WRE agents are generally ignorant that their "legal fund" is a profit center for the WRE office in which they work. ... 57. John Jacobi [left], majority owner of WSC is also 70% owner of voting shares of stock in WRE South."

"52. It was likely any suit against the Escrow Company would result in a counterclaim against WMSS South and WRE South. 53. Demco did not pursue any claim against the Escrow Company."JUMP TO THE COMPLETE CROSS-CLAIMS HERE

In response to Plaintiff Homestreet Bank's boilerplate Judicial Foreclosure Complaint against former Windermere Franchise Owner and Defendant Michael M. Ratcliffe, Ratcliffe's estranged wife, Co-Defendant and 3rd Party Plaintiff, Joyce M. Feeley, blows the lid off the Windermere / Homestreet partnership in her Answer, Counter-Claims and Cross-Claims, which in part allege:

"44. The WMIA fund runs a substantial surplus each year in excess of $500,000 that is distributed to the WRE office owners. 45. It is believed that WRE agents are generally ignorant that their "legal fund" is a profit center for the WRE office in which they work."

"...Mr. Bennion exerted substantial pressure through Windermere Mortgage Services Series and Mr. Ratcliffe to compel Ms. Feeley to return and re-sign the deed of trust without any qualifier. Demco was notified that Ms. Feeley was in fear of her life, and that any signature would be inder duress...""

1. VIOLATION OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES. Homestreet Bank violated its fiduciary duties when its agent, RICHARD BENNION, overstepped his role as a managing board member and assumed the role of the lender. Homestreet committed this violation when its agent, RICHARD BENNION, assumed the responsibility of making the final decision to fund the Milton property loan despite the numerous underwriting and processing shortcomings of that loan..." (Emphasis added.)

2. RESPA VIOLATIONS. Because WMSS and Homestreet Bank reimburse WSC and discrete WRE offices in relation to the volume of loans they refer, those payments CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER KICKBACK in violation of CFR 3500.14. ..." (Emphasis added.)

3. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BRIBERY. Because WMSS, Homestreet Bank, and the other crossclaim defendants profited from unlawful bribery and the conspiracy to commit such acts, they have acted in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (a) and (c). ..." (Emphasis added.)

DOWNLOAD JOYCE M. FEELEY'S ANSWER, COUNTER-CLAIMS and CROSS-CLAIMS HERE

8/15/2014, Court's Order of Dismissal without Predjudice

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. 13-2-18255-6 KNT:

Windermere Real Estate Maple Valley's Petition for Determination of Fair Value of Shares of Dissenting Shareholder--RCW 23B.13.300, "... Its shareholders are Rich Menti, Jim Nelsen, Rick Menti, Michael Ratcliffe, and John Jacobi."

"10. At the conclusion of the October 31, 2012 shareholder meeting, all present shareholders, including proxy votes, voted in favor of a motion to approve the sale of substantially all assets of the Company through the asset sale and consulting arrangement with Davies Management Inc. as provided in the purchase and sale documents and consulting agreement, the sale and redemption of CW Title shares and redemption of Windermere Mortgage series for approximately $50,000, and to authorize completion and execution of the purchase and sale documents, consulting agreement, sale and redemption of CW Title shares and redemption of Windermere Title series. The shareholders who voted to authorize the execution of the APSA and sale of substantially all of the Company's assets held in excess of 78% of the then outstanding shares."

GERACI v. HOMESTREET BANK: Is HomeStreet Bank a socially responsible financial institution?

WINDERMERE HIMLIE SHELTON REVIEW

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON EN BANC—No. 83660-4

"Because the duty to not commit fraud is independent of the contract, the independent duty doctrine permits a party to pursue a fraud claim regardless of whether a contract exists."

Windermere Himlie Shelton Review: Nearly seven years litigation all the way to the Washington Supreme Court, and still going: Windermere's "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," brings unsuspecting waterfront homebuyers...

An Interminable Windermere Himlie Legal Ordeal in Shelton, Mason County, Washington

"The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Jackowskis' claims for breach of statutory fiduciary duties. The Court of Appeals also properly acknowledged that chapter 64.06 RCW does not bar common law rescission, and it properly reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Jackowskis' causes of action relating to fraud concerning the fill issue. For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings."

"The trial court permitted the Jackowskis to amend their complaint against Hawkins Poe and Johnson to include an allegation of failure to meet statutory duties under 18.86.050(1)(c) and against the Borchelts, Windermere Himlie, and Conklin for fraud and fraudulent concealment of cracks in the basement."

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT'S OPINION HERE

(At left) Vince Himlie, owner and designated broker of Windermere Himlie, who states that he has been honored as "Realtor of the Year." And Windermere Himlie agent Jef Conklin, whose Windermere web page states, "Jef has the experience to make sure your transactions go as smoothly as possible," and "With Jef and Windermere in your corner you can`t help but come out a winner."

Franchiser Windermere Services Company suing

and competing against its own franchisees:

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 10-2-36192-8 SEA

THE SAGA OF WINDERMERE PUYALLUP CANYON ROAD (WPCR) IS A REALTY FRANCHISE OWNER'S ULTRA-NIGHTMARE: Franchiser Windermere Services Chairman "...Jacobi decided to open another Windermere office in the territory in which WPCR was operating."

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO—CASE NO. 37-2011-00089709-CU-BC-CTL

"From the time that the Cross-Complainants exercised their contractual right to terminate the Franchise License Agreement, and while Cross-Complainants were still operating as Windermere franchisees, [Windermere Services] Cross-Defendants engaged in a pattern of unlawful and predatory acts designed to specifically harm Cross-Complainants and destroy their businesses as Windermere franchisees and their future business endeavors."

"18. Namely, Windermere SoCal actively solicited Cross-Complainants' agents and managers and did, in fact, hire some of these individuals away from Cross-Complainants. This act is specifically prohibited by Windermere. These newly retained agents and managers were hired away to work at a Windermere franchise that is owned or operated by Windermere SoCal and which was located 1/2 of a block across the street from one of Cross-Complainants' Windermere franchises."

Attention agents: Considering a business

association with Windermere Real Estate?

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION 1—No. 65159-5:

"In Retaliation Windermere Sought to Make the Litigation as Expensive and Time Consuming as Possible to Dissuade Mr. Rodriguez and other Agents from Asserting Claims against Windermere."

"The trial court's award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to Mr. Rodriguez was both appropriate and necessary pursuant to Washington law and its public policies. A finding otherwise would have validated a unilateral fees clause and resulted in the precise inequity the statute intends to remedy. This Court should disregard Windermere's attempt to truncate the relevant contractual language and misconstrue the law, and affirm the trial court's award of attorney's fees award to Mr. Rodriguez. Likewise, the trial court's award of prejudgment interest at 18%, as the parties had agreed was the reasonable rate of interest between them, was correct and should be affirmed."

"A good reputation is more valuable than money." —Publilius Syrus

ARE YOU CONSIDERING A WINDERMERE FRANCHISE? CONSIDER CAREFULLY: Does franchiser Windermere Services Company disclose the Windermere network's pervasive professional misconduct, countless lawsuits and vast PR troubles to renewing and prospective Windermere franchisees? Under Federal Trade Commission Rules, Part 436, Disclosure Requirements, any franchiser has a legal duty to disclose: "16 CFR 436.2 (5)(n) ...any fact, circumstance, or set of conditions which has a substantial likelihood of influencing a reasonable franchisee or a reasonable prospective franchisee in the making of a significant decision relating to a named franchise business or which has any significant financial impact on a franchisee or prospective franchisee."

ANOTHER WINDERMERE FRANCHISE GONE: Prevaricating internet predator Windermere Preferred Living of Brea, California, goes out of business.

CW TITLE OF BELLEVUE REVIEW: "I'm still waiting to close on my property because of her lies."

Click to Windermere Oregon and Windermere Real Estate Central Oregon Lawsuit Case Summaries here.

Important Washington Real Estate Cases:

SVENDSEN v STOCK: Washington Consumer Protection Act Applies to Real Estate Broker

LUNSFORD v FRALEY: "DUAL AGENCY IS PERILOUS" says Court. "...Windermere did not advise the Lunsfords that it would present the Thomas offer

CHRISP v. GOLL Earnest Money Forfeiture, Court rules "...plain language of RCW 64.04.005 does not allow substantial compliance..."

WINDERMERE FRANCHISE OWNERS' BANKRUPTCY and TAX WARRANTS; MISCELLANEOUS WINDERMERE LEGAL, CREDITOR and DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS:

BK Petition of Windermere Real Estate Capital Group, Inc., Owner Steven Alan Osburn: Total Assets of Steven Alan Osburn (left) $25,804.12; Total Liabilities, $1,368,534.85. Creditor Holding Unsecured Nonpriority Claim, Windermere Services Company, $130,000.00. Download the Osburn Bankruptcy Petition here. Mr Osburn is currently a real estate agent at 43 Forty Three Degrees North Real Estate, Boise, Idaho; M2 Idaho, LLC. Osburn's Windermere Capital Group was sued for Violation of the Fair Housing Act.

STATE WARRANT FOR UNPAID TAXES #167188A: CATALYST COMMERCIAL PARTNERS INC (a corporation) WINDERMERE COMMERCIAL. Catalyst President Robert Regan (left) was "...Broker/Owner of Windermere Commercial/Metro and the Director of Commercial Real Estate for all of Windermere Real Estate throughout the Western United States..."

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE BONNEY LAKE-LAKE TAPPS Owner Tom Tollen's Highmark Homes WARRANT NO. 13-00771-SC For Unpaid Construction Compliance Penalties, An Unregistered Contractor, Infraction No. NSLOD00507, Compliance Penalty, Interest, Filing Fees and Surcharges, $3070.00. Satisfaction of Warrant No. 13-00771-SC. Filed 05/06/2013 in King County Superior Court, NO. 13-2-17004-3 SEA: Highmark Homes and Tom Tollen sued for Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Conversion and Restitution of Money. Filed 07/03/2013 in King County Superior Court, NO. 13-2-24916-2 SEA: Highmark Homes sued in Complaint for Money Due and to Enforce Claim Against Contractor's Assignment of Savings Account. Click to Windermere Bonney Lake-Lake Tapps lawsuits here; SETTLEMENT: "Defendant has settled Plaintiff's claims..." Motion and Declaration for Order Granting Voluntary Non-Suit.

WINDERMERE FEDERAL WAY REVIEW

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE—NO. C07-1808 JCC
WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/WEST CAMPUS, FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AND ITS AGENT DAN DENNIS, SUED FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION.
Complaint alleges that “…Windermere Real Estate/West Campus, Inc. and Dan Dennis SUPPLIED FALSE INFORMATION to AMERCO in its business transaction…" (Above left and right) Windermere Defendant Dan Dennis, the generic silhouette head of John A. Tidwell, Manager, Owner and Designated Broker of Windermere West Campus.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING —CASE NO. 08-2-30394-2

Windermere Real Estate West Campus Federal Way; Agents Dan Dennis and Cheryl Crutcher Sued by Newport Village Condominium Owners Association for Misrepresentations and/or Omissions of Material Fact, Fraudulent Concealment, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

(Above left to right) Windermere Real Estate/West Campus Federal Way Defendants Broker Dan Dennis and Salesperson Cheryl Crutcher. The generic silhouette of John A. Tidwell, Owner and Designated Broker of Windermere West Campus Federal Way. Complaint alleges "... intentionally and/or negligently failed to disclose facts regarding known defects and physical hazards..." Notice of Settlement filed May 12, 2011.

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF PIERCE No. 09-2-08369-5

Tacoma, Gig Harbor, Federal Way Agent John Siridakis, Sued for Misrepresentation and Violation of RCW 18.86.030(1)(a)(b)(d).

The Complaint in part alleges: "...Defendant John Siridakis knew prior to closing that the City of University Place would not allow the property to be subdivided into additional building lots and knew that Plaintiff were [sic] making the purchase with the express understanding that such subdivision would be allowed..."

From the WindermereWatch e-mailbag: Selling a home the Windermere Way, through bullying female clients with threats, harassment and intimidation...

Windermere Tacoma, Gig Harbor, Federal Way West Campus Agent John Siridakis Review: "Trying to get me and my two young (age 6&7) "kicked out" of our house..."

"This is my third experience with four Windermere agents, three in Gig Harbor and one in Tacoma. These people truly have zero professionalism and worse than that, feel they are entitled to treat their clients as if we work for them not the other way around."

John Siridakis of Tacoma, Gig Harbor, and Windermere Federal Way West Campus, emails HIS OWN CLIENT, HIS OWN CLIENT'S LAWYER, AND HER EX-HUSBAND'S LAWYER to demand "...It is now VERY OBVIOUS that Mrs Seller feels as if she is going to not only Run the ship but steer it as well!..." and "...She needs to be removed from the property via the courts..." CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

Windermere Federal Way West Campus Lawsuits:

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE, NO. C07-1808 JCC—Windermere Real Estate West Campus Federal Way, Washington, and its agent Dan Dennis, sued for Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment and Negligent Misrepresentation.

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING, CASE NO. 08-2-30394-2—Windermere Real Estate West Campus Federal Way, agents Dan Dennis and Cheryl Crutcher sued by Newport Village Condominium Owners Association for Misrepresentations and/or Omissions of Material Fact, Fraudulent Concealment, and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY—No. 08-2-34857-1 SEA

$1,278,418.00 JUDGMENT DEBTOR—WINDERMERE AFFILIATED COMPANY COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY OF PUGET SOUND—IS NOW "CW TITLE" OF BELLEVUE AFTER A QUICKIE NAME CHANGE. SHOULD THE PUBLIC TRUST INCOMPETENT WINDERMERE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES LIKE CW TITLE? Read the original Complaint in the case here. Read the Third-party Answer and Counterclaim here. Read the "$1,278,418.00 plus interest" Agreed Order against Defendant Commonwealth here.

As prior counsel to Plaintiff Seawest Investment, and then later as counsel for Defendant Commonwealth—IN THE VERY SAME CASE—Windermere-Demco lawyer Matthew F. Davis (left) is deposed as a WITNESS: Read his amazingly evasive and equivocal 80-page deposition in which he states, "I was not involved with this transaction at the time that it was negotiated. And as a result, I assumed that a disclosure statement was provided in connection with the initial contract formation... And it, because I was involved so much later than contract formation, IT SIMPLY DID NOT OCCUR TO ME AS A POSSIBILITY IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED." (Emphasis added.) Mr. Davis is also well-known for lying to the court and a defendant, and for abusing process through intimidation and coercion in another Windermere case.

ADDITIONAL BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, WINDERMERE COACHELLA VALLEY LAWSUITS:

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INDIO BRANCH—CASE N0: INC 10005449

Windermere Real Estate Services Company, Windermere Coachella Valley Agent Charles Stewart Smith (left), Bennion & Deville Fine Homes Inc., dba Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley, Sued for Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness, Statutory Failure to Make Written Disclosures, Fraud: Fraudulent Concealment and Failure to Disclose, Fraud: Intentional Misrepresentation, Fraud: Negligent Misrepresentation, and Constructive Fraud.

Windermere Coachella agent Charles Stewart Smith says on his Windermere web page that he has "... a track record of proven sales and outstanding client service results."

Charles Stewart Smith review from the WindermereWatch e-mailbag: "...This guy is trouble. I interviewed him to sell my home. I researched his background after we met. I did not hire him. I learned that he does not use his real name Charles Smith. And the guy and his real estate partner Patrick Jordan were in foreclosure and did not notify the DRE. It turns out that there is a reason agents can't use nick names with out notifying clients. You don't find much under Stewart Smith."

Request For Dismissal filed 10/22/2012—Jury trial scheduled 11/19/2012 vacated.

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT OF, RIVERSIDE COUNTY—CASE N0: INC 1203722

Bennion & Deville Agent Scott Palermo (left), individually; Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. a California corporation, dba Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley; Louise Hampton, individually; HLH Enterprises, Inc., a California corporation dba Prudential California Realty, sued for General Negligence.

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES: "Palermo told Plaintiffs that he then did extensive research as to the easement and assured Plaintiffs that they had exclusive use of the easement as if Plaintiffs owned the land." CASE UPDATE: Request for Dismissal 10/30/2012.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—CASE NO. EDCV-01242 JGB (OPx)

Coldwell Banker Sues Windermere Services Southern California for Lanham Act Trade Dress Infringement, Common Law Trade Dress Infringement, and Common Law Unfair Competition.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT NO. SACV10-01589 JVS (ex)

A&L Partners, Andrea Marquez, Joseph R. Deville, Bob Bennion, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Sued for Trademark Infringement. —Dismissal 01/09/2012: "The parties having agreed to the terms set forth in the Stipulation for Dismissal..."

A&L Partners/Andrea Marquez/Windermere Preferred Living, Brea, California, has gone out of business. Marquez and Windermere Brea had falsely claimed to be Windermere "Preferred Properties^TM" in a predatory website takedown letter, while simultaneously being sued by local competitor Tarbel for using the "Preferred Properties" phrase.

FINAL REPORT ON DETERMINATION OF ACTION REGARDING TRADEMARK.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INDIO—CASE NO. INC 1204647

OOPS!!! WINDERMERE'S DAVID CARDEN AND DALE MAGUIRE (at left respectively); RE/MAX SPECIALISTS, BOB STALLINGS and PIERRE BALLARD; and SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER RONNY THARPE, SUED BY SALES PROSPECT WHO FELL INTO OPEN, UNFENCED and ALMOST EMPTY SWIMMING POOL. READ THE ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS BENNION & DEVIILE FINE HOMES, AGENTS CARDEN AND MAGUIRE HERE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, INDIO—CASE NO. INC 1208438

CASE UPDATE 3/26/2013: Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Windermere Coachella Dismissed with Prejudice by Plaintiff

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY—BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES—SUED FOR WRONGFUL DEATH DUE TO NEGLIGENCE IN RENTAL HOME CHILD DROWNING.

A customer of Andrea Turnage (left) from the now-defunct Windermere Real Estate, Indian Wells, California, says: "One of the worst experiences in real estate I've ever had..." and "...extremely unprofessional and unethical..." READ ANDREA'S REVIEW HERE

WINDERMERE AFFILIATED BUSINESS LAWSUITS & LITIGATION

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION, CIVIL ACTION NO. CV-09-1009-UNAS-IPJ

Windermere Affiliated Business OLD REPUBLIC HOME PROTECTION COMPANY SUED IN FEDERAL NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT alleging, "This case pertains to defendant's uniform, nationwide practice of charging home warranty premiums in connection with the settlement or closing of home mortgage loans in a manner that violates RESPA, specifically Section 8(a), which prohibits, among other things, the giving or accepting of fees in exchange for the referral of any "service involving a federally related mortgage loan" to "any person."

THE "AFFILIATED" BUSINESSES THAT PAY PUBLIC PREDATOR WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE, ITS EMPLOYEES AND/OR AGENTS—WHO HAVE A DIRECT OR INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST AND MAY RECEIVE A FINANCIAL BENEFIT—TO STEER HOME BUYERS AND SELLERS TO THEIR SPECIFIC SETTLEMENT SERVICES: IS IT UNETHICAL?

WINDERMERE AGENTS and BROKERS COMPEL SELLERS and BUYERS TO SIGN A FORM: Windermere SoCal's "Affiliated Business Arrangement" in part states:

"This is to give you notice that Windermere Real Estate SoCal has a business relationship with Old Republic Home Warranty, GeoAssurance, Orange Coast Title Company, The Escrow Source, imortgage.com and Mortgage Capital Partners. Windermere Real Estate SoCal and/or certain owners, employees and/or agents of Windermere Real Estate have a direct or indirect ownership interest in Old Republic Home Warranty, GeoAssurance, Orange Coast Title Company, The Escrow Source, imortgage.com and Mortgage Capital Partners. Because of these relationships, this referral may provide a financial benefit to Windermere Real Estate SoCal, its employees and/or agents. DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE WINDERMERE SOCAL "AFFILIATED BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT" HERE

GERACI v. HOMESTREET BANK: Is HomeStreet Bank a socially responsible financial institution?

SHOULD CONSUMERS TRUST ORANGE COAST TITLE?

"He is currently an active board member of Orange Coast Title..." The Bob Deville (left) Windermere web page states: "Bob Deville has worked in real estate since 1971. He first affiliated with Windermere in 1991 and has also worked with the Dover Group where he was among the company`s top one percent of all producers. He holds maintains Broker Real Estate Licenses in both California and Washington state. He also owned and managed a residential real estate investment company for nearly two decades. He is currently an active board member of Orange Coast Title, Palm Springs International Film Festival, and Pathfinder Ranch.

SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA, ORANGE COUNTY - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER—CASE NO. 30-2011-00515085

Windermere's affiliated business, Orange Coast Title—founded by John L. Marconi in 1974—sued for Quiet Title and Negligence in Complaint alleging a "...fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Defendants to steal equity from real estate..."

The Orange Coast family of companies also includes California Title Company; Equity Title, LLC; First Centennial Title Company of Nevada; Financial Processing Systems; Integrated Lender Services; JLM Corporation; Laureltree Promotions; National Asset Management Group; and TrackMyFile.

Allegations from Orange County Complaint No. 30-2011-00515085: "Among other things, Orange Coast maintained a long time business relationship with Defendant Grachen; Orange Coast handled title insurance for Grachen's real estate transactions. On information and belief, Orange Coast actually knew or should have known that Grachen was involved in numerous fraudulent real estate schemes in Orange County and elsewhere which involved Grachen's acts of forging signatures, using forged notary stamps, and creating false and forged documents. This is because Orange Coast had either actual or constructive knowledge of Grachen's fraudulent real estate schemes before the transactions involved herein."

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA—CASE NO. 2:12-CV-00284-GMS

Equity Title of Arizona—a member of Windermere's affiliated Orange Coast Title family of companies—sued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for Negligence, and Aidng and Abetting Fraud.

The Complaint alleges: "Where an escrow agent becomes aware of facts which present substantial evidence of fraud, the escrow agent owes a duty to disclose such evidence to the lender." UPDATE: The Court has been advised that this case has tentatively settled..."

PRUDENT LEGAL MANAGEMENT: Consider Adding Franchiser Windermere Services Company To Your Windermere Complaint...

Attention Attorneys and Windermere Fraud Victims: Forced by outrageous ethical breach into suing a local Windermere franchise, broker or agent? Windermere advertises "The highest ethical standards. Uncompromising honesty and integrity," but in truth runs away from its own unethical misconduct and forces damaged Windermere fraud victims to sue and endure years of legal expense, distress and strategic delay.

Opinions state that Franchiser Windermere Services Company has a bona fide legal fiduciary interest in every local Windermere office transaction because it gets money from those transactions: When local Windermere franchises are sued and Complaints name "Windermere Real Estate Services Company," as a party, franchiser Windermere Services claims it has been "erroneously sued" and aggressively seeks its own dismissal from the lawsuit—but don't let that happen. If you're forced to sue your local Windermere franchise, remember: Franchiser Windermere Services Company HAS ALREADY PROFITED on your unethical Windermere transaction through its local franchise, and it therefore shares potential liability for your damages and attorney fees.

LEGAL PRECEDENT: Windermere Services Company has previously argued affirmatively in King County Superior Court No. 05-2-3443 SEA that it is in privity with its Windermere franchisees: In its duplicitous pleading to escape counterclaims, Windermere Services Company ACTUALLY PREVAILED in a Partial Summary Judgment Motion that states it is in "privity" with a Seattle Windermere franchisee because, "...as the owner of the Windermere tradename, it is in privity with Windermere Real Estate/Northeast." Privity is defined as: a.) A relation between parties that is held to be sufficiently close and direct to support a legal claim on behalf of or against another person with whom this relation exists. b.) A successive or mutual interest in or relationship to the same property.

FOR MAXIMUM POSSIBLE RECOVERY, PRUDENT LEGAL MANAGEMENT DEMANDS WINDERMERE FRAUD VICTIMS and THEIR COUNSEL SHOULD CONSIDER ADDING FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY TO ANY COMPLAINT THEY FILE. Access Windermere Services Company's Partial Summary Judgment Privity Motion & Order here.

VESTUS FORECLOSURE GROUP REVIEW

KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON—CASE NO. 12-2-08537-4 SEA

VESTUS FORECLOSURE TO STAND TRIAL ON FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT CHARGE: Vestus Foreclosure Group, Windermere Real Estate East, and "Foreclosure Expert" Christopher Hall, heading for trial. After Windermere/Demco standard Summary Judgment Motion, Judge orders that Plaintiff's claims for Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Concealment, Negligent Misrepresentation, CPA and violation of RCW 18.86 agency statute will remain. Vestus Windermere Demco Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff files jury demand.

"Vestus, LLC is also a trade name for Defendant Windermere Real Estate/East, Inc."

Vestus Foreclosure Group, Windermere Real Estate East, Windermere Sales Associate and "Foreclosure Expert" Christopher Hall, Sued for Negligent or Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Violation of the Consumer Protection Act; Violations of RCW Chapters 18.85 and 18.86; RCW Chapter 19.86

The Complaint Alleges: "The Defendants hold themselves out as experts in the purchase of foreclosing property, and facilitate the financing and acquisition of foreclosing properties." ... "Vestus advertises that it gathers "real time market data" on foreclosing properties, "mines" the data, physically drives to the properties in order to ensure the accurate analysis of each property, and rigorously and carefully analyses the information it has collected." ... "The Defendants did not disclose the [foundation] settling problem..."and the Plaintiff was "...compelled to repair the foundation problems at great expense."

(Left to right) Chelle Nelson, Managing Broker, Windermere Real Estate East, who says on her Windermere web page "I hope you'll consider me a valuable educator and resource for all your real estate questions and needs." Lew Mason, Branch Manager of Windermere Real Estate East; and Windermere Real Estate East Manager/Broker, Dennus Baum, who states on his Windermere web page "As the Broker/Manager of Bellevue East, I am committed to providing our clients with the highest level of real estate service and expertise. Over my 30 years of experience, in an ever changing real estate market, I can provide a valuable resource for both clients and agents so that you receive the experience you deserve with one of the most important decisions of your life."

FROM THE ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS OF VESTUS LLC, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE EAST, INC., and CHRISTOPHER HALL: "... Admit that a qualified person associated with Vestus bid on the property on that date and that the bid was successful. As of this writing, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHICH INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTED THE BID..." and "... Plaintiffs' claims are barred or diminished by assumption of risk, waiver, estoppel, ACT OF GOD ..." (emphasis added)

SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF WASHINGTON, KING COUNTY—NO. 05-2-3433-4 SEA

LIAR, BULLY, COWARD and CROOK: IS WINDERMERE'S PAUL STEPHEN DRAYNA THE NATION'S MOST INSUFFERABLE and UNETHICAL LAWYER?

Windermere Prevaricator Pro: Lying to judges and knowingly filing false complaints and other fraudulent documents in their courts, then instructing innocent defendants through intimidating emails that they should hire no lawyers. Illegally demanding that Windermere fraud victims sign away their speech rights. Attempting to coerce unjust settlement agreements with excessive legal expense, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and e-bullying. Running away and voluntarily dismissing his own company's phony, process-abusive lawsuits under CR 41 on the eve of trial. So ethically unworthy of a law license that he'll even try deliberately subverting a previously demanded and paid jury proceeding by duping a judge and surreptitiously ordering a bench trial in an unrelated motion. Is Windermere General Counsel, Lying Lawyer and smirking Legal Process Cheat, Paul Stephen Drayna (above left), the nation's most obtuse, dishonest, and unscrupulous corporate attorney?

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 12-2-28170-0 SEA

CASE UPADTE 3/8/2013: Stasik and Windermere Dismissed on Summary Judgment

"...A PRO AT COLLECTING PROPERTY DETAILS."

Windermere Northwest Broker Susan Stasik (left) and Windermere Real Estate Northwest, Sued for Misrepresentation and Failure to Disclose Sewer Vault and Walking Easements in Property Sale. Also Named in Complaint are First American Title Insurance Company, Ronald and Betty Edgbert, and (Eddy) Cho F. Pang: Ms. Stasik's Windermere web page states that she has "YEARS OF KNOWLEDGE / EXPERIENCE / NEGOTIATIONS" and is a "...pro at collecting property details."

Case update from the Windermere Northwest / Susan Stasick Motion for Summary Judgment, page 3, lines 17-19: "...On paragraphs F. and K, someone, most likely Susan Stasick, wrote in the words "See title" and "See title - CC&R's" and IT APPEARS SOMEONE CROSSED OUT THE "NO" ANSWER AND MARKED "YES" FOR K." (emphasis added.) Order Dismissing First American Title.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE—CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-cv-271

CASE UPDATE 4/10/13: STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Windermere Real Estate Company and its Seattle-Wedgwood Office Broker, Carissa Turbak [Saffel], Sued for Copyright Infringement, False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition—Violation of the Lanham Act—by Finito Services LLC, dba Sunspot Inns, Resorts & Vacation Rentals .

The Complaint Alleges: "Without the permission of Sunspot, Defendants selected, modified and published no fewer than 53 Sunspot photographs in their real estate marketing materials on multiple Internet websites..." Above left: Windermere Real Estate Company Owner John "OB" Jacobi; Windermere Real Estate Company Seattle-Wedgwood Broker Carissa Turbak Saffel.

COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION 1, STATE OF WASHINGTON—NO. 58533-9-I

THE GRUELING HUMAN TOLL OF CHASING WINDERMERE CROOKS THROUGH THE COURTS: $311,304.67 IN LEGAL FEES, 5 YEARS DISTRESSING LITIGATION, and DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE TO BUILD A NEW ONE...

COURT SAYS WINDERMERE CAMANO ISLAND'S SONYA EPPIG "...DID NOT SO UNEQUIVOCALLY SET FORTH THE PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROBLEMS..." and "...[WINDERMERE] CAMANO LEARNED ABOUT THE PERMITTING AND INSPECTION PROBLEMS BUT DID NOT INFORM THE RUEBELS."

(Left) Sonya Eppig, still producing commissions for Windermere Real Estate/CIR Owner, Marla Heagle, and for franchiser Windermere Services Company.

"...Eppgig did not tell the Ruebels about the addendum Nelson prepared disclosing that the engineering work was not complete and that the building plans did not meet the UBC requirements. Instead, Eppig helped draft a revised addendum that did not so unequivocally set forth the permitting and inspection problems. And when Camano Realty listed the Hovis property for approximately two years, Camano learned about the permitting and inspection problems but did not inform the Ruebels...

... Eppig did not tell the Ruebels that the Building Department had suspended the building permit. Sometime after May 6, Eppig obtained some engineering information from Preview Realty and requested building plans from Hovis’ architect.... On May 7 or 8, Eppig sent the Ruebels an extension until May 15 for the feasibility study and assured them that there was no problem with complying with the Building Department's request for the engineering information.... Contrary to Eppig’s assurances, VanDuine testified that he told Eppig the engineering data she provided was inadequate...

...Rather than proceed with remodeling, the Ruebels decided it was less costly to demolish the house and build a new house."

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON STATE, KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 09-2-46671-8 SEA

Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi's Washington Loan Company, Craig and Rosalie Shriner's Windermere Real Estate S.C.A. Redmond, and its Agent Christopher Judd, Sued for Intentional Misrepresentation and Other Claims in Alleged "...unlawful scheme to enrich themselves at the expense of plaintiffs and others..."

(Above, left to right) Governing Persons of the Washington Loan Company: 1) Windermere Founder John W. Jacobi is listed as President of the Washington Loan Company; 2) Kendra Vita, Manager of franchiser Windermere Services Company is listed as Secretary of the Washington Loan Company; 3) franchiser Windermere Services Company General Counsel, attorney Paul S. Drayna—WSBA #26636—is listed as Registered Agent of the Washington Loan Company; 4) Don Riley, Washington Loan Company manager; 5) Windermere Real Estate S.C.A. Redmond owner Craig Shriner; 6) Windermere Redmond SCA managing broker Aaron Shriner; 7) Windermere Redmond SCA agent Christopher Judd.

From Yahoo Reviews... Comments for Aaron Shriner—Windermere Real Estate: "This office represented the buyer of our home, the agent failed to communicate information in a timely manner, nearly missed several deadlines to extend the offer, and when we expressed our frustration to the broker, we were met with a condescending response, lacking even the semblance of an apology. Find another office to work with - the customer service in this office is VERY poor."

Typical Windermere Network Office Scams: A Windermere Redmond Review That Every Realty Service Consumer Should Read

ATTENTION AGENTS AND REALTY FRANCHISE OPERATORS:

CONSIDERING A BUSINESS ASSOCIATION WITH WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE?

"In Retaliation Windermere Sought to Make the Litigation as Expensive and Time Consuming as Possible to Dissuade Mr. Rodriguez and other Agents from Asserting Claims against Windermere"

"On April 4, 2005, without explanation, Mr. Jacobsen terminated Mr. Rodriguez's agency with Windermere. CP 92. As part of the termination agreement, Mr. Jacobsen reviewed the files for five pending transactions and agreed that Mr. Rodriguez was entitled to one half of the listing commission on those transactions...

In November 2005, however, before the Brady transaction closed, Mr. Jacobsen unilaterally changed the commission disbursement form in a way that eliminated Mr. Rodriguez's share of the listing commission. CP 92; TE 14. Neither Mr. Jacobsen nor Ms. Thompson ever told Mr. Rodriguez of the change or that he would not receive his $16,800 share of the commission from the Brady transaction. CP 94." Windermere Wall Street's Richard "Jake" Jacobsen (shown left).

The peril in being a Windermere agent: Read ex-Windermere agent Roberto Rodriguez's respondent's brief here.

WINDERMERE'S PREDATORY and UNETHICAL FRANCHISING PRACTICES:

A REAL ESTATE FRANCHISE OWNER'S ULTRA-NIGHTMARE: "...Jacobi decided to open another Windermere office in the territory in which WPCR was operating..."

john jacobi Third Party Complaint Alleges, "Despite Jacobi's contractual obligation to personally guarantee WPCR obligations to Bank of America and demands by WPCR members to do so, Jacobi failed and refused to sign personal guarantees of these obligations," and "On September 14, 2010, Maxwell heard from a real estate agent working at WPCR that the agent had received an email from WSC [franchiser Windermere Services Co.] notifying him WPCR's franchise had been terminated. This notice was sent to WPCR's real estate agents before Maxwell learned of the termination of WPCR's franchise." (Windermere founder John Jacobi, left.)

PLEADINGS AND THE ENTIRE SAGA OF WINDERMERE PUYALLUP CANYON ROAD

WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY v. MAXWELL (FORMER WINDERMERE PCR OWNER) UPDATE: VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS FILED

WINDERMERE SERVICES LITIGATION with DISGRUNTLED FORMER FRANCHISEES

24 Former Windermere California Offices Drop the Windermere Brand

Windermere suing its own agents:

Windermere Real Estate/East files complaint for money due against its own Windermere broker/agent Gregory M. Gransberry, also known as Greg Gransberry, and Kathy E. Goldstein, husband and wife; gets default judgment of $76,535.47

The complaint states in part under:

“I. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1.4 Upon information and belief, defendants Gransberry and Kathy E. Goldstein are, and at all times material to this action were, husband and wife. This allegation is based upon statements made by defendant Gransberry and supported by his representation that he resides at 1

• 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

Windermere Real Estate is Our National Poster Child for American Realty Fraud and Unethical Realtor Misconduct...

IN THE FACE OF MASSIVE and MOUNTING LOSSES, WINDERMERE LIES ABOUT ITS AGENT VOLUME:

________________

WindermereWatch

Fraud News Pages:

Windermere Capitol Hill and Agents Sued...

BRANDING BOMBSHELL: Windermere Exclusive Properties Announces Change to Real Living LIFESTYLES 8-OFFICE, 400-AGENT SAN DIEGO POWERHOUSE DROPS THE WINDERMERE BRAND. Story here.

And in a related case...

Franchiser Windermere Services Company Files Breach of Contract Lawsuit against previous franchisees Lifestyles Services Corporation, Lifestyles Services Solana Beach/RSF Corp., MRJR, Inc., all formerly Windermere Exclusive Properties.

ASSESSING RISK IN A HOME TRANSACTION: WHEN CHOOSING A REAL ESTATE COMPANY, CONSIDER THAT PARTICULAR BRAND'S REPUTATION FOR ETHICAL PERFORMANCE.

Arizona

California

Idaho