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

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

.

Latest Cases & Updates Home Page • Comment, Case Tip or Local Windermere Complaint? Email WindermereWatch.

Notice: As of October 1, 2015, Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc., Bennion & Deviile Fine Homes SoCal, Inc., and Windermere Services Southern California, Inc., have left Windermere Real Estate and become the “bennion deville HOMES” independent brand.

______________________

Case No. 5:15-cv-01921 (KKx) FOLLOW THE CASE DOCS ON DEMAND:

9/17/2015; INITIAL COMPLAINTEVIDENCE 1EVIDENCE 2

10/13/2015; COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

10/14/2015; FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM BY DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

10/26/2015; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)

10/29/2015; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

11/2/2015; REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

11/3/2015; SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

11/4/2015; PLAINTIFFS BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., AND WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)

11/4/2015; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., AND WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED [sic] [COUNTERCLAIM]

MAjOR CASE UPDATE:  11/6/2015; ORDER DENYING COUNTER CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICE COMPANY’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: “...While this Court certainly understands WSC’s concerns, the language of their own contracts does nothing to protect them from such an occurrence.”

11/12/2015; JOINT STIPULATION FOR (i) PLAINTIFFS TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (ii) COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS COUNTS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN OF FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

11/12/2015; ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR (i) PLAINTIFFS TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (ii) COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS COUNTS FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN OF FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

11/16/1015; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINTFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EVIDENCE 1FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT EVIDENCE 2

11/27/2015; ANSWER OF COUNTER- DEFENDANTS BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., BENNION & DEVILLE HOMES SOCAL, INC., WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., AND ROBERT L. BENNION TO FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

12/4/2015; JOINT RULE 26(f) REPORT

12/7/2015; ANSWER OF DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12/7/2015; NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS—Local Rule 7.1-1 No Notice of Interested Parties

12/9/2015; ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) SETTING PRE−TRIAL & TRIAL DATES [& DISCOVERY CUT-OFF]

12/14/2015; ANSWER OF COUNTER-DEFENDANT JOSEPH R. DEVILLE TO FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM (Download doc here.)

2/16/2016; JOINT REQUEST AND STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO ENTER A PROTECTIVE ORDER

2/17/2016; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING THE USE AND DISSEMINATION OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS

4/27/2016; NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY

5/6/2016; MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSES

5/6/2016; JOINT STIPULATION RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSES

5/23/2016; SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSES [L.R.37-2.3]

 

5/26/2016; NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS

6/8/2016; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

7/1/2016; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY RE: COURT’S JUNE 8, 2016 ORDER

8/9/2016; JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

8/29/2016; PLAINTIFFS/COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND LAW [L.R. 16-4]

8/29/2016; B&D PARTIES’ PROPOSED WITNESS LIST

8/29/2016; B&D PARTIES’ PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST

8/29/2016; DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

8/29/2016; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S PROPOSED WITNESS LIST

8/29/2016; DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S PROPOSED EXHIBIT LIST

8/29/2016; NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS—B&D

 

8/29/2016; NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS—WSC

 

9/12/2016; [PROPOSED] FINAL PRETRIAL [BRIEF] CONFERENCE ORDER

9/19/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/19/2016; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/19/2016; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/19/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/26/2016; PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/26/2016; DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

9/26/2016; PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND STATEMENTS OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

9/26/2016; EXHIBITS

10/3/2016; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/3/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/3/2016; FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: TRIAL POSTPONED TO JANUARY 31, 2017

10/20/2016; ORDER GRANTING [WSC] DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

10/24/2016; PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/24/2016; DEC. OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/24/2016; DEC. OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/24/2016; DEC. OF ERIC FORSBERG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/24/2016; PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/24/2016; [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER- DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/31/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT


10/31/2016; [UNCONTROVERTED FACTS] DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

10/31/2016; DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER-CLAIMANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

11/7/2016; REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

11/7/2016; OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. FEASBY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

 

11/7/2016; REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF GENUINE DISPUTES

 

11/21/2016: COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

 

11/21/2016: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

 

11/21/2016: DECLARATIONS OF DRAYNA, FEASBY, OSTER, TEATHER

 

11/21/2016: APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH, 1, 2, 3, 4

11/28/2016: MEMORANDUM OF BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., ROBERT L. BENNION, AND JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN OPPOSITION TO WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

11/28/2016: DECLARATIONS OF ADAMS, DEVILLE, SUNDERLAND

11/28/2016: SUPPORTING EXHIBITS A, C, K

11/29/2016: OBJECTION TO DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL TEATHER AND PAUL S. DRAYNA FILED IN SUPPORT OF WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT [D.E. 72]

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

12/5/2016; REPLY IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIMANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

12/5/2016; DECLARATIONS OF DRAYNA, OSTER, TEATHER

12/5/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF KEVIN ADAMS IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS

12/5/2016; DEFENDANT WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOSEPH R. DEVILLE IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

1/9/2017; CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL- JURY TRIAL RESET TO MAY 30, 2017

1/26/2017; ORDER DENYING WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY'S APPLICATIONS FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDERS AND ORDERS FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS OF ATTACHMENT

3/20/2017; PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT

 

3/20/2017; DECLARATION OF KEVIN A. ADAMS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT; EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B

3/27/2016; OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID E. HOLMES BASED ON FRE 403, 702 AND DAUBERT

3/27/2016; 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

5/31/2017; 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

11/1/2017; CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL

1/10/2018; (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER: COUNSELING PARTIES TO CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

_______________

 

Popular Quick Clicks:

 

Windermere Property Management Complaints & Reviews Homestreet Bank Review Demco Law Firm Review Suing or litigating with Windermere? Click here Vestus Foreclosure Group Review Windermere Mortgage Services Review CW Title Reviews

________________

 

Insuring Windermere brokerages means insuring prior Windermere defendants...

E&O VENDORS EVALUATE RISK and PROBABLE LIABILITY HERE: WindermereWatch.com has become the commercial real estate Insurance provider's first stop on the internet!

________________

Windermere Real Estate Hires Matthew Gardner as Chief Economist:

Seattle - Windermere Real Estate announced today that it has hired Matthew Gardner (left) as the company's new Chief Economist. Gardner is the former Principal of Gardner Economics, and has over 25 years of professional experience both in the U.S. and U.K. (MORE)

________________

 

CLICK TO WINDERMERE OFFICE & PERSONNEL LISTINGS IN WASHINGTON OREGON CALIFORNIA IDAHO

THE COMPLETE WINDERMERE WASHINGTON LITIGATION HISTORY in comprehensive listings of Windermere Real Estate 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.

__________________

GENDER INEQUALITY, WINDERMERE, AND WORKPLACE FAIRNESS: Read the hard truth about how Windermere Real Estate treats female workers.

__________________

WindermereWatch Ethics University...

Realtor Unethical Miscondust Review: Read the complete California Department of Real Estate legal action for license suspension and/or revocation in the Matter of the Accusation of Tower Lending and Carl L. Cole.

 

From Glassdoor website—an inside look at jobs and companies:

 

Dec. 24, 2013

“Coldhearted Hypocrisy”

Anonymous Employee (Former Employee)

I worked at Windermere Real Estate full-time for more than 10 years

Pros – Enjoys a good public image, intensely cultivated and marketed for many years...the image appears to be the real thing to the public.

Cons – Marketing is at the heart of the Windermere Corporate approach to business ...consistently promote service to community, putting people first and honesty in business dealings but only if it doesn't mean taking a financial hit of any size: Windermere is guilty of huge hypocrisy. See windermerewatch.com for an extremist but fact based opinion. Windermere has, in their own words always "vigorously defended" against buyers and sellers who complain or sue them.... apparently regardless of the merit of the consumer's complaint. Windermere's contribution to their own Foundation comes primarily from it's agents (Not the Corporation) and at a level of less than a third of the per transaction legal defense contribution agents are required to make. (approx. $12 per transaction. Former Windermere franchise owners find themselves being sued by Windermere Corporate or may see the their loyalty and their Company tossed aside and closed in favor of a newer, younger franchise company......going against their own strict rules by facilitating the transfer of agents with zero compensation to the Ownership losing their entire business. The "Nordstrom of Real Estate" might apply to the design and décor of many Windermere offices, but in no way is there a similarity between the two companies when it comes to true integrity...there simply isn't real consistency between Windermere's professed beliefs/values and their actions.

Advice to Senior Management – You may remember when Windermere had integrity. Try to regain it. Good luck.

No, I would not recommend this company to a friend

Editor's note: Windermere's staggering PR image problems and reputation for protracted litigation with defrauded Windermere customers must be well considered by real estate professionals when evaluating Windermere desk fees and/or Windermere commission splits.

 

 

 

WINDERMERE SERVICES PART OF GRAND JURY/FBI INVESTIGATION IN CALIFORNIA...

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...

...A NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED IN THE PRECEDING WINDERMERE COACHELLA CASE ON JULY 11, 2011, STATES: "A grand jury and FBI investigation have been instituted to discover whether any criminal wrongdoing arose out of Plaintiff's allegations in this case." CLICK TO THIS REPORT

 

 

 

ASSESS THE RISK OF DOING BUSINESS WITH WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE:

If anything goes wrong in your Windermere home transaction—despite whatever clear, convincing evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct you may present—Windermere legal strategy will force you to sue in an effort to stall and exhaust your financial resources on litigation before trial. This web page reports many such cases.

WHEN CHOOSING A REAL ESTATE COMPANY, CONSIDER ITS REPUTATION FOR ETHICAL PERFORMANCE :

Through the fees and commissions that Windermere agents and brokers pay to their Windermere franchise owners—who in turn pay fees and commissions to franchiser Windermere Services Company—every Windermere agent, broker, and Windermere office is a knowing partner to Windermere marketing fraud, and its predatory conduct in local communities.

Your sale or purchase of a home means big commission to a realty agent, their broker, and the company they represent. Consumers have the right—indeed, the responsibility—to review public information which documents the unethical history of a company to whom they may consider trusting their home.

Public information lists the following Windermere office location, agent/broker sales personnel, and staff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Office Admin
Francis Franchise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alison Ybarra

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Janell Wilson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cindy Colley
Internet Coordinator
Marketing Coordinator
Kent Easom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internet Coordinator
John Corcoran
Heidi Murphy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Coursey
Doug Kee
Kathy Noel
Ron Peterson
Sandy Peterson

Windermere
Windermere

Windermere

Windermere
Sally Van Boheemen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marina Hawn
Lynn Kramer
Beth Semingson
Alise Smith

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

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

Office Coordinator
Helen Hardie
Beth Salmon
Tammy Woodward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yousef Abraha
Internet Coordinator
Joeseph Daiker
Robin Denburg
Kristin Duyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebekah Singer
Janet Weldon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Team Baldwin
Cynda Bragg
Bill J. Baldwin
Windermere Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Windermere Services Company 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere

Windermere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24 FORMER WINDERMERE CALIFORNIA OFFICES DROP THE WINDERMERE BRAND:

(1) Former Windermere Real Estate Bay Area, Berkeley, CA, office has become a Keller Williams Realty office.

(2, 3, 4 and 5) Former Windermere Real Estate Welcome Home, with locations in Castro Valley, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, CA, have all become Prudential Real Estate Affiliates.

(6) Former proprietor of Windermere Silicon Valley Properties, Mountain View, CA, has moved to The Sereno Group.

(7) Windermere North State Properties, Redding, CA, has gone out of business.

(8 and 9) Former Windermere Dunnigan Realtors of Sacramento, CA, with locations in American River and Land Park has become Dunnigan Realtors.

(10 and 11) Former Windermere Pacific Coast Properties, CA, with locations in La Mesa and San Diego have joined the Sotheby’s International Realty Network.

(12) Former Windermere Property Professionals of Tracy, CA, have become RE/MAX Property Professionals.

(13) Former Windermere Placer County Properties of Auburn, CA, has become Gold Country Realty.

(14 and 15) The former Carlsbad Village Windermere Exclusive Properties has become Real Living Lifestyles Carlsbad Village; and the former Carlsbad Village Faire Windermere Exclusive Properties has become Real Living Lifestyles Carsbad Faire.

(16) Former Windermere Exclusive Properties Escondido has become Real Living Lifestyles Real Estate, Escondido.

(17) Former Windermere Exclusive Properties La Costa / Encinitas has become Real Living Lifestyles La Costa / Encinitas Real Estate.

(18) Former Windermere Exclusive Properties Rancho Bernardo has become Real Living Lifestyles Rancho Bernardo Real Estate.

(19) The former Windermere Exclusive Properties Rancho Santa Fe has become Real Living Lifestyles Rancho Santa Fe / Fairbanks Ranch Real Estate.

(20) Former Windermere Exclusive Properties San Diego — Carmel Valley / La Jolla has become Real Living Lifestyles Carmel Valley Real Estate.

(21) The former Windermere Exclusive Properties Solana Beach has become Real Living Lifestyles Solana Beach Real Estate.

(22) Internet predator and former Windermere Preferred Living of Brea, California, has gone out of business.

(23) Former Windermere Signature Properties of downtown San Diego, California, has dropped the Windermere brand and is now operating as Pacific Sotheby's International Realty.

(24) Former Windermere Yucca Valley, CA, has dropped the Windermere brand and is now Realty Professionals.

 

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

Windermere Real Estate Aberdeen, Washington, changes ownership to Travis and Jill Jelovich. CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

DOORS CLOSED and OUT OF BUSINESS: WINDERMERE PREFERRED LIVING, BREA, CALIFORNIA, CLAIMS TO BE WINDERMERE "PREFERRED PROPERTIESTM" IN FALSE AND PREDATORY WEBSITE TAKE-DOWN LETTER, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING SUED FOR USING THE "PREFERRED PROPERTIES" PHRASE.

 

THE FORMER WINDERMERE SIGNATURE PROPERTIES OF DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO DROPS THE WINDERMERE BRAND AND BEGINS OPERATION WITH PACIFIC SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY.

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE ANNOUNCES A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP FOR THE MOSES LAKE, WASHINGTON, OFFICE

Heather Adkinson and Barry Lawson (at left, respectively) take over as co-owners of Windermere Real Estate K-2 Realty. “We are excited to start this new chapter with Windermere,” comments Adkinson..." and “Our team is ready to share exceptional service, commitment to excellence, and high integrity with our community” notes Lawson."

Windermere Real Estate K-2 Realty is located at 2900 W Broadway, Moses Lake, WA, and currently houses 15 agents: April Adams, Heather Adkinson, Sierra Becken, Walt Bumgarner, Jane Doe, Sandy Eslick, Lisa Garmon, Lynn Garza, Tammy Garza, Lisa Hanley, Norman & Lisa Hanley, Jay Kincaid, Lois Kincaid, Ralph Kincaid, Barry Lawson, Susan McMillan, Vivian Richard, Denise Varney, Pat Wold. GET MORE INFO and THE GRANT COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WINDERMERE K2 LAWSUIT LISTINGS HERE.

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

WINDERMERE'S PRIVITY ARGUMENT

DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL DISPUTE WITH WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE? YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ADD FRANCHISER WINDERMERE SERVICES COMPANY TO YOUR COMPLAINT.

Franchiser Windermere Services Company prevailed in a motion in which it has admitted that it is in tradename privity with its Windermere network owner franchisees. (Access the motion here)

Are you suing or litigating against Windermere Real Estate? Are you the victim of a dishonest Windermere agent, broker, or franchise owner who is forcing you to sue to recover honest damages? Franchiser Windermere Services Company has prevailed in a motion in which it has admitted that it is in tradename privity with its franchisees, which may allow you to add  Windermere Services and/or the entire Windermere Real Estate Network of franchise owners to your complaint. Ask your lawyer. Read what follows here, then print out Windermere’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and take it to your legal counsel, or send your legal counsel the link to this story.

In King County Superior Court case number 05-2-34433 SEA, to dispose of a defendant’s counterclaims in their  defamation and trade libel lawsuit of intimidation brought against a buyer who publicized Windermere lies and its refusal to honor its public commitment to the “highest ethical standards, uncompromising honesty and integrity,” franchiser Windermere Services Company and franchisee broker Windermere Real Estate/Northeast—and their lawyer, Matthew Davis of Demco Law Firm—argued in a motion for partial summary judgment that “It is true that Windermere Services Company was not itself a party to the first lawsuit, but as the owner of the Windermere tradename, it is in privity with Windermere Real Estate/Northeast.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines privity as:

privity (priv-e-tee) 1. The connection or relationship between two parties, each having a legally recognized interest in the same subject matter (such as a transaction, proceeding, or piece of property); mutuality of interest <privity of contract>

The court agreed with Windermere’s argument and granted its motion. But when it was clear Windermere would face a jury, it voluntarily dismissed its own lawsuit under CR 41, after first pressuring the defendant without success to be silent and sign away his protected speech rights.

While this writer is not an attorney or legal expert, and this news coverage is not intended in any way to be legal advice, it has been noted that privity works both ways, and suggested that the court’s ruling on Windermere tradename privity could be interpreted or construed to mean that Windermere Services Company shares automatic mutual liability for any harmful act or violation of law committed by any Windermere franchisee broker, because the parties share the same tradename; and/or that ALL Windermere Network franchisee brokers share automatic mutual liability for ANY OTHER Windermere Network franchisee broker’s harmful act or violation of law, through sharing the same tradename. When you are damaged by any Windermere broker or agent, the entire Windermere Network may now be mutually liable.

ALTERNATIVE SERVICE PROVIDERS:
• COLDWELL BANKER
• CENTURY 21
• JOHN L. SCOTT
• RE/MAX
• PRUDENTIAL
• KELLER WILLIAMS
• HELP-U-SELL
• ASSIST-2-SELL

 

_______________

 

 
Smart Consumer SideBar:
 
Read the FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK REPORT...

"SUSPECTED MONEY LAUNDERING IN THE RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY"

Courtesy of www.FinCEN.gov
Download this important info here.

AGGRESSIVE, HARDBALL LEGAL TACTICS:

WINDERMERE ABUSES THE LEGAL PROCESS THROUGH FILING FALSE AND MENDACIOUS LAWSUITS TO INTIMIDATE, BANKRUPT, SILENCE AND COERCE DAMAGED CUSTOMERS OUT OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RIGHTS

REALTY GIANT DEMANDS "DARK CLAUSE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS" THAT TERMINATE DAMAGED CUSTOMER SPEECH RIGHTS, BUT THEN RUNS AWAY AND VOLUNTARILY DISMISSES ITS OWN LAWSUIT WHEN VICTIMS WON'T SIGN...

As WindermereWatch proves, there are many Windermere victims—more all the time—and when those victims use the media to complain and warn others, franchiser Windermere Services Company and local franchise owners sue them for libel and defamation through specious lawsuits that are intended to intimidate and silence. Read one of the phony lawsuits here.

Then Windermere tries to coerce victims into signing a “dark clause settlement agreement” that permanently terminates their speech rights.

In the Mark and Carol DeCoursey case dark clause, Windermere even tried to dictate what the DeCourseys could say to other individuals in simple conversation: "The DeCourseys agree that they shall not communicate with any person about their dispute with Windermere unless asked, and if asked, will only state that they have resolved their claim to their satisfaction." Read the DeCoursey Case Dark Clause here.

And in another of its dark clauses, Windermere required "...that he will cease all efforts of any kind (c) to publicly state opinions or beliefs about Windermere Real Estate." Read that Dark Clause here.

This predatory legal tactic is known as abuse of process or malicious prosecution. When a victim refuses to sign, Windermere runs away and voluntarily dismisses its own lawsuit under Civil Rule 41—just before trial, after costing the victim years of distress and yet thousands more to defend against the false action.

In one example, franchisor Windermere Services Company served an outspoken victim a fallacious lawsuit for libel and defamation, and then immediately sent them an email instructing that they "...need not hire an attorney," and further stating, “…we will try to resolve this directly and outside the legal system." Incredibly, Windermere implements both the aggression and arrogance to overtly and unabashedly order that a damaged customer it has falsely sued be unrepresented by counsel and resolve their dispute outside the very same legal system in which Windermere has brought suit against them.

In this day and age it all sounds so inconceivably Orwellian—but it's true.

 

Windermere Real Estate Opens Rogue River Office: Rogue River, OR - Susan Jaeger and Marian Szewc, Principal Brokers/Owners of Windermere Real Estate Southern Oregon proudly announce the grand opening of their new Windermere Real Estate Office in Rogue River, OR. The mother/daughter team began converting their office from River City Realty & Mgt, LLC to Windermere in October of this year and will make it official by hosting a grand opening event in January of 2015. MORE

 

 

 

 

 

CLICK BLUE TEXT LINKS TO

REPORTS & COURT CASES AS OF:

 

SINGLE LARGEST WINDERMERE FRANCHISEE DUMPS THE BRAND

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 Franchiser 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.”

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

Franchiser Windermere Real Estate Services Company (WSC) Sued by 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."

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., a California corporation, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., a California corporation, WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation,

 

Plaintiffs,

 

v.

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1-10.

 

Defendant.

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

 

Case No. 5:l5-cv-0192l-R-KK

Hon. Manual L. Real

 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 

Complaint filed: September 17, 2015

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

 

            Pursuant to the Court's Order of November 13, 2015 [D.E. 30], Plaintiffs Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. ("B&D Fine Homes"), Bennion & Deville Fine Home SoCal, Inc. ("B&D SoCal"), and Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. ("Services SoCal") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") hereby submit this First Amended Complaint as follows:

 

NATURE OF ACTION

 

            1. Plaintiffs are Area Representatives and franchisees of Defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company ("WSC"), a large real estate brokerage company based in the Pacific Northwest. Plaintiffs expanded the Windermere brand into Southern California establishing a thriving business with franchises and offices stretching from San Diego to the Coachella Valley.

 

            2. What was once a viable real estate system offered by WSC to its Southern California franchisees has become antiquated and irrelevant. WSC' s real estate technology and related services have become outdated, unstable, and no longer a real option for its franchisees in the Southern California region.

 

            3. WSC has also failed to provide local and regional marketing and advertising support crucial to the success of any franchise system in a competitive marketplace. This lack of marketing and brand support was only exacerbated by the highly visible Windermere Watch marketing campaign undertaken by Gary Kruger - a self-proclaimed "public service consumer advocate" directing prospective real estate clients to avoid Windermere "at all costs."

 

            4. WSC's shortcomings forced Plaintiffs, through the substantial expenditure of both time and money, to develop much of the technology and others services needed for the Southern California region to succeed. As a direct result of Plaintiffs' efforts, the Southern California region has grown into one of WSC' s most successful regions, and Plaintiffs became the most successful Area Representative and franchisees in the Windermere system.

 

            5. By early 2014, there came a tipping point in the parties' relationship where WSC grew jealous of Plaintiffs' success and desired to take back Plaintiffs' rights as Area Representative - most notably, Plaintiffs' right to 50% of all initial franchise fees and monthly licensing fees paid by the franchisees in Southern California.

 

            6. In pursuing the Area Representative rights to the Southern California region, WSC has (i) committed numerous express breaches of the parties' franchise and area representation agreements, (ii) deprived Plaintiffs of the implied benefits of these agreements, and (iii) shown an utter disregard for California's franchise laws violating both the California Franchise Relations Act and the California Franchise Investment Law. This conduct by WSC has caused serious damage to Plaintiffs and their businesses.

 

            7. For these reasons, set forth in detail below, Plaintiffs now seek compensatory and statutory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and a judicial determination and declaration that WSC did not have cause to terminate the Area Representation Agreement.

 

THE PARTIES

 

            8. Defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company is a Washington corporation registered with the California Secretary of State to do business in California.

 

            9. Plaintiff Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Rancho Mirage, California.

 

            10. Plaintiff Bennion & Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc. is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Rancho Mirage, California.

 

            11. Plaintiff Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Rancho Mirage, California.

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

            12. Plaintiffs have satisfied the amount in controversy requirement as the value of the requested relief exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.

 

            13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs are all California corporations and Defendant is a Washington corporation. Therefore, complete diversity exists.

 

            14. Venue is also proper in this district in that the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, a substantial part of the events occurred in this District, and all parties specifically agreed to the Western Division of the Central District of California pursuant to a forum selection clause contained within a contract that is in dispute in this action. (Ex. G [Modification Agreement], § 9.)

 

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 

A. Background On The Windermere Franchise System And Bennion And Deville

 

            15. Defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company ("WSC") is the franchisor of the Windermere system of franchisees providing real estate brokerage services to customers seeking to buy, sell or lease real property. The Windermere network of franchisees and company-owned locations is collectively considered the largest real estate company in the Pacific Northwest with locations in Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, California, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.

 

            16. The Plaintiffs are each owned and operated by Robert L. Bennion ("Bennion") and Joseph R. Deville ("Deville"). Bennion and Deville are both experienced real estate brokers working in the real estate industry since 1988 and 1971, respectively. Sometime in 1993, Bennion and Deville merged their brokerage firms and quickly became one of the leading real estate partnerships in Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area.

 

            17. Due to their success, Bennion and Deville decided to expand their real estate brokerage business to California. It was this move that spurred a series of contractual relationships between WSC and entities owned by Bennion and Deville that serve as the subject of this litigation.

 

            B. The Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement

 

            18. On August 1,2001, Bennion, Deville, and their company Plaintiff Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. ("B&D Fine Homes") entered into a "Windermere Real Estate License Agreement" with WSC (hereafter referred to as the "Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

 

            19. Bennion, Deville, and B&D Fine Homes entered into the franchise relationship with WSC "to obtain and benefit from the right to use the [Windermere] Trademark and the Windermere System and the services to be provided by WSC under the terms set forth in this Agreement."1 (Ex. A, Recital D.) As with any noteworthy franchise concept, the Windermere name and brand carried with it a certain recognition and goodwill that Plaintiffs (and any reasonable franchisee) expected to benefit from in the operation of their real estate business.

 

            20. Thus, in exchange for an initial fee of $15,000.00 and license fees in an amount equal to five percent of the gross revenues earned during the term of the agreement (see Ex. A, § 5), WSC agreed to provide Bennion, Deville, and B&D Fine Homes the following:

 

            a. A license to use the Windermere trademarks, service marks, logotypes (collectively, the "Trademark") and "Windermere System" in the conduct of real estate brokerage and sales activities at 850 N. Palm Canyon Drive, in Palm Springs, California (see Ex. A, § 2);2

 

            b. An undefined "variety of services" that are specifically "designed to complement the real estate brokerage business activities of [Bennion,

__________________________________

 

1 Item 13, page 21 of Windermere Franchise Disclosure Document states that: "WSC must protect your right to use the principal trademark identified above."

 

2 The "Windermere System" is defined broadly by the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement as "the standards, methods, procedures, techniques, specifications and programs developed by WSC for the establishment, operation and promotion of independently owned real estate brokerage offices." (See Ex. A, Recital A.)

__________________________________

 

            Deville, and B&D Fine Homes] and to enhance [their] profitability" (see Ex. A, § 1); and

 

            c. To take action (legal or otherwise) "consistent with good business judgment to prevent infringement of the Trademark or unfair competition against [Bennion, Deville, and B&D Fine Homes]." (See Ex. A, § 4.)

 

            21. In addition to the initial fee and ongoing license fees identified above, Bennion, Deville, and B&D Fine Homes were also required to pay certain other fees to WSC outlined in the "Affiliate Fee Schedule" attached to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. A, Affiliate Fee Schedule.) These fees included (i) a "Technology Fee" of "$1 0 per month per licensed agent and agent assistant," (ii) an "Administrative Fee" of "$25 per agent per month," and (iii) a "Windermere Foundation Fee" of"$7.50 per transaction side for each closed transaction." (Id.)

 

            22. The Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement provided that the parties' franchise relationships was for an indefinite term, terminable by either party subject to no less than six months written notice by the terminating party of its intent to terminate the agreement. (Ex. A, § 6.)

 

            23. Consistent with its rights and obligations under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, B&D Fine Homes opened its first California Windermere franchised business in Palms Springs, CA.

 

            24. As explained below, over the course of the parties' fifteen year relationship, Bennion and Deville, with the approval of WSC, would ultimately become the Windermere Area Representative for Southern California and, through the substantial expenditure of time and money, would open a series of Windermere franchised businesses in their region, making Bennion and Deville the most successful Windermere franchisees and Area Representative in the Windermere system.

 

C. Bennion And Deville Become Windermere Area Representatives For The Southern California Region

 

            25. On or around May 1,2004, Bennion and Deville, on behalf of their newly formed entity Plaintiff Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. ("Services SoCal"), on the one hand, and WSC, on the other hand, entered into a document titled, "Windermere Real Estate Services Company Area Representation Agreement for the State of California" (the "Area Representation Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Area Representation Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

 

            26. The Area Representation Agreement was the byproduct of WSC's desire to further expand its franchising operation into California by utilizing the experience, knowledge and success of Bennion and Deville to develop that "Region." (See Ex. B, Recital A, §§ l.5, 2.)

 

            27. As the "Area Representative," Services SoCal was tasked with two distinct roles. First, it was granted the "the non-exclusive right to offer Windermere licenses to real estate brokerage businesses to use the Trademark[3] and the Windermere System[4] in the Region." (Ex. B, § 2.) Second, Services SoCal was to provide certain "support and auxiliary services" to both incoming and existing Windermere franchisees in the Region. (See Ex. B, §3.)

 

            28. In exchange, Services SoCal was to share "equally" with WSC in "all initiation and licensing fees" for (i) the seven existing Windermere franchises in

 

____________________________________

 

3 The term "Trademark" is defined by the Area Representation Agreement to mean various Windermere trade names, trademarks, service marks, and other symbols. (See Ex. B, § l.6.)

 

4 The term "Windermere System" is defined as "the standards, methods, procedures, techniques, specifications and programs developed by WSC for the establishment, operation and promotion of independently owned real estate brokerage offices [ ... expressly including] the Windermere foundation, Windermere Personal Marketing Programs, Premier Properties Program, Windermere Retirement Plan for Real Estate Salespersons and Windermere salesperson educational formats and outlines." (Ex. B, § l.7.)

_____________________________________

 

 

Southern California (see Ex. B, Exhibit A - emphasis added), and (ii) "all future Windermere offices" opened in Southern California. (See Ex. B, §§ 3, 10, Exhibit A, § 3.)

 

            29. Although Services SoCal was responsible for collecting the fees from the franchisees and remitting 50% to WSC, Services SoCal was not a guarantor of any of the fees. (See Ex. B, §§ 3, 11-13, Exhibit A, § 3 - "It is understood that collection of fees will be the responsibility of Area Representative, but Area Representative will not be responsible for payment of uncollectable fees.")

 

            30. In order for Services SoCal to be in a position to provide the Area Representative services set forth in the Area Representative Agreement, and thereby benefit financially from providing those services, WSC was required to comply with certain franchisor-specific obligations of its own. These obligations included, but were not limited to the following:

 

            a. Maintain and make available to franchisees and Services SoCal a viable "Windermere System" (Ex. B, § 1.7);

 

            b. "[P]rovide servicing support in connection with the marketing, promotion and administration of the Trademark and Windermere System" (Ex. B, § 3);

 

            c. "[P]romptly and diligently commence and pursue the preparation and filing of all Franchise registration statements, disclosure statements, or applications required under the laws of the state of California and/or the United States of America" (Ex. B, § 7);

 

            d. "[M]aintain the registration or disclosure documents and all necessary amendments, updates and/or applications for renewal" (Ex. B, § 7);

 

            e. "[B]e responsible for any registration filing fee and for all legal expenses incurred in the revision and registration of all required disclosure documents" (Ex. B, § 7);

 

            f. "[M]ake available to Area Representative its key people to the extent necessary to assist Area Representative in carrying out its obligations as set forth in this Agreement" (Ex. B, § 3); and

 

            g. Make available to Area Representative and franchisees an up-to-date and viable "technology system" including the website Windermere. com and Windermere Online Resource Center Intranet system - necessary for the operation of the franchised businesses. (Ex. B, § 13.)

 

            31. The Area Representation Agreement was for a perpetual term and could only be "terminated": (i) by mutual agreement of the parties, (ii) without cause "upon one hundred eighty (180) days written notice to the other party," or (iii) “for cause based upon a material breach of the Agreement and following "ninety (90) days written notice" to the breaching party and opportunity to cure. (Ex. B., § 4.1.) The parties further agreed to comply with the termination provision "in good faith" and "give the other [party] reasonable notice and opportunity to cure any real or perceived default or misperformance or malperformance on either party's part." (Id.)

 

            32. In the event the Area Representative Agreement is terminated without cause, the terminating party is required to make termination payments to the terminated party in an "amount equal to the fair market value of the Terminated Party's interest in the Agreement." (See Ex. B., § 4.2.) The "fair market value" is to be "determined by mutual agreement of the parties or, if unable to reach agreement, by each party selecting an appraiser and the two appraisers selecting a third appraiser." (See Ex. B, § 4.2.) No termination payment is required to be made if the Area Representation Agreement was terminated for cause.

 

            33. As discussed in detail below, WSC ultimately neglected and/or intentionally refused to comply with its obligations under the Area Representation Agreement, thereby damaging Services SoCal by preventing it from benefiting as the Area Representative for Southern California. Further, WSC's conduct constituted a constructive termination of the Area Representation Agreement, without cause, subjecting WSC to comply with the buyout provision of Section 4.2.

 

D. Bennion And Deville Significantly Expand Their Windermere Businesses

 

            34. As Area Representatives, Bennion and Deville, through their company Services SoCal, were now entitled to 50% of all initial franchise fees and monthly royalties owed to WSC under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and any other franchise agreement facilitated by Services SoCal in Southern California. This 50% reduction in all initial franchise fees and monthly royalties created a symbiotic relationship between the Area Representative business and any Windermere franchise business owned by Bennion and Deville. This underlying economic benefit to Bennion and Deville from serving as both the Area Representative and franchisee was a significant material consideration of Bennion and Deville when they agreed to (and did) aggressively expand their Windermere franchise operations in Southern California.

 

            35. Beginning in early 2004, Bennion and Deville, with the approval of WSC, began developing new Windermere franchises throughout Southern California. This included more than thirteen franchised businesses located in various Southern California cities including, but not limited to, Desert Hot Springs, Rancho Mirage, La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Indio, and Cathedral City, among others. Instead of entering into new franchise agreements for each new location, the parties memorialized the new franchise businesses in addenda to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement.

 

            36. Without the 50% reduction in initial franchise fees and monthly licensing fees provided by the Area Representation Agreement, Bennion and Deville would not have engaged in this subsequent mass expansion of the Windermere brand in Southern California.

 

E. Services SoCal Becomes A Party To The Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement

 

            37. On August 10, 2007, the parties formalized the symbiotic relationship between the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and the Area Representation Agreement by amending the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement to add Services SoCal as a party to that agreement and all subsequent addenda thereto. A true and accurate copy of the August 10, 2007 amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

 

            38. From this point forward, Service SoCal was included as a party to every Windermere franchise agreement facilitated by Bennion and Deville, including those agreements involving third-party franchisees. As a party to these agreements, Services SoCal was (and continues to be) entitled to 50% of all franchise fees paid by the franchisees - irrespective of the subsequent termination of the Area Representative Agreement.

 

F. Bennion and Deville Enter Into New Windermere License Agreement

 

            39. By 2011, Bennion and Deville had become the most successful franchisee and Area Representative in the entire Windermere system. In order to continue capitalizing on this success, on March 29,2011, WSC entered into a new franchise agreement, titled "Windermere Real Estate Franchise License Agreement" (the "SoCal Franchise Agreement"), with Services SoCal and Bennion and Deville's newly formed entity Plaintiff Bennion & Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc. ("B&D SoCal"). The SoCal Franchise Agreement allowed B&D SoCal to open new franchise locations in La Mesa, Laguna Niguel, Carmel Valley, and Solana Beach. A true and correct copy of the SoCal Franchise Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

 

            40. Pursuant to the SoCal Franchise Agreement, B&D SoCal agreed to pay to WSC and Services SoCal: (i) a monthly "Ongoing License Fee," (ii) a "Technology Fee" of "$25 per month per licensed agent and agent assistant for basic service," and (iii) a "Windermere Foundation Suggested Donation" of "$1 0.00 per transaction side for each closed transaction.t"5 (Ex. D, § 7, Appendix l.) As reflected above, Services SoCal was entitled to 50% of the ongoing license fees, thereby effectively reducing by half the amount owed by Bennion and Deville to WSC. This, of course, was an integral part of Bennion and Deville's decision to enter into the SoCal Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. D, Recital C.)

 

            41. In exchange for these fees, WSC agreed to provide B&D SoCal with the following:

 

            a. A license to use the Windermere Trademark and Windermere System in the conduct of real estate brokerage services (Ex. D, §§ 1, 2);

 

            b. "[G]uidance" in operating the franchised businesses, "furnished in the form of written materials distributed physically or electronically, including through the Windermere Online Resource Center (WOC) intranet website, consultations by telephone or in person, or by other means of communication" (Ex. D, § 3); and

 

            c. To take action, "in its discretion and consistent with good business judgment to prevent infringement of the Trademark or unfair competition against Windermere licensees." (Ex. D, § 6(e).)

 

            42. Similar to that of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, the SoCal Franchise Agreement provided that it could be terminated by either party upon no less than 180 days' notice of intent to terminate. (Ex. D, § 8.)

 

            43. Also like that of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Bennion and Deville acquired numerous subsequent franchised businesses under the SoCal Franchise Agreement. These subsequent acquisitions too were memorialized by addendums to the SoCal Franchise Agreement.

 

            44. Bennion and Deville's aggressive pursuit of new Windermere franchise locations in San Diego County was actively encouraged by WSC, and resulted in

 

__________________________________________

 

5 The Windermere Foundation was purportedly a not-for-profit organization managed by WSC.

__________________________________________

 

investments by Bennion and Deville of more $4,000,000 into the San Diego businesses alone.

 

G. The Windermere Brand Is Severely Damaged In Southern California By Windermere Watch

 

            45. Upon information and belief, in or around 2005, Gary Kruger, a disgruntled former Seattle Windermere client, and his associates initiated an anti-marketing campaign under the name "Windermere Watch," which was specifically designed to direct defamatory statements, materials, and focused conduct against Windermere, and its franchisees and real estate agents. Plaintiffs had no prior personal history or relationship with Kruger.

 

            46. On March 9, 2006, Windermere Watch created its first known anti-Windermere website at www.windermerewatch.com. The website has been (and continues to be) used by Kruger as a tool to generate and/or spread negative and derogatory articles and comments concerning Windermere's purported business practices, litigation, owners, executives, brokers, agents, and general participation in the real estate market. A true and accurate copy of a portion of a printout from www.windermerewatch.comis attached hereto as Exhibit E.

 

            47. On the website, Kruger identifies himself as "[a] public service consumer advocate reporting clear, compelling evidence of America's most dangerous and unethical corporate predator, Windermere Real Estate." He claims that, "[w]hen your home is listed for sale by Windermere, the resulting commission will fund Windermere's predatory legal strategies[ ... ]," and encourages each consumer to "[p]rotect your life, home, family and future by cancelling or not renewing your Windermere listing. Don't risk doing business with Windermere Real Estate, the brand built on lies, fraud and ruined lives." (See www.windermerewatch.com.)

 

            48. Windermerewatch.com is utilized and designed by Kruger to maximize its search engine presence. As a result, when internet users search for Windermere on Google and other internet search engines, windermerewatch.com has appeared as one of the top search results - often ahead of Windermere's own website. The obvious (if not express) intent of Kruger is to use windermerewatch.com to turn potential clients, agents, and franchisees away from Windermere. In Kruger's own words, "WindermereWatch.com is an indispensable internet news and opinion resource that provides hard evidence why consumers, agents and prospective realty franchisees should avoid Windermere Real Estate at all costs." (See www.windermerewatch2.com.)

 

            49. On August 8, 2010, Kruger created a second anti-Windermere website at www.windermerewatch2.com. This second website does more of the same, referring to Windermere as "the most poorly managed, unethical and predatory real estate company in America - thoroughly dishonest and incompetent." (See www.windermerewatch2.com.)

 

            50. In the real estate industry, it is common for potential clients to select their real estate broker and/or agent based upon information that is made available on the internet. The prominent placement of Windermere Watch - and its negative marketing campaign - which is palpably prominent in internet search results often diverted potential clients away from Windermere's brokers and agents. The loss of actual and potential clients as a result of Windermere Watch's negative marketing campaign ultimately forced many agents to disassociate themselves from Windermere.

 

            5l. In addition to the websites' strong anti-Windermere rhetoric, Kruger also regularly sent out mass mailings of postcards and other materials containing anti-Windermere propaganda to residents and potential clients in areas where new Windermere franchise locations were scheduled to open. Examples of Kruger's anti-Windermere mass mailings to clients and prospective clients of Windermere franchisees in Southern California are reflected in Exhibit F, hereto.

 

            52. Although WSC was legally obligated under the terms of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, the SoCal Franchise Agreement, and the Area Representative Agreement to take action to protect the Windermere System, trademark, and brand, and to prevent unfair competition against its franchisees and their businesses, WSC did virtually nothing to combat Windermere Watch's anti-Windermere marketing campaign in Southern California. (See Ex. A, § 4, Ex. B, § 3, Ex. D, § 6(e).)

 

            53. The Windermere Watch anti-marketing campaign has had a significant and monetarily damaging effect on Bennion and Deville's businesses. As Bennion and Deville expanded the Windermere brand in Southern California, they had to push against the headwind that was (and continues to be) Windermere Watch with little or no assistance from WSC.

 

            54. By 2012, the growing Windermere Watch anti-marketing campaign and internet presence - coupled with WSC' s failure to make any serious effort to combat the anti-marketing campaign in Southern California - nearly forced Bennion and Deville to leave the Windermere System. Not only were Plaintiffs prevented from receiving any positive benefits from the use of the Windermere name and mark, but they also sustained damage to their businesses, personal reputations and goodwill as a result of the negative connotation now associated with the Windermere name and mark.

 

H. The Parties Amend The Terms Of The Franchise Agreements To Account For The Damage Caused By Windermere Watch

 

            55. In late 2012, and in an effort to entice Bennion and Deville to remain in the Windermere System, WSC offered to amend both the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and the SoCal Franchise Agreement in favor of Bennion and Deville. The amendments promised would (i) require WSC to make "commercially reasonable efforts" against Windermere Watch and its anti-marketing campaign, and (ii) alleviate some of the financial burden that Windermere Watch had caused Bennion and Deville.

 

            56. Consistent with these promises, on December 18, 2012, WSC, Services SoCal, B&D Fine Homes, and B&D SoCal amended the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and the SoCal Franchise Agreement by collectively entering into a document titled "Agreement Modifying Windermere Real Estate Franchise License Agreement" ("Modification Agreement"). A true and accurate copy of the Franchise Amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

 

            57. The Modification Agreement amended the parties obligations under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and the SoCal Franchise Agreement as follows:

 

            a. WSC was now obligated to "make commercially reasonable efforts to actively pursue counter-marketing, and other methods seeking to curtail the anti-marketing activities undertaken by Gary Kruger, his Associates, Windermere Watch and/or the agents of the foregoing persons." This included WSC express obligation to "curtail the impact of the activities of Kruger and/or windermerewatch" (Ex. G, § 3(A));

 

            b. WSC waived and forgave $1,151,060 in past due franchise fees and technology fees owed to it by B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal under the franchise agreements (Ex. G, § 3(B));

 

            c. The franchise fees owed by B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal were reduced for the preceding eight month period. This included a 90% reduction in fees for the months of April and May 2012, a 75% reduction for the months of June and July 2012, a 50% reduction for the months of August and September 2012, and a 25% reduction for the months of October and November 2012 (Ex. G, § 3(C));

 

            d. The technology fees owed by B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal were capped at no more than $25,000 per month and $25 per agent (Ex. G, § 3(D)); and

 

            e. Bennion and Deville were released from any personal liability under the personal guarantees they provided WSC for all amounts incurred and owed by B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal prior to April 1, 2012.6 (Ex. G, § 3(G).)

 

            58. In addition to the above amendments to the parties' franchise relationships, the Modification Agreement also extended the length of each franchise agreement to five years, commencing on December 18,2012. (Ex. G, § 3(E).) The five-year period would, however, "automatically expire in the event [ ... ] it is adjudicated that WSC has

 

__________________________________________

 

6 Bennion and Deville had executed personal guaranties in connection with their ownership and operation of their Windermere franchised businesses.

__________________________________________

 

committed a material, uncured breach of [its amended obligations under the franchise agreements]." (Id.) Section 3(F) of the Modification Agreement also contains a liquidated damages provision in the event that the franchise agreements are terminated early, without cause.

 

            59. As explained below, despite its heightened obligations identified in the Modification Agreement, and repeated requests by Plaintiffs that it take action consistent with those obligations, WSC has failed to make any material effort to combat Windermere Watch. WSC's failure to take action has resulted in significant harm to Plaintiffs and constitutes breaches of the amended terms of both the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and the SoCal Franchise Agreement.

 

I. WSC Continued To Ignore Its Obligations To Take Action Against Windermere Watch

 

            60. Notwithstanding the enhanced obligations which the Modification Agreement imposed upon WSC - e.g., to take action against Windermere Watch - WSC continued to ignore Windermere Watch's impact in Southern California and failed to take any action whatsoever to counteract its negative marketing campaign.

 

            61. On February 11, 2013, just weeks after entering into the Modification Agreement, Bennion and Deville and their legal counsel participated in a conference call with representatives of WSC to discuss the efforts that WSC planned to undertake to combat Windermere Watch's anti-marketing campaign. This was the last (and only time) WSC showed any interest in actively combating Windermere Watch in Southern California as required by the Modification Agreement.

 

            62. By the end of March 2013, WSC still had not taken any action on the Windermere Watch front. On March 29, 2013, Bennion and Deville sent a series of emails to WSC' s General Counsel, Paul Drayna, requesting an update on WSC' s efforts to combat Windermere Watch. In the email, Bennion and Deville also informed Drayna that (i) Windermere Watch propaganda had recently been circulated among several of Plaintiffs' clients, costing Plaintiffs' multiple real estate listings, (ii) 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 (iii) customers had voiced concerns that Windermere - along with Plaintiffs' businesses - would be going out of business after viewing the postings on the Windermere Watch websites. No one at WSC ever responded to Bennion and Deville's March 29th email.

 

            63. After another month of continued silence from WSC, on April 20, 2013, Deville send [sic] another email - this time to Drayna and WSC' s President, Geoff Wood - informing them that Windermere Watch was continuing to pose significant problems for the Windermere businesses in Southern California. In the email, Deville explained that he and one of his real estate agents had recently been at a listing presentation for property in excess of $5,000,000. During the presentation, the seller of the property "Googled" the names of Bennion and Deville only to be directed to the Windermere Watch websites. Not only did Bennion and Deville not get the property listing, but Deville also expressed a likelihood that they were going to lose the agent to a competitor. At the conclusion of the email, Deville asked Drayna and Wood to "[p]lease advise [what] has been done since our phone discussion months ago about [Windermere Watch] and what [are] the plans to make this go away." Incredibly, Drayna, Wood, and everyone else at WSC again ignored Deville's email, and WSC still failed to take any action against Windermere Watch.

 

            64. 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. Windermere Watch continued not only posting anti-Windermere content on its websites, but also flooded the markets of new Windermere franchise locations with the anti-Windermere postcards and other mailings. (See Ex. F.)

 

            65. On June 12, 2013, both Bennion and Deville voiced their frustration in emails to Drayna concerning WSC's failure to act. First, Deville wrote: "[p]lease let me know what is being done about [Windermere Watch]. It has now been months since we have discussed this problem and it is still affecting our business both in [Southern California] as well as Seattle." Deville also informed Drayna that Windermere Watch continued to be used against them by competitor real estate companies vying for both real estate listings and agents, and that Services SoCal had recently lost a prospective franchisee to a competitor after the prospect learned about Windermere Watch's antimarketing propaganda.

 

            66. Bennion followed Deville's email with one of his own, telling Drayna that they "really need[ed] an update" on Windermere Watch, and that Bennion had "sent several emails in the past with no response" from WSC, which he described as "disheartening." Again, Bennion and Deville's pleas for support regarding Windermere Watch were ignored by WSC.

 

            67. 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. This too was brought to Drayna and Wood's attention in emails dated July 4, 2013 and July 8, 2013. For instance, in the July 8, 2013 email, Deville again wrote to Drayna and Wood, "are we anywhere near developing a plan [to] address the [Windermere Watch] issue?"

 

            68. By the middle of summer 2013, WSC's failure to take any action to combat the anti-marketing campaign of Windermere Watch had metastasized to other areas of Bennion and Deville's businesses, including Windermere Watch's direct campaign against Bennion and Deville personally. At this point and time, the positive goodwill that Plaintiffs sought by joining the Windermere system no longer existed, and instead, Plaintiffs were harmed by continuing to use such marks.

 

            69. More than seven months after WSC signed the Modification Agreement, it still had not taken any effort to counteract the damage that Windermere Watch was causing in Southern California. Helpless, and expressing his clear frustration over WSC' s inaction, on July 24, 2013, Deville sent another email to Drayna questioning whether "anyone on your end [was] doing anything to make this go away?" Again, Deville's pleas for assistance went unanswered.

 

            70. The following week, on July 31, 2013, Deville sent another email to Drayna and Wood with a detailed report summarizing the recent events involving Windermere Watch. A true and accurate copy of this July 31, 2013 email is attached hereto as Exhibit H. Deville started the email by informing Drayna and Wood that:

 

[Plaintiffs] continue to get bombarded with the same negative campaign against Windermere in the Desert, the Coast and in our San Diego market. Addressing these issues needs to be made a priority. There has been nothing forthcoming from [WSC] on this matter and I respectfully mention again we feel this is a responsibility of the Franchisor to protect its brand and the brand we are selling.

(Id.)

 

            71. 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. Also, he noted that the Windermere Watch "postcard campaign" continued to be used by competitors vying for the same real estate listings. (Ex. H.) Again, no response was forthcoming.

 

            72. Deville followed his unanswered July 31, 2013 email to Drayna with an August 10, 2013 email, asking "again for an update and what approach [WSC] is taking on this." Deville also demanded that Drayna forward him "any information that [Drayna] may have on responding and addressing this matter."

 

            73. WSC's failure to take action left Bennion and Deville with no choice but to take the matter into their own hands. In late summer 2013, Bennion and Deville hired three internet programmers and devoted their employment full-time to increasing Windermere's internet search engine rankings in an attempt to bury Windermere Watch's online presence. Of course, this did nothing to offset Windermere Watch's continued use of postcards and other print materials to mail to Windermere agents and clients.

 

            74. On August 24,2013, Deville sent another pointed email to Drayna and Wood. This time, Deville wrote: "I had sent numerous emails to both of you regarding [Windermere Watch], our challenges and the effect it is having on us in Southern California with both my company as well as our [Windermere] Southern California [franchisees]. To date I have received no response other than one email some time back [indicating] that we need to get together again and see what we are going to do about them." However, Deville concluded, "I have seen nothing from [WSC] to make that happen."

 

            75. Drayna and Wood remained silent on the Windermere Watch matter until Robert Sunderland, counsel for Bennion and Deville, sent an email to Drayna on August 26, 2013, addressing the Windermere Watch situation in Southern California and making clear that the Southern California businesses sought "a definite response in terms of what is being done" about Windermere Watch. The next day, on August 27, 2013, Drayna contacted Deville and asked to set up a meeting to discuss the matter by phone. Deville responded expressing a strong interest to "finally learn what [WSC] is doing about [Windermere Watch]," and asked that in advance of their call that Drayna email the "plan." True of form, no written plan was ever provided.

 

            76. On information and belief, instead of providing Plaintiffs with a cohesive written plan of their intended counter-marketing efforts against Windermere Watch, in September 2013, WSC sent its Senior Vice President of Client Services (also a licensed attorney), Michael Teather, to meet with Kruger to negotiate an end to Windermere Watch. As predicted by Bennion and Deville before the meeting, Teather's efforts only brought about more incendiary posts on Windermere Watch and more negative attention to Windermere.

 

            77. By October 2013, Bennion and Deville had devoted a minimum of five employees full-time to offsetting Windermere Watch's negative marketing campaign. Through this significant expenditure of time, money, and effort, Bennion and Deville were able to temporarily forestall the negative effects of the Windermere Watch websites. Unfortunately, Bennion and Deville's efforts were too little too late. 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. Moreover, the continued mailings of Kruger coupled with the continued existence of Windermere Watch were now permanent impediments into the operations of all Windermere businesses in Southern California. These ongoing concerns continued to be relayed to WSC to no avail.

 

            78. After a year of essentially ignoring Bennion and Deville's pleas for assistance, on January 10, 2014, Bennion and Deville sent a formal demand letter to WSC to provide "immediate assistance addressing the ongoing challenges of the Windermere Watch." A true and accurate copy of the January 10, 2014 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit R. This demand letter sets forth detail involving the recruitment and staffing challenges and marketplace impact caused by Windermere Watch, together with the identification of costs incurred by Plaintiffs in attempting to offset Windermere Watch's negative and defamatory campaign.

 

            79. In response to Bennion and Deville's formal demand letter, on January 16, 2014, Wood sent an email to Deville which made clear that, notwithstanding its contractual obligations to the contrary, WSC would not be taking any action against Kruger or Windermere Watch. A true and accurate copy of Wood's January 16, 2014 email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. While the January 16, 2014 letter marked a concession by WSC that it had breached the franchise agreements as amended, it did not mark the end of the damage that Plaintiffs and their business would incur as a result of WSC's failure to take immediate action to curtain Windermere Watch.

 

            80. WSC's failure to take any meaningful action against Windermere Watch's anti-marketing campaign in Southern California constitutes a clear breach of both the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and the SoCal Franchise Agreement, as amended by the Modification Agreement.

 

            81. Further, WSC' s inaction with respect to Windermere Watch also breached the Area Representation Agreement to the extent that WSC was contractually obligated to provide Southern California franchisees a viable "Windermere System" (Ex. B, § 1.7), and "support in connection with the marketing, promotion and administration of the Trademark and Windermere System." (Ex. B, § 3.)

 

            82. Each Plaintiff has been severely damaged by WSC's inaction with respect to Windermere Watch in an amount unknown at this time. Additionally, WSC's failure to act forced Plaintiffs to incur significant time and expense employing their own countermarketing campaign. In doing so, Plaintiffs have incurred in excess of $125,000 in additional expenses attempting to mitigate the negative impact of Windermere Watch.

 

J. WSC Disregarded State And Federal Franchise Registration And Disclosure Laws Subjecting Bennion And Deville To Civil And Criminal Liability

 

            83. WSC' s overt failure to provide the required support in combatting Windermere Watch was not its only material breach of the Area Representation Agreement. Instead, and unknown to Bennion and Deville at the time, WSC showed a complete disregard for California's franchise registration and disclosures laws, thereby breaching its obligations to Services SoCal under the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            84. In California, the offer and sale of franchises is heavily regulated by both state and federal law. Under the Federal Trade Commission's ("FTC") Amended Franchise Rule, located at title 16, part 436 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a franchisor is required to disclose to prospective franchisees a franchise disclosure document ("FDD") that contains a copy of the form franchise agreement and twenty-three specific "Items" about the franchised business, including specific information about the franchisor's executives and managers, its relevant litigation history, the expected business of the franchisee, the costs and fees associated with the franchised business, the financial wellbeing of the franchisor, and the conditions in which the franchise can be terminated or renewed, among other things. 16 CFR 436.

 

            85. The California Franchise Investment Law ("CFIL") builds upon the FTC's Amended Franchise Rule and serves as the primary vehicle for regulating the registration, offer, and sale of franchises in California. Under the CFIL, a franchisor must register a franchise application - including its current FDD - with the California Department of Business Oversight ("DBO") before a franchise can be offered or sold within the state.7 Cal. Corp. Code §§ 31110, 31119. A franchisor's California registration must be renewed every year. Cal. Corp. Code § 31120.

 

            86. Once the franchise application is properly registered with - and approved by - the DBO, the FDD, together with copies of all proposed agreements and other exhibits, must be provided to any prospective franchisee at least 14 days before the earlier of the day the franchisee executes the franchise agreement or pays the franchisor any consideration for the franchised business. Cal. Corp. Code § 3lll9(a).

 

            87. These statutory registration and disclosure obligations are intended to assure that prospective franchisees have the information necessary to make an intelligent decision concerning the franchise offered, to prohibit the sale of franchises that would lead to fraud or a likelihood that the franchisor's promises would not be fulfilled, and to protect both the franchisor and franchisee by clarifying the parties' business relationship. Failure to comply with these obligations can (and will) subject the franchisor, its principal executive officers and directors, and the sales agents to both civil and criminal liability. Cal. Corp. Code §§ 31302, 31404, 31410, 3l4ll.

 

            88. WSC has historically offered materially different contract terms to its Northern California prospective franchisees from the terms that it offered to its Southern California prospective franchisees.8 These divergent terms required WSC to file two different FDDs with the DBO - one for Northern California and the other for Southern California. In order to quickly and easily identify one California FDD from the other, the bottom of every page of the FDD was identified either "Northern California" or

 

_______________________________________________

 

7 There are certain exemptions from California's registration obligations, but none of those apply to the facts of this case. See, e.g., Cal. Corp. Code §§ 31101, 31106, 31108, 31109; 10 Cal. Code Regs. § 310.100.2.

8 Most notably, the initial franchise fees and ongoing monthly fees offered to the Southern California prospective franchisees were significantly lower than those offered to the prospects in Northern California.

_________________________________________________

 

 

"Southern California." See, e.g., Windermere's April 18, 2013 FDD for Northern California, attached hereto as Exhibit J.

 

            89. WSC' s California franchise registrations expire every year on April 20th. See 10 Cal. Code Regs. § 310.120. To avoid a lapse in registration - and thus, a hiatus on offering franchises in California - WSC was required to file both a Northern California and a Southern California renewal franchise application with the DBO at least 15 business days before the registrations expired - i.e. sometime in late March.

 

            90. In 2013, WSC filed a franchise registration renewal for Northern California on April 19, 2013, but for unknown reasons, delayed in filing its Southern California franchise registration until June 17, 2013. A true and accurate copy of a printout of the DBO's online Securities & Franchise Filings portal reflecting WSC's historical franchise filings in California is attached hereto as Exhibit K.

 

            91. Because of WSC's late Southern California franchise registration filing, it was statutorily prohibited from offering or selling franchises in Southern California from April 21, 2013 to July 5, 2013, when the DBO approved of WSC's June 17, 2013 Southern California franchise filing. A true and accurate copy of the DBO's approval notice is attached hereto as Exhibit L. Any offer or sale of a franchise during this "dark" period would result in a violation of the CFIL.

 

            92. 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.

 

            93. In early June 2013, Deville met with a prospective franchisee for the Southern California region and requested a copy of the current, registered FDD from WSC. Instead of advising Deville that the Southern California FDD had not yet been registered, and that under these conditions the offer of a franchise could expose Deville personally to both civil and criminal liability, Drayna sent an email to Deville on June 12, 2013, instructing him to provide the prospect with the Northern California FDD containing a franchise agreement with significantly different terms - and that they could simply "swap out" the signed franchise agreement with the Southern California franchise agreement at a future time. A true and accurate copy of Drayna's June 12, 2013 email is attached hereto as Exhibit M. Drayna directed Deville to engage in conduct that Drayna knew would violate the CFIL in an effort to avoid admitting that he had failed to timely register the Southern California FDD. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, and adhering to Drayna's legal advice and direction, Plaintiffs provided the prospective franchisee with the Northern California FDD.

 

            94. Drayna's deceitful legal instruction concerning the disclosure to prospective franchisees did not end there. Two days later, on June14, 2013, Drayna sent another email to Plaintiffs stating that:

 

Your [Southern California FDD] renewal packet is going out today to the State of California for filing. We typically receive approval within two weeks. As soon as it is approved I will let you know, and upload it to [Windermere's intranet]. In the meantime you can use the Northern California filing, which is already approved for this year, and which I sent to [Deville] earlier this week. We can use that one to sign up the new San Diego office as a temporary solution until the SoCal version is ready. Be sure to have them sign the Item 23 receipt (crossing off [the Northern California Area Representative's] name and writing in [Deville's]).

 

A true and accurate copy of Drayna's June 14, 2013 email is attached hereto as Exhibit N.

 

            95. As reflected in his email, Drayna conceded that the Southern California FDD registration packet had not yet been approved (or even received) by the DBO. Nonetheless, he continues to hide WSC's breach of its obligation to maintain registration of the Southern California FDD by instructing Plaintiffs to provide prospective franchisees in San Diego the Northern California FDD.

 

            96. 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.

 

            97. Incredibly, on July 3, 2013, and still without approval of the Southern California FDD from the DBO, Drayna continued to instruct Services SoCal to have franchisees sign the Northern California franchise agreement as a "stop gap" while they are "waiting on approval on the SoCal UFDD," and until they can "get the real agreement in place." A true and correct copy of Drayna's July 3, 2013 email is attached hereto as Exhibit P.

 

            98. The communications reveal that Drayna clearly knew that the terms of the franchise agreement in the Northern California FDD were materially different than those in the Southern California FDD, but still instructed Services SoCal to have the Southern California franchisees sign the Northern California franchise agreement "as is, even though it doesn't yet reflect the terms [Services SoCal has] discussed with them. Those terms will be shown in the new [Southern California FDD], and in the real license agreement they will sign ASAP." (See Ex. P.)

 

            99. As reflected above, the DBO did not approve of WSC's Southern California FDD until July 5, 2013 (see Ex. L), and this approval notice was not received by WSC until July 12, 2013. A true and accurate copy of the July 12, 2013 email from Drayna identifying receipt of the DBO's letter "today" is attached as Exhibit Q.

 

            100. Drayna's advice and counsel is a clear contradiction of the law and could have subjected Services SoCal and it owners, Bennion and Deville, to civil and criminal liability under the CFIL. Moreover, WSC's failure to timely register the 2013 Southern California FDD, and Drayna's subsequent intentional and malicious misrepresentations to Plaintiffs concerning the substituted use of the Northern California FDD constitute multiple breaches of the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            10l. Most notably, WSC breached the Area Representation Agreement for failing to:

 

            a. "promptly and diligently commence and pursue the preparation and filing" of the Southern California FDD with the DBO breached Section 1.7 of the Area Representation Agreement;

 

            b. "maintain the registration" of the Southern California FDD breached Section 7 of the Area Representation Agreement; and

 

            c. provide competent "key people to the extent necessary to assist Area Representative in carrying out its obligations as set forth in this Agreement" violated Section 3 of the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            102. Ultimately, WSC's failure to properly and timely renew its California franchise registration and provide competent assistance to Plaintiffs in lawfully navigating that nonrenewal, not only negatively impacted Service's SoCal's ability to offer new franchises under the Area Representation Agreement, but, more importantly, exposed Services SoCal and its owners to civil and criminal personal liability. The action or inaction by WSC constitutes material breaches of the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            103. Further, as discussed in detail below, WSC did not renew its Southern California FDD for the 2014 year in violation of Sections 1.7 and 7 of the Area Representative Agreement. Moreover, on July 11, 2014, July 30, 2014, and December 2, 2014, WSC offered new franchises to existing franchisees in the region. 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.

 

K. WSC Implements A Strategy To Take Back The Southern California Region From Bennion And Deville

 

            104. Notwithstanding the affirmative damage caused to Plaintiffs and their businesses by Windermere Watch and WSC' s failure to timely renew the 2013 Southern California FDD, Bennion and Deville, through significant financial investment into the region along with the devotion of countless hours cultivating relationships with franchisees, agents and clients, improving Windermere brand recognition and goodwill, and developing a tried and tested regional business model and technology services that the franchisees utilized in the opening and operation of dozens of Windermere franchise locations, were able to ameliorate these problems and maintain the Southern California region as an overall success.

 

            105. Upon information and belief, by early 2014, WSC had decided to remove Bennion and Deville as the Area Representative from the Southern California region in order to claim all of the benefits - most notably, all franchise fees and royalties - for itself.

 

            106. In spring 2014, 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.9 Deville expressed his disgust with Teather's proposed strategy and made clear that this was not the strategy of the Windermere that he and Bennion had joined over a decade earlier.

_________________________________________

 

9 In the franchise world, this is referred to as the "churn and burn" franchising model.

_________________________________________

 

            107. After discussions involving WSC's new franchising model were met with distaste by Deville, Teather announced WSC's interest in reacquiring the Area Representative responsibilities from Bennion and Deville. After a brief dialogue in which Deville refused to hand over the Area Representative rights without just compensation, the discussion on this topic also quickly ended.

 

            108. It is believed to be around this time when WSC decided to terminate the Area Representation Agreement, and with it, Bennion and Deville's rights to serve as Area Representative for Southern California. However, before WSC could end the Area Representative relationship with Bennion and Deville, it knew that it had to first inject its own personnel into the region, develop a better relationship with the existing franchise base, learn and acquire the regional business model and technology services developed and utilized by Bennion and Deville in the region, and thwart Bennion and Deville's ability to continue bringing on new franchisees while the rest of these efforts were being pursued. WSC also knew that dislodging Bennion and Deville as the Area Representative for Southern California without first accomplishing these objectives was likely to result in upsetting the existing franchise base followed by a potential mass exodus from the Windermere system.

 

            109. In order to effectively push Bennion and Deville out of the Windermere system with little disruption to the Southern California region, WSC implemented a plan that allowed it to (i) stop Bennion and Deville from bringing on new "friendly" franchisees, (ii) surreptitiously acquire Bennion and Deville's technology and system offered to the Southern California franchisees, and (iii) install new franchisees and develop relationships with existing franchisees in the region without the involvement of Bennion and Deville.

 

            110. As discussed below, WSC's execution of its plan throughout the 2014 year ultimately culminated in its delivery of a notice of termination of the Area Representation Agreement to Bennion on January 28,2015. However, the notice of termination is rendered moot in light of WSC's conduct leading up to the January 28, 2015 date which resulted in a constructive termination of the Area Representation Agreement, without proper notice or just cause.

 

                        (i) WSC surreptitiously elected not to register a Southern California FDD for 2014 year, thus, precluding Bennion and Deville from bringing on new franchisees

 

            111. Every year from 2003 to 2013, WSC dutifully - even if untimely - registered or renewed its franchise application for the Southern California region. (See Ex. K.) In 2014, however, WSC elected not to renew its Southern California offering, thereby precluding Bennion and Deville from bringing on any new franchises after April 20, 2014.10

 

            112. Although WSC elected not to renew the franchise application for Southern California, it misled Bennion and Deville for months into believing that the franchise registration was forthcoming in an attempt to avoid Bennion and Deville's discovery of WSC's plan to surreptitiously strip the Area Representative rights from them.

 

            113. For instance, in an email from Deville to Drayna, dated October 28, 2014, Deville wrote, "[a]sked about 4 weeks ago when we would have the new [FDD]. I have 2 prospects and need to have for them to sign a receipt. Please advise when we will have the new [FDD].11 A true and correct copy of Deville's October 28, 2014 email is attached hereto as Exhibit S.

 

            114. The next day, Teather responded, "I spoke with [Drayna] today regarding the [Southern California FDD], I will make sure that it is out to you by the end of the week." A true and accurate copy of Teather's October 29, 2014 email is attached as

 

_____________________________________________

 

10 As reflected above, WSC's California franchise registration expired every year on April 20th. See 10 Cal. Code Regs. § 310.120.

 

11 This did not stop prospective franchisees from contacting Bennion and Deville about franchise opportunities. However, without an updated FDD, Bennion and Deville could not pursue new franchisees.

______________________________________________

 

Exhibit T. In truth, Teather wrote his email knowing that the Southern California FDD had not been (and was not going to be) filed with the DBO.

 

            115. Thereafter, on October 31, 2014, Drayna sent an email representing that the FDD "[j]ust went out via UPS overnight delivery to the State of CA." The records of the DBO show otherwise. (See Ex. G.)

 

            116. After April 20, 2014, Bennion and Deville were deprived of one of their primary benefits under the Area Representation Agreement - i.e., the right to 50% of all franchise fees and subsequent royalties paid by all new Windermere franchisees in the Southern California region. (See Ex. B, §§ 2, 3.) WSC's unilateral termination of Bennion and Deville's right and ability to solicit and sell new Windermere franchises resulted in the premature, constructive termination of the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            117. WSC' s termination of the Area Representation Agreement without first providing Bennion and Deville 180 days written notice of the termination breached Section 4 of the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            118. Further, WSC's termination of the Area Representation Agreement without cause, obligated WSC to pay Bennion and Deville the fair market value of their interest in the Area Representation Agreement pursuant to Section 4.2 of that agreement. WSC's failure to pay this amount constitutes a breach of Section 4.2.

 

            119. Bennion and Deville now seek damages in the form of 50% of all lost franchise fees they should have recovered for the period April 20, 2014 to the commencement of this litigation and the fair market value of their rights in the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            120. Moreover, Bennion and Deville's lost franchise fees - and the ability to aggressively solicit and sell new franchises from April 20, 2014 forward - artificially depressed the value of Bennion and Deville's rights under the Area Representation Agreement. The fair market value to be paid by WSC should reflect these lost sales as well.

 

                        (ii) WSC attempted to surreptitiously acquire Bennion and Deville's technology and other services offered to the Southern California franchisees

 

            121. It was apparent to all in the Windermere System that the technology and services offered by Bennion and Deville were far superior to those made available by WSC. Because of this, WSC knew that it had to acquire - and be able to offer the Southern California franchisees - Bennion and Deville's services and technology before it could take the Area Representative rights from Bennion and Deville.

 

            122. In pursuit of this goal, Teather, on behalf of WSC, opened a dialogue with Bennion and Deville regarding a feigned interest in "working together" to grow their respective businesses by "sharing" services and technology. This, of course, was all a farce as Teather knew that WSC had not renewed (and was not going to renew) the franchise registration for the Southern California region.

 

            123. With this in mind, on July 18,2014, Teather sent an email to Deville and others in an attempt to "begin a dialog regarding what services [WSC] provide [ s], what services [Bennion and Deville] provide and consider the possibility of eliminating duplicity where quality will not be impacted." Knowing that Bennion and Deville's services were far superior to those offered by WSC, this email was Teather's opening attempt to convince Bennion and Deville to allow WSC access to their services and corresponding technology.

 

            124. Through late summer and early fall, Teather continued pushing Bennion and Deville to "combine our tech companies, and put [Bennion and Deville's Director of Technology] in charge of the customer experience and have [WSC] pick up his salary."

 

            125. Once Bennion and Deville denied Teather's request, Teather attempted to solicit several of Bennion and Deville's employees and sales agents to join WSC or other franchisees. For example, WSC invited several of Plaintiffs' employees and sales agents to a relocation event scheduled in San Diego without notifying either Bennion or Deville of the event. Following this event, multiple sales agents terminated their employment with Bennion and Deville.

 

            126. WSC also solicited Plaintiffs' IT personnel in an effort to coerce these individuals to join WSC's operations in Seattle. Teather himself approached and offered a job to Bennion and Deville's Director of Technology.

 

            127. WSC's efforts to acquire Bennion and Deville's superior services and related technology constitute a clear breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Area Representation Agreement.

 

                        (iii) WSC interfered with Bennion and Deville's relationships with prospective and existing franchisees in the Southern California region in attempt to disrupt these relationships

 

            128. By May 2014, Teather had begun bypassing Services SoCal as the Area Representative for the region and dealing directly with current and prospective Windermere franchisees.

 

            129. While unbeknownst to Bennion and Deville at the time, they have since learned that during his direct communications with the Southern California franchisees, Teather was telling them that Bennion and Deville were "giving up" their right to serve as Area Representative in the Southern California region, and that all communications involving the region should be directed to him.

 

            130. Teather also ingratiated himself to the existing franchisees by approving of franchise locations and expansion plans that Bennion and Deville had already rejected for legitimate business reasons. For instance, in July 2014, Deville was approached by an existing franchisee that was interested in expanding its operations by opening additional franchise locations in San Diego County. After learning more about the possible expansion, Deville could not recommend it due to concerns over the franchisee's aggressive expansion plans, the cost of the expansion, and the finances of the franchisee. Notwithstanding Deville's comments and position, Teather met with the franchisee and approved of the expansion without any further input from Bennion or Deville.

 

            13l. On October 3, 2014, fully cognizant of WSC's plan to soon terminate Bennion and Deville's Area Representation Agreement, Teather sent Bennion and Deville an email urging them to give up several of their franchise locations on the basis that they "own more than enough offices" and that "the future lies in franchising" - i.e., selling franchised businesses and not operating them. Disingenuously, Teather professes that "working together we can succeed as franchisors" although WSC has already taken away Bennion and Deville's ability to offer franchises and solicited several of their employees and agents to come work for WSC. A true and accurate copy of Teather's October 3, 2014 email is attached hereto as Exhibit U.

 

            132. Throughout the remainder of Bennion and Deville's time as Area Representative, Teather continued to secretly tell the local franchisees that Bennion and Deville were on their way out and that he, on behalf of WSC, was taking over as the Area Representative. Because of this, some of the local franchisees began to pirate customers and agents that were in the territory of Bennion and Deville's franchised businesses.

 

            133. Teather's efforts to interfere with and undermine Bennion and Deville's rights as Area Representative only compounded the problems they already faced in the region. Again, this conduct by WSC frustrated Bennion and Deville's rights as Area Representative in breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing implied in the Area Representation Agreement.

 

L. WSC's Termination Of The Area Representation Agreement Was A Material Breach Of The Franchise Agreements

 

134. Once WSC was satisfied that it had strung out Bennion and Deville long enough, on January 28, 2015, Drayna sent a short, one paragraph letter to Deville announcing that WSC was "exercising its right to terminate [the] Area Representation Agreement dated May 1, 2004, pursuant to the l80-day notice provision of Paragraph 4.1," and that Bennion and Deville's "rights and responsibilities as Area Representative will terminate on Tuesday, July 28,2015." A true and accurate copy of the January 28, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit V.

 

            135. As reflected above, WSC had constructively terminated the Area Representation Agreement eight months earlier, when WSC failed register the FDD and long before sending the notice of termination letter. However, whether the Area Representative Agreement was terminated at the end of April 2014, or on July 28,2015, WSC's unilateral termination of the Area Representation Agreement breached both the express and implied terms of the franchise agreements.

 

            136. As reflected above, there existed a symbiotic relationship between the Area Representation Agreement and the franchise agreements to the effect that Bennion and Deville would not have entered into the SoCal Franchise Agreement or built out the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement but for the benefits that flowed to them as the Area Representative for the region.

 

            137. Moreover, at the time Bennion and Deville entered into the SoCal Franchise Agreement and the amendments to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, the parties agreed that Services SoCal would be the Area Representative for the region - not WSC or some third-party. The knowledge, experience, and services made available to the franchisees in the region by Bennion and Deville through Services SoCal rendered Services SoCal an indispensable part of not only Plaintiffs' franchise agreements, but also the franchise agreements of many of the other franchisees in the Southern California region. See, for example, Recital B to the SoCal Franchise Agreement, which provides that Services SoCal has the right "to administer the Windermere System in the Region in accordance with this Agreement." (Ex. D, Recital B.)

 

            138. Due to the literal and implied integration of Bennion and Deville's Area Representation Agreement and the franchise agreements, the termination of the Area Representation Agreement also constitutes a de facto breach of the franchise agreements.

 

M. WSC Failed to Provide The Technology Services Implied In Each Agreement

 

            139. In addition to WSC's numerous breaches of the parties' agreements set forth above, WSC also frustrated the Plaintiffs' rights under each of the agreements by failing to provide the technology services either expressly identified or implied in each agreement.

 

            140. B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal are required to pay certain technology fees pursuant to the franchise agreements. Although the agreements do not expressly identify the "technology" that WSC is to provide for said fees, it is at least implied by the very nature of the fee that WSC would provide certain technology services needed by real estate franchises and their agents to post and manage real property listings and to otherwise carry out their real estate business.

 

            141. Moreover, pursuant to the Area Representation Agreement, WSC expressly agreed to provide "technology systems, including without limitation the public website operated at www.windermere.com, as well as the Windermere Online Resource Center Intranet system," to its franchisees in exchange for the technology fees. (See Ex. B, § 13.)

 

            142. Whether characterized as an express or implied obligation, the technology that was to be provided by WSC was integral to the operation of its franchisees' real estate businesses.

 

            143. 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.

 

            145. WSC's inferior technology services have caused Bennion and Deville to incur substantial costs in developing and supporting their own technology systems for the franchisees in their region in order to offset the inferior technology services offered by WSC.

 

            146. Despite the numerous shortcomings of WSC's technology services, Bennion and Deville continued to pay their monthly, non-trivial technology fees of approximately $16,000 to $25,000 per month.

 

            147. The failure of WSC to provide the technology services has breached the express and/or implied terms of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Area Representation Agreement and SoCal Franchise Agreement. (See Ex A, §§ 1, 5, Affiliate Fee Schedule, Ex., B, § 13, Ex. D, §§ 3, 7(c).)

 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Contract - Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement

(By B&D Fine Homes and Services SoCal against WSC)

 

            148. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            149. As alleged above, B&D Fine Homes entered into the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement with WSC on August 1, 2001. This agreement was later amended on August 10, 2007 to include Services SoCal as a party, and again amended on December 18, 2012 pursuant to the parties' execution of the Modification Agreement.

 

            150. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement as amended, unless otherwise excused by WSC' s breach.

 

            151. WSC breached the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement by failing to comply with the following requirements:

 

            a. Section 1, for failing to provide the promised "variety of services" designed to enhance Plaintiffs' "profitability;

 

            b. Section 2, for failing to provide Plaintiffs with a viable "Windermere System" as defined in the agreement;

 

            c. Section 4, for failing to take necessary action (legal or otherwise) to prevent infringement of the Windermere trademark or the related unfair competition faced by Plaintiffs in the Southern California region as a result of the Windermere Watch websites; and

 

            d. Section 3(A) of the Modification Agreement, for failing to make commercially reasonable efforts to curtail Windermere Watch and related attacks on the Windermere brand in Southern California.

 

            152. As a result of WSC's breaches of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but far in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court.

 

            153. Further, Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages pursuant to Section 3(F) of the Modification Agreement as a result of WSC' s early termination of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement without cause.

 

            154. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover "reasonable attorneys' fees" under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. A, § 11; Ex. G, § 7.)

 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing - Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement

(By B&D Fine Homes and Services SoCal against WSC)

 

            155. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            156. As alleged above, B&D Fine Homes entered into the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement on August 1, 2001, the parties amended the agreement to include Services SoCal as a party on August 10, 2007, and further amended the agreement pursuant to the terms of the Modification Agreement on December 18, 2012.

 

            157. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement as amended.

 

            158. Incorporated into every contract is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. WSC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by acting in a manner so as to deprive Plaintiffs of the benefits of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement. This included:

 

            a. Failing to provide adequate technology services in return for the excessive technology fees;

 

            a. [sic] Failing to provide a viable Windermere System to the Southern California region. To the extent WSC provided service or assistance, it was worthless;

 

            b. Improperly recruiting Plaintiffs' sales agents and other employees to join WSC and other Windermere offices;

 

            c. Terminating Services SoCal as the Area Representative for the Southern California region and thereby negating Plaintiffs' 50% reduction in franchise fees owed to WSC under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement; and

 

            d. Terminating Services SoCal as the Area Representative for the Southern California region and not providing a comparable replacement.

 

            159. As a result of WSC's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Contract - Area Representation Agreement

(By Services SoCal against WSC)

 

            160. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            161. As alleged above, on May 1, 2004, Services SoCal entered into the Area Representation Agreement with WSC.

 

            162. Services SoCal performed all obligations required of it under the Area Representation Agreement, unless otherwise excused by WSC' s breach.

 

            163. WSC breached the Area Representation Agreement by failing to comply with the following requirements:

 

            a. Section 2, for failing to provide Services SoCal with the uninterrupted right to offer Windermere franchised businesses in Southern California;

 

            b. Section 2, for failing to provide a viable "Windermere System" as defined in the agreement;

 

            c. Section 3, for failing to provide servicing support in connection with the marketing, promotion and administration of the Trademark and Windermere System;

 

            d. Section 3, for failing to make available to Services SoCal competent "key people" necessary to assist Services SoCal in carrying out its obligations to offer and sell franchises as the Area Representative;

 

            e. Section 4.2, for failing to pay Services SoCal the termination fee - i.e. the fair market value of its interest in the Area Representation Agreement - following termination without cause;

 

            f. Section 7, for failing to promptly and diligently commence and pursue the preparation and filing of all franchise registration filings required under California law and/or the United States of America;

 

            g. Section 7, for failing to maintain the registration of the Southern California FDD'

 

            h. Section 10, for depriving Services SoCal of its right to offer new Windermere franchises rendering it unable to collect initial franchise fees and continuing license fees from new franchisees;

 

            i. Section 13, for failing to provide a technology system to support the operation and development of the franchise system in Southern California, and for unilaterally increasing the technology fees to amounts that on information and belief bear no relationship to the amounts actually spent on Windermere's technology system; and

 

            j. Exhibit A, § 3, by attempting to terminate the Area Representation Agreement under the pretense that Services SoCal was the "guarantor" of the franchise fees owed by the franchisees in the Southern California region.

 

            164. As a result of WSC's breaches of the Area Representation Agreement, Services SoCal has suffered (and will continue to suffer) actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but far in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court.

 

            165. Further, Services SoCal seeks a judicial determination and declaration that WSC did not have cause to terminate the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            166. Services SoCal is also entitled to recover "reasonable attorneys' fees" under the Area Representative Agreement. (See Ex. B, § 2l.)

 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing - Area Representation Agreement

(By Services SoCal against WSC)

 

            167. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            168. As alleged above, WSC and Services SoCal entered into the Area Representation Agreement on May 1, 2004.

 

            169. Services SoCal performed all obligations required of it under the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            170. Incorporated into every contract is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. WSC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by acting in a manner so as to deprive Services SoCal of the benefits of the Area Representation Agreement. This included:

 

            a. Failing to provide a viable Windermere System in the Southern California region. To the extent WSC provided service or assistance, it was worthless;

 

            b. Taking action to interfere with and damage many of the relationships between Services SoCal and franchisees in the Southern California region;

 

            c. Soliciting Services SoCal' s participation in offers and sales of franchises in violation of the franchise laws;

 

            d. Making effort to acquire Services SoCal' s superior services and related technology; and

 

            e. Failing to act in good faith and conduct its business such that Plaintiffs received the benefits of being an Area Representative in the franchise system.

 

            171. As a result of WSC' s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Contract - So Cal Franchise Agreement

(By B&D SoCal and Services SoCal against WSC)

 

            172. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            173. As alleged above, on March 29, 2011, B&D SoCal and Services SoCal entered into the SoCal Franchise Agreement with WSC. The Services SoCal Franchise Agreement was subsequently amended by the Modification Agreement on December 18, 2012.

 

            174. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the SoCal Franchise Agreement as amended, unless otherwise excused by the conduct of WSC.

 

            175. WSC breached the SoCal Franchise Agreement by failing to comply with the following sections of the agreement:

 

            a. Section 1, for failing to provide Plaintiffs with a viable "Windermere System" as defined in the agreement;

 

            b. Section 3, for failing to provide the promised "guidance" to Plaintiffs with respect to the "Windermere System";

 

            c. Section 6, for failing to take necessary action (legal or otherwise) to prevent infringement of the Windermere trademark or the related unfair competition faced by Plaintiffs in the Southern California region as a result of the Windermere Watch websites; and

 

            d. Section 3(A) of the Modification Agreement, for failing to make commercially reasonable efforts to curtail Windermere Watch and related attacks on the Windermere brand in Southern California.

 

            176. As a result of WSC's breaches of the SoCal Franchise Agreement as modified, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but far in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court.

 

            177. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover "reasonable attorneys' fees" under the SoCal Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. D, § 13.)

 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

(By B&D SoCal and Services SoCal against WSC)

 

            178. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            179. As alleged above, B&D SoCal and Services SoCal entered into the SoCal Franchise Agreement on March 29, 2011, and the parties amended the agreement pursuant to the terms of the Modification Agreement on December 18,2012.

 

            180. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the SoCal Franchise Agreement as amended.

 

            181. Incorporated into every contract is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. WSC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by acting in a manner so as to deprive Plaintiffs of the benefits of the SoCal Franchise Agreement. This included:

 

            a. Failing to provide adequate technology services in return for the excessive technology fees;

 

            e. Failing to provide a viable Windermere System to the Southern California region. To the extent WSC provided service or assistance, it was worthless;

 

            f. Improperly recruiting Plaintiffs' sales agents and other employees to join WSC and other Windermere offices;

 

            g. Terminating Services SoCal as the Area Representative for the Southern California region and thereby negating Plaintiffs' 50% reduction in franchise fees owed to WSC under the SoCal Franchise Agreement; and

 

            h. Terminating Services SoCal as the Area Representative for the Southern California region and not providing a comparable replacement.

 

            182. As a result of WSC's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the California Franchise Relations Action (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 20020)

(By Services SoCal against WSC)

 

            183. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            184. As reflected above, the Area Representation Agreement, by its very terms, continued into perpetuity "until it is terminated" by the parties. Notwithstanding the procedure identified in Section 4 of the Area Representation Agreement purportedly allowing the parties to terminate the agreement without cause, the California Franchise Relations Act ("CFRA"), at California Business & Profession Code § 20020, precludes WSC from terminating the Area Representation Agreement absent "good cause."

 

            185. As reflected above, WSC' s termination (constructive or by written notice) of the Area Representation Agreement without good cause violated § 20020 of the CFRA.

 

            186. As a result of the WSC's violation of the CFRA, Plaintiffs seek both statutory and contractual damages for the unlawful termination of the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against WSC as follows:

 

            l. On Counts One through Six:

 

            a. For compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial;

 

            b. For a judicial determination and declaration that WSC did not have cause to terminate the Area Representation Agreement, as provided for in the agreement.

 

            2. On Count Seven for statutory and contractual damages permitted under the CFRA;

 

            3. For reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action pursuant to Section 11 of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Section 21 of the Area Representation Agreement; Section 13 of the SoCal Franchise Agreement; and Section 7 of the Modification Agreement; and

 

            4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

 

DATED: November 16, 2015                                MULCAHY LLP

 

                                                                        By: /s/ James M. Mulcahy

                                                                        James M. Mulcahy

                                                                        Kevin A. Adams

                                                                        Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants

                                                                        Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc.,

                                                                        Bennion & Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc.,                                                                                                                                                           Windermere Services Southern California,

                                                                        Inc., and Counter-Defendants Robert L.

                                                                        Bennion and Joseph R. Deville

 

 

JURY DEMAND

 

            Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 8(b), Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.

 

DATED: November 16, 2015                                MULCAHY LLP

 

                                                                        By: /s/ James M. Mulcahy

                                                                        James M. Mulcahy

                                                                        Kevin A. Adams

                                                                        Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants

                                                                        Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc.,

                                                                        Bennion & Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc.,                                                                         Windermere Services Southern California,

                                                                        Inc., and Counter-Defendants Robert L.

                                                                        Bennion and Joseph R. Deville

 

 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—Case No. 2:15-CV-07322

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

 

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT HERE

DOWNLOAD EVIDENCE 1 HERE

DOWNLOAD EVIDENCE 2 HERE

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES, INC., a California corporation, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES SOCAL, INC., a California corporation, WINDERMERE SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation,

 

Plaintiffs,

 

v.

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1-10.

 

Defendant.

 

Case No. 2:15-CV-07322

[Transferred to U.S. District Court, Central District, Eastern Division, as Case No. 5:15-cv-01921 (KKx)]

 

COMPLAINT FOR:

 

(1) Breach of Contract - Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement;

 

(2) Breach of Contract - Area Representation Agreement;

 

(3) Breach of Contract - SoCal Franchise Agreement;

 

(4) Breach of Contract - Modification Agreement;

 

(5) Breach of Contract - Confidentiality Agreement;

 

(5) [sic] Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;

 

(6) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; and

 

(7) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

            Plaintiffs Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. ("B&D Fine Homes"), Bennion & Deville Fine Home SoCal, Inc. ("B&D SoCal"), and Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. ("Windermere SoCal") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") hereby complain and allege as follows:

 

NATURE OF ACTION

 

            1. Plaintiffs are Area Representatives and franchisees of Defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company ("WSC"), a large real estate brokerage company based in the Pacific Northwest. Plaintiffs expanded the Windermere brand into Southern California establishing a thriving business with franchises and offices stretching from San Diego to the Coachella Valley.

 

            2. What was once a thriving real estate system that WSC offered its Southern California franchisees become [sic] antiquated and irrelevant. The once fruitful relationship would quickly erode as WSC's contractually obligated support to Plaintiffs diminished. Plaintiffs would be essentially left in the desert for years on end with little support from WSC, forcing Plaintiffs to establish their own system at a significant expense. WSC was out of touch, ineffective and behind the times while focused on increasing its fees instead of supporting its franchise system.

 

            3. WSC had assured Plaintiffs that it would provide trained staff that would be able to assist and advise Plaintiffs and the franchisees within California in all aspects of the franchised business. It did not. WSC failed to provide the local and regional marketing and advertising materials critical for any franchise system to be successful in a competitive marketplace. When Plaintiffs took it upon themselves to market their businesses, WSC exerted significant pressure on certain advertisers to discontinue Plaintiffs' marketing campaigns and otherwise terminate their relationships with Plaintiffs.

 

            4. WSC's real estate technology provided to its franchisees and necessary for the operation of the franchised businesses was outdated, unstable, and no longer a viable option for the Southern California region. Notwithstanding WSC's failure to update this technology, it continued to increase the fees and threatened franchisees with termination for refusing to pay for this unstable, antiquated technology.

 

            5. There came a tipping point in the parties' relationship where WSC grew insecure about the Plaintiffs' superior operations, marketing and support for the Windermere brand in Southern California and began treating Plaintiffs as competitors instead of partners.

 

            6. In 2014, Michael Teather ("Teather"), WSC's Senior Vice President of Client Services implemented a strategy wherein WSC changed its focus from providing ongoing services to collecting new initial franchise fees. This was a "churn and burn" franchise model — i.e., forcing existing franchisees out of business in order to resell the territory/location to generate new, substantial initial franchise fees.

 

            7. For all practical purposes, WSC stopped supporting its franchise system in Southern California. It failed to respond to operational, marketing and technical requests submitted by Plaintiffs and franchisees in their territory. WSC essentially refused to process new franchised businesses in the Southern California region although its Vice President, Teather, had approved of the locations and continued to encourage Plaintiffs to expend significant sums of money and time pursuing new franchise locations.

 

            8. After Plaintiffs expressed disagreement with WSC's churn and burn strategy, Teather and WSC's other executives began implementing a strategy to systematically damage Plaintiffs' businesses, thereby pushing them out of the Windermere franchise system. In pursuing this strategy, WSC has violated several terms of their contractual agreement with Plaintiffs, marketed franchises in Plaintiffs' territory without consultation, infringing and interfering with Plaintiffs' business relationships with sales agents, employees, advertisers, and other franchisees. As a result of WSC's strategy, several franchisees have left or otherwise been terminated from the Windermere franchise system.

 

            9. WSC's actions have destroyed its relationship with Plaintiffs and left Plaintiffs with no recourse but to seek legal action to protect their franchisees and employees from WSC's detrimental conduct.

 

            10. For these reasons, set forth in detail below, Plaintiffs now seek compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be proven at trial, a judicial determination and declaration that WSC did not have cause to terminate the Area Representation Agreement and a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining WSC from improperly recruiting B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal's sales associates and other employees to join WSC and other Windermere offices.

 

THE PARTIES

 

            11. Defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company is a Washington corporation registered with the California Secretary of State to do business in California.

 

            12. Plaintiff Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Rancho Mirage, California.

 

            13. Plaintiff Bennion & Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc. is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Rancho Mirage, California.

 

            14. Plaintiff Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in Rancho Mirage, California.

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

 

            15. Plaintiffs have satisfied the amount in controversy requirement as the value of the requested relief exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.

 

            16. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiffs are all California corporations and Defendant is a Washington corporation. Therefore, complete diversity exists.

 

            17. Venue is also proper in this district in that the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, a substantial part of the events occurred in this District and all parties specifically agreed to the Western Division of the Central District of California pursuant to a forum selection clause contained within a contract that is in dispute in this action. (Ex. E [Modification Agreement], § 9.)

 

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 

A.   Background On The Windermere Franchise System And Bennion And Deville

 

            18. Defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company ("WSC") is the franchisor of the Windermere system of franchisees providing real estate brokerage services to customers seeking to buy, sell or lease real property. The Windermere network of franchisees and company-owned locations is collectively considered the largest real estate company in the Pacific Northwest with locations in Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, Idaho, Montana, California, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.

 

            19. The Plaintiffs are each owned and operated by Robert L. Bennion ("Bennion") and Joseph R. Deville ("Deville"). Bennion and Deville are both experienced real estate brokers working in the real estate industry since 1988 and 1971, respectively. Sometime in 1993, Bennion and Deville merged their brokerage firms and quickly became one of the leading real estate partnerships in Seattle, Washington and surrounding area.

 

            20. Due to their success, Bennion and Deville decided to expand their real estate brokerage business to California. It was this move that spurred a series of contractual relationships between WSC and entities owned by Bennion and Deville that serve as the subject of this litigation.

 

B.   The Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement

 

            21. On August 1, 2001, Bennion, Deville, and their company Plaintiff Bennion & Deville Fine Homes, Inc. (doing business as Windermere Real Estate Coachella Valley)(hereafter, "B&D Fine Homes"), entered into a "Windermere Real Estate License Agreement" with WSC (hereafter referred to as the "Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

 

            22. Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, and in exchange for an initial fee of $15,000.00 and license fees in an amount equal to five percent of the gross revenues earned during the term of the agreement (see Ex. A, § 5), WSC agreed to provide Bennion, Deville, and B&D Fine Homes the following:

 

a. A license to use the Windermere trademarks, service marks, logotypes (collectively, the "Trademark"), and "Windermere System" in the conduct of real estate brokerage and sales activities at 850 N. Palm Canyon Drive, in Palm Springs, CA. (See Ex. A, § 2.) The "Windermere System" is defined broadly by the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement as "the standards, methods, procedures, techniques, specifications and programs developed by WSC for the establishment, operation and promotion of independently owned real estate brokerage offices" (see Ex. A, Recital A);

 

b. "[ A] variety of services [ ... ] designed to complement the real estate brokerage business activities of [B&D Fine Homes] and to enhance its profitability" (see Ex. A, § 1); and

 

c. An agreement to take legal action "consistent with good business judgment to prevent infringement of the Trademark or unfair competition against [B&D Fine Homes]." (See Ex. A, § 4.)

 

            23. In addition to the initial fee and license fees identified above, Bennion, Deville, and B&D Fine Homes were also required to pay certain other fees to WSC outlined in the "Affiliate Fee Schedule" attached to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. A, Affiliate Fee Schedule.) These fees included (i) a "Technology Fee" of "$10 per month per licensed agent and agent assistant," (ii) an "Administrative Fee" of "$25 per agent per month," and (iii) a "Windermere Foundation Fee" of "$7.50 per transaction side for each closed transaction." (Id.)

 

            24. The Technology Fee was promised to be a fee for "basic" technology services provided by WSC and required by its franchisees and their agents to post and manage their real property listings and to otherwise carry out their real estate businesses. In truth, the technology services provided by WSC were underwhelming at best, and more recently had become antiquated and irrelevant. The technology made available by WSC had became outdated, unstable, and not a viable option for the needs of the Southern California region. Notwithstanding WSC's failure to provide these technology services, it has substantially increased these fees and threatened franchisees with termination for refusing to pay for this unstable, antiquated technology.

 

            25. The Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement was also for an indefinite term, terminable by either party subject to no less than six months written notice of their intent to terminate the agreement. (See Ex. A, § 6.)

 

            26. Subject to the terms above, B&D Fine Homes opened its first Windermere franchised business under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement in Palms Springs, CA.

 

            27. As explained in detail below, Plaintiffs would ultimately open 14 Windermere franchised businesses under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement. Each new franchised business would be reflected in an addendum to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement signed by all parties to the agreement. (See Ex. A, § 2.)

 

C.   Bennion And Deville Become Windermere Area Representatives For The State Of California

 

            28. On or around May 1, 2004, Bennion and Deville, on behalf of their newly formed entity Plaintiff Windermere Services Southern California, Inc. ("Windermere SoCal"), on the one hand, and WSC, on the other hand, entered into a "Windermere Real Estate Services Company Area Representation Agreement for the State of California" (the "Area Representation Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Area Representation Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

 

            29. Under the Area Representation Agreement, Windermere SoCal — serving as WSC's "Area Representative" - was granted the non-exclusive right throughout the State of California to (i) offer franchises to real estate brokerage businesses enabling them to use the Windermere "Trademark”1 and "Windermere System,”2 and (ii) "to administer and provide support and auxiliary services" to Windermere franchisees in the state. (See Ex. B, Recital A, §§ l.5, 2.)

 

            30. Windermere SoCal was also tasked with collecting certain fees from the franchisees in its Region, including, but not limited to, the license fees, administrative fees, Advertising Fund contributions, Windermere Foundation fees, technology fees, "and other amounts due under the license agreements in the Region, and to remit to WSC its share of such fees." (Ex. B, §§ 3,11-13.) 3 Although Windermere SoCal was responsible for collecting these fees from the franchisees, it was not a guarantor of any of the fees to WSC. In fact, the Area Representation Agreement expressly provided that Windermere SoCal "will not be responsible for payment of uncollectable fees." (See Ex. B, Exhibit A, § 3.)

 

            31. In exchange for Windermere SoCal' s agreement to provide the Area Representative services identified above, WSC was contractually obligated to provide, among other things, the following support and services:

 

a. "[P]rovide servicing support in connection with the marketing, promotion and administration of the Trademark and Windermere System" (Ex. B, § 3);

______________________________________

 

1 The term "Trademark" is defined by the Area Representation Agreement to mean various Windermere trade names, trademarks, service marks, and other symbols. (See Ex. B, § 1.6.)

 

2 The term "Windermere System" is defined as "the standards, methods, procedures, techniques, specifications and programs developed by WSC for the establishment, operation and promotion of independently owned real estate brokerage offices [ ... expressly including] the Windermere foundation, Windermere Personal Marketing Programs, Premier Properties Program, Windermere Retirement Plan for Real Estate Salespersons and Windermere salesperson educational formats and outlines." (Ex. B, § l.7.)

 

3 Technology fees were "intended to support the operation and development of WSC's technology systems." (See Ex. B., § 13.)

 

 

b. "[P]romptly and diligently commence and pursue the preparation and filing of all Franchise registration statements, disclosure statements, or applications required under the laws of the state of California and/or the United States of America" (Ex. B., § 7); and

 

c. "[B]e responsible for any registration filing fee and for all legal expenses incurred in the revision and registration of all required disclosure documents." (Ex. B, § 7.)

 

            32. Notwithstanding these ongoing contractual obligations, WSC has recently failed to (a) provide the necessary marketing materials needed for the Southern California region, (b) participate financially in the marketing, promotion, or administration of the Windermere trademark or brand in Southern California, and (c) timely make available required franchise disclosure materials required by Windermere SoCal to offer Windermere franchises for sale — including WSC's utter failure to make available a 2015 franchise disclosure document notwithstanding numerous promises by Mr. Teather and other WSC personnel that the documents would be provided "immediately." In fact, as of the filing of this Complaint, WSC still had not registered the required franchise disclosure documents with the California Department of Business Oversight for the 2015 year. These filings are typically due in April. WSC's failure to timely register the franchise disclosure documents has precluded Windermere SoCal from being able to offer and sell franchises pursuant to the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            33. Further, WSC and Windermere SoCal also agreed to share "all initiation and licensing fees equally for all future Windermere offices" in California. (See Ex. B, §§ 3, 9, Exhibit A, § 3.) In other words, the initial franchise fees and ongoing licensing fees were to be split 50-50 between WSC and Windermere SoCal pursuant to the terms of the Area Representation Agreement. Windermere SoCal' s inability to sell franchises as a result of WSC's failures to comply with California's franchise registration laws has harmed Windermere SoCal's ability to earn initiation and licensing fees.

 

            34. Similar to that of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, the Area Representation Agreement was for an indefinite term, terminable by either party, without cause, "upon one hundred eighty (180) days written notice to the other party." (See Ex. B., § 4.l (b).) Or, in the event of a "material breach," the agreement was terminable upon ninety days written notice to the other party with an opportunity to cure. (Ex. B, § 4.1 (c).) In the event the material breach was not cured within the ninety day period, the Area Representation Agreement could then be terminated "for cause." (Id.)

 

            35. In the event the agreement is terminated without cause, the terminating party is required to make termination payments to the terminated party in an "amount equal to the fair market value of the Terminated Party's interest in the Agreement." (See Ex. B., § 4.2.) The "fair market value" is to be determined in accordance with the terms of sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Area Representation Agreement. Notably, no termination payment was required to be made if the Area Representation Agreement was terminated for cause. (See Ex. B., § 4.2.)

 

            36. During its time as the Area Representative for WSC, Windermere SoCal sold more franchises to large franchise owners than any other Area Representative in the Windermere system.

 

D.   Bennion And Deville Expand Their Windermere Businesses

 

            37. With the signing of the Area Representation Agreement, Bennion and Deville, through their company Windermere SoCal, were now entitled to 50% of all initiation and licensing fees owed to WSC under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement.

 

            38. This symbiotic relationship between the Area Representation Agreement and the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement effectively granted Bennion and Deville a 50% reduction in all initial franchise fees and ongoing licensing fees for all franchise businesses they would acquire during the life of the Area Representation Agreement. (See Ex. B [Area Representation Agreement], §§ 3, 9, Exhibit A, § 3.) The economic benefit derived by Bennion and Deville' operation of Windermere SoCal and B&D Fine Homes as a single integrated enterprise, and the underlying economic benefit that flowed from serving as both the Area Representative and franchisee, were significant material considerations of Bennion and Deville when then agreed to expand their Windermere franchising operations. Without the Area Representation Agreement, Bennion and Deville would not have engaged in their subsequent expansion of the Windermere brand in Southern California.

 

            39. Starting in early 2004, and in anticipation of the parties' entry into the Area Representation Agreement, the parties began executing addenda to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement allowing for the rapid expansion of Bennion and Deville's Windermere franchised businesses. In total, Bennion and Deville, on behalf of B&D Fine Home and Windermere SoCal, executed 13 different addenda to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement (hereafter, the "Coachella Valley Addenda"). True and correct copies of the Coachella Valley Addenda are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

 

            40. The Coachella Valley Addenda granted Bennion and Deville the right to open and operate Windermere franchised businesses in the following Southern California locations:

 

a. Desert Hot Springs, CA;

 

b. Rancho Mirage, CA;

 

c. La Quinta, CA;

 

d. Indian Wells, CA;4

 

e. Palm Springs, CA;

 

f. Palm Desert, CA;

 

g. Indian Wells, CA #2;5

 

h. Rancho Mirage, CA #2:

 

______________________________________

 

4 This franchised business was subsequently moved to Rancho Mirage, California. (See Ex. C [Addendum dated April 1, 2009].)

5 This franchised business was also subsequently moved to Rancho Mirage, California. (See Ex. C [Addendum dated April 1, 2009].)

 

i. Rancho Mirage, CA #3;

 

j. Palm Desert, CA #2;

 

k. La Quinta, CA #2;

 

I. Indio, CA; and

 

m. Cathedral City, CA;

 

(See Ex. C.)

 

 

            41. Further, the Coachella Valley Addenda incorporated Windermere SoCal — the Area Representative — as a party to the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. C.) This significant alteration of the parties under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement cemented the symbiotic relationship between Bennion and Deville's status as Area Representative and franchisee.

 

            42. As is reflected below, WSC has recently taken action to terminate the Area Representation Agreement, and with it, the 50% franchise fee discount that was central to Bennion and Deville's agreement to open and operate more than a dozen Windermere franchised businesses. Due to the integrated nature of the Area Representative and franchisee relationships, Plaintiffs contend that the termination of the Area Representation Agreement serves as a de facto termination of the franchise agreements as well..

 

 

E.   Bennion and Deville Enter Into A New Windermere Franchise Agreement

 

            43. In or around March 29, 2011, Bennion and Deville, through Windermere SoCal and their newly formed entity Plaintiff Bennion & Deville Fine Homes SoCal, Inc. ("B&D SoCal"), entered into a new Windermere Real Estate Franchise License Agreement (the "SoCal Franchise Agreement") with WSC. A true and correct copy of the SoCal Franchise Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

 

            44. Similar to that of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, the SoCal Franchise Agreement granted B&D SoCal "the revocable and non-exclusive right to use the Windermere Trademark and Windermere System in the conduct of real estate brokerage services "in certain specified locations.6 (Ex. D, §§l, 2.)

 

            45. The SoCal Franchise Agreement also obligated WSC to provide some nebulous form of "guidance to Licensee with respect to the Windermere System [ ...,] furnished in the form of written materials distributed physically or electronically, including through the Windermere Online Resource Center (WOC) intranet website, consultations by telephone or in person, or by other means of communication." (Ex. D, § 3.) In truth, WSC provided little to no "guidance" and instead left Bennion and Deville to provide all of the services to B&D SoCal and to all of the other Windermere franchised businesses in Southern California.

 

            46. Also, WSC represented that it would take action, "in its discretion and consistent with good business judgment to prevent infringement of the Trademark or unfair competition against Windermere licensees." (Ex. D, § 6(e).) Again, as reflected below, WSC failed to comply with this term of the SoCal Franchise Agreement.

 

            47. On the other hand, the SoCal Franchise Agreement obligated B&D SoCal to pay to WSC and Windermere SoCal: (i) a monthly "Ongoing License Fee," (ii) a "Technology Fee" of"$25 per month per licensed agent and agent assistant for basic service," and (iii) a "Windermere Foundation Suggested Donation" of "$10.00 per transaction side for each closed transaction."7 (Ex. D, § 7, Appendix l.)

 

__________________________________________

 

6 Again, the term "Trademark" is defined to mean various Windermere trade names, trademarks, service marks, and other symbols. (See Ex. D, Recital A.) The term "Windermere System" is defined as "the standards, methods, procedures, techniques, specifications and programs developed by WSC for the establishment, operation and promotion of independently owned real estate brokerage offices [ ... ]." (Ex. D, Recital A.)

7 Concurrent with their execution of the SoCal Franchise Agreement, Bennion and Deville also executed a personal guaranty. (Ex. D, Appendix 2.) This personal guaranty was later released upon the parties' written agreement to modify the terms of the franchise agreements.

 

            48. The SoCal Franchise Agreement can be terminated by either party, without cause, upon written notice "no less than 180 days, and no more than 366 days, prior to the expiration date specified in the notice," or by WSC, with cause, and subject to the specific provisions of Section 8 of the SoCal Franchise Agreement. (Ex. D, § 8(a).)

 

            49. Under the terms of the SoCal Franchise Agreement, Bennion and Deville opened and/or acquired Windermere franchised businesses in several cities throughout San Diego County. (Ex. D, "Office Announcement.") WSC encouraged Bennion and Deville's aggressive acquisition of new franchised business in San Diego, resulting in investment by Bennion and Deville of over $4,000,000 into the San Diego franchises.

 

F.   Parties Enter Into Agreement Modifying Franchise Agreements

 

            50. On or about December 18, 2012, WSC, Windermere SoCal, B&D Fine Homes, and B&D SoCal entered into a document titled "Agreement Modifying Windermere Real Estate Franchise License Agreements" (hereafter, the "Modification Agreement"). A true and correct copy of the Modification Agreement is attached as Exhibit E.

 

            51. The Modification Agreement was intended to, and did, modify several material terms of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and SoCal Franchise Agreement in light of the damage to Plaintiffs' businesses caused the anti-marketing campaign against Windermere and its franchisees engaged in by Gary Kruger and the Windermere Watch websites. (See Ex. E, Recitals.)

 

            52. In light of this, WSC expressly agreed to, among other things, "make commercially reasonable efforts to actively pursue counter-marketing, and other methods seeking to curtail the anti-marketing activities undertaking by Gary Kruger, his Associates, Windermere Watch and/or the agents of the foregoing persons." (Ex. E, § 3(A).)

 

            53. The Modification Agreement also modified several terms of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and SoCal Franchise Agreement, limiting the obligations of Plaintiffs under these agreements. Specifically, the parties modified the franchise agreements as follows:

 

a. All past due franchise fees and Technology Fees owed by Plaintiffs under the franchise agreements were waived and forgiven (Ex. E, § 3(B));

 

b. Plaintiffs were granted a temporary reduction in ongoing franchise fees for a period of eight months, applied retroactively (Ex. E, § 3(C));

 

c. A limitation and cap of $25 per agent per month were place on the Technology Fees owed by Plaintiffs (Ex. E, § 3(D));8 and

 

d. The personal guarantees provided by Bennion and Deville in connection with their execution of the SoCal Franchise Agreement were extinguished and released (Ex. E, § 3( G)).

 

            54. Further, in lieu of the provisions allowing for the termination of the agreements by either party following six month written notice, the term of each franchise agreement was modified to extend for five years from the date of the Modification Agreement. (Ex. E, §3(E).) Further, the Modification Agreement provided that the five year term "shall automatically expire" if WSC, among other things, commits "a material, uncured breach of [the Modification Agreement]." (Ex. E, §3(E).)

 

            55. The Modification Agreement also contains a confidentiality provision that the parties considered material to their agreement (the "Confidentiality Provision"). (Ex. E, § 15.) The Confidentiality Provision provides that:

 

The terms of the Agreement include information of a proprietary and/or confidential nature. The Parties expressly understand and agree that it shall constitute a breach of the Agreement to disclose the terms of the same except to the Parties' attorneys and/or accountants or as may be required under a Court Order, subpoena and/or pursuant to an action to enforce the terms of the Agreement.

 

__________________________________

 

8

(Id.)

 

            56. As explained below, WSC has ignored its few obligations under the Modification Agreement and failed to make commercially reasonable efforts to actively pursue counter-marketing of the Windermere Watch websites, and, as the parties' relationships have deteriorated, has begun disclosing information about Plaintiffs to third parties that is protected by the Confidentiality provision.

 

G.   WSC's Treatment Of The Southern California Region Has Caused Significant Harm To Plaintiffs

 

            57. Sometime in 2014, Michael Teather, WSC's Senior Vice President of Client Services, implemented a strategy designed to systematically push Plaintiffs and other franchisees out of the Windermere system in order to resell the territories to new franchisees and to collect new initial franchise fees. This franchise model is known in the franchise industry as the "churn and burn" model.

 

            58. Consistent with this new strategy, Teather directed Plaintiffs to "bring on" as many franchisees as possible, and if/when they failed, resell the territory to a new franchisee. Both Bennion and Deville expressed their disgust with Teather's new strategy and made clear that this was no longer the Windermere they had joined over a decade earlier.

 

            59. In light of Plaintiffs' displeasure with the churn and burn strategy, Teather and others at WSC began creatively devising a plan to terminate Plaintiffs' Area Representation Agreement, and began surreptitiously meeting with other franchisees in the Southern California region undermining Plaintiffs' role and status as Area Representative. This included representations by Teather that he was now in charge of the region and would be taking the Services Division away from Plaintiffs.

 

            60. WSC pressured Windermere SoCal to relinquish its rights under the ARA, falsely claiming that B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal could earn greater profits by just operating Windermere franchised offices without Windermere SoCal continuing to serve as the Windermere area representative for Southern California.

 

            61. WSC also began engaging in a practice of directly and indirectly recruiting Plaintiffs' employees and sales agents. For example, WSC invited several of Plaintiffs' employees and sales agents to a relocation event scheduled in San Diego without notifying either Bennion or Deville of the event. Following this event, multiple sales agents terminated their employment with Plaintiffs.

 

            62. WSC also solicited Plaintiffs' IT personnel in an effort to coerce these individuals to join WSC's operations in Seattle. Teather himself approached and offered a job to Plaintiffs' head of its technology department.

 

            63. WSC then disclosed Plaintiffs' proprietary information to other franchisees in its system in an attempt to improperly recruit B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal associates and other employees to join WSC and other Windermere offices.

 

            64. Teather also began authorizing the sale of new franchised businesses in San Diego County without mentioning these sales to Bennion or Deville. After learning of the sales, Bennion and Deville learned that these were very unattractive locations making it more difficult for the franchisee to succeed. This, of course, was Teather's plan. In addition to the surreptitious sales, Bennion and Deville also objected to several new franchisees and/or franchise locations that were brought to their attention. Again, Teather authorized the franchised businesses regardless.

 

            65. WSC's conduct demonstrated it had no interest in maintaining long-term relationships with Plaintiffs and their franchisees. Instead, it was only concerned with collecting up front fees from new franchisees.

 

            66. WSC has undermined and ignored Plaintiffs at every turn. There have been significant periods of time where WSC would refuse and/or fail to respond to Plaintiffs' requests and the requests of the franchisees in the Southern California region.

 

            67. WSC's "churn and burn" franchise system is not only a deplorable model but has resulted in these numerous breaches of WSC's contractual obligations, as set forth in further detail below

 

H.   WSC Has Failed To Provide The Support Required Under All Of The Agreements

 

            68. Under each of Plaintiffs' Agreements, WSC has the obligation to provide them with the support services integral to a franchisor-franchisee relationship. (See Ex. A, § 1, Recital A; Ex. B, § 3; Ex. D, § 3.) WSC has failed to do so.

 

            69. WSC assured Plaintiffs that it had trained staff that would be able to assist and advise Plaintiffs and the franchisees within California in all aspects of the franchised business. In truth, WSC knew (and continues to know) very little about the California market, including marketing — and has provided Plaintiffs and the other franchisees in California with little or no support.

 

            70. WSC not only failed to keep up to date with effective marketing materials and systems for the Southern California region, including the creation, distribution and ongoing maintenance of local and regional marketing and advertising materials critical for any franchise system to be successful in a competitive marketplace, but WSC also intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs' relationships with advertisers. WSC exerted significant pressure on certain advertisers to discontinue Plaintiffs' marketing campaigns and otherwise terminate their relationships with Plaintiffs.

 

I.   WSC Breached The Technology Fees Clause Central To All Agreements

 

            71. Windermere franchisees, including those of B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal, are required to pay certain technology fees. These are among the fees which Windermere SoCal collects. (See Ex. B., §§ 11-13.) The technology fees were "intended to support the operation and development of WSC's technology systems". (See Ex. B, § 13.)

 

            72. WSC's antiquated, incomplete and obsolete technology systems suffer from so many deficiencies that the system is rendered unusable. Its deficiencies include that the system's tools do not cover MLS systems in Southern California. Which as to be expected, is a major issue for a Southern California based real estate company.

 

            73. Despite the shortcomings of WSC's technology system made available to the Southern California region, Plaintiffs continue to pay their monthly, per agent fees. While Plaintiffs' technology fee is capped at $25 per agent per month, WSC has continued to aggressively increase the fees paid by the other franchised businesses in the region. By early 2015, this fee had been significantly increased to $50 per agent, per month for the Southern California franchisees, a fee that was (and continues to be) disproportionately out of line with any benefits received by the franchisees and similar technology available in the marketplace. This amount was a far cry from the $10 fee charged by WSC just a few years back.

 

            74. WSC's escalating "technology fees" did not result in any improvement to the instability, operational deficiencies, and unreliability of the Windermere technology services. On information and belief, these technology fees bear no relationship to the amounts spent on Windermere's technology system.

 

            75. The failure of WSC to provide the agreed upon technology system breaches the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Area Representation Agreement and SoCal Franchise Agreement. (See Ex A, §§ 1, 5, Affiliate Fee Schedule, Ex., B, § 13, Ex. D, §§ 3,7(c).)

 

            76. In light of this fee, franchisees in the region are paying between $16,000 and $25,000 per month for this essentially useless technology. This excessive fee has caused a wave of franchisees to leave the system, resulting in harm to both the Windermere brand in the region, but also to Plaintiffs' ongoing revenue as the Area Representative. This has not only caused the rescission of franchise agreements but has damaged Windermere SoCal as it acts as a significant deterrent to the recruitment of new franchisees.

 

            77. For instance, a franchise ran by Richard King was rescinded in significant part because of the "technology fee of $75 per licensee." A true and correct copy of an email from King to Deville regarding the rescission dated May 6, 2015 is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Mr. King noted that he was receiving nothing for this technology fees and that it made it "quite expensive to be affiliated with Windermere."

 

            78. B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal have been damaged in that they have paid tens of thousands in technology fees with no corresponding benefit. Windermere SoCal has been damaged through the loss of franchisees (and their attendant license revenue).

 

            79. WSC's inferior technology services and inflated technology fees caused Plaintiffs to incur substantial costs in developing and supporting their own technology systems. This has required Plaintiffs to subsidize an expensive infrastructure in order to provide the franchisees in their region with support that WSC has contractually agreed to provide. This infrastructure includes:

 

a. Plaintiffs had to construct windermeresocal.com and associated tools in order provide its agents an industry standard technology service, rather than use WSC's deficient and incomplete windermere.com offering;

 

b. Plaintiffs had to maintain a separate email server;

 

c. Plaintiffs had to maintain separate RETS (Real Estate Transaction Standard) to give brokers, agents and third parties access to listing and transaction data; and

 

d. Plaintiffs had to maintain separate syndicate options pathways in order to provide a higher standard of accuracy and reactivity.

 

            80. B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal have been damaged in that they have had to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses to maintain a technology platform to support the franchisees and their agents.

 

J.   WSC Breached The Area Representation Agreement By Failing To Maintain A Continuous Franchise Registration In California

 

            81. The right to offer Windermere franchises to prospective franchisees was central to Windermere SoCal's role as an Area Representative for WSC. The Area Representation Agreement granted Windermere SoCal the right to offer the franchise opportunity to real estate brokerage businesses. (See Ex. B, Recital A, §§ l.5, 2.) Windermere SoCal would then receive 50% of the initial franchise fees and 50% of the ongoing royalties that would flow from any new franchised businesses in its region.

 

            82. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on several occasions, WSC failed to properly and timely renew its California franchise registration, thereby negating Windermere SoCal's ability to offer Windermere franchises for sale. This failure by WSC not only negatively impacted Windermere SoCal's profitability, but it also had the effect of suppressing the value of the Area Representative business upon termination.

 

            83. Instead of properly registering a franchise disclosure document for the Southern California region, WSC would demand that Windermere SoCal provide prospective franchisees with the Northern California disclosure documents — identifying incorrect fees. A true and accurate copy of an email from WSC's General Counsel to Deville, directing Deville to use the Northern California disclosure document "for now," is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

 

            84. By negating Windermere SoCal's ability to offer Windermere franchises for sale, WSC has deprived Windermere SoCal of the benefits of the Area Representative Agreement.

 

K.   WSC Breached The Termination Provision Of The Area Representation Agreement

 

            85. In light of the parties' ongoing dispute, on January 28, 2015, Paul S. Drayna, the General Counsel for WSC, sent a short, one paragraph letter to Deville announcing that WSC was "exercising its right to terminate [the] Area Representation Agreement dated May 1, 2004, pursuant to the l80-day notice provision of Paragraph 4.l." A true and accurate copy of the January 28, 2015 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit H. According to the letter, Windermere SoCal's "rights and responsibilities as Area Representative will terminate on Tuesday, July 28, 2015." (Id.)

 

            86. By exercising its rights under Paragraph 4.1 of the Area Representation Agreement, WSC was terminating the agreement without cause, and therefore triggering Section 4.2 requiring WSC to make termination payments to Windermere SoCal in an "amount equal to the fair market value of the Terminated Party's interest in the Agreement." (See Ex. B, § 4.2.)

 

            87. The January 28, 2015 letter did not purport to terminate or otherwise change the status of any of the franchise agreements between Plaintiffs and WSC.

 

            88. In stark contrast to WSC January 28, 2015 letter seeking to terminate the Area Representation Agreement without cause, on February 26, 2015, WSC served Plaintiffs with a second termination letter, this time announcing WSC's intent to terminate "with cause." A true and accurate copy of the February 26,2015 letter is attached as Exhibit 1.

 

            89. According to this second letter, WSC now claimed to have cause to terminate the agreement in light of Windermere SoCal' s alleged "material breach" of sections 3, 4 and 10 of the Area Representation Agreement for purportedly "failing to collect and/or remit license and technology fees from licensees." (Ex. 1.) The second letter also provided Windermere SoCal 90 days to cure these alleged breaches. (Jd.)

 

            90. WSC's attempt to terminate the Area Representation Agreement for "cause" is improper. Under the Area Representation Agreement, Windermere SoCal was only tasked with collecting certain franchise fees from the franchisees in its territory; it is not the guarantor to WSC of any of the unpaid/uncollectable fees. (Ex. B, § § 3, 11-13, Exhibit A, § 3 [Windermere SoCal "will not be responsible for payment of uncollectable fees."]) Because Windermere SoCal has not withheld from WSC any of the franchise fees that it has collected, WSC's stated breaches of the Area Representation Agreement are not actionable. Thus, no cause existed for WSC to terminate the Area Representation Agreement.

 

            91. WSC has breached Section 4.2 of the Area Representation Agreement by failing to pay Windermere SoCal the required termination fee. (See Ex. B, § 4.2.)

 

L.   WSC Breached The Modification Agreement By Failing To Make Commercially Reasonable Efforts To Curtail The Windermere Watch

 

            92. Windermere has been the target of anti-marketing campaign initiated by Gary Kruger. Kruger and his associates initiated a web based campaign, at both www.windermerewatch.com and www.windermerewatch2.com, targeting Windermere and its franchised businesses.

 

            93. The Windermere Watch anti-marketing campaign has had a very significant and monetarily damaging effect on Plaintiffs. As Plaintiffs expanded the Windermere brand in Southern California they had to push against the headwind that is Windermere Watch. Prior to Plaintiffs' involvement, Windermere had a very minimal presence in California.

 

            94. In deciding on picking a real estate broker, consumers often would research Windermere to obtain background information on it. The Windermere Watch website prominently appears in website search engines (such as Google). Its effect then is to immediately damage a franchisee's broker's opportunity to obtain clients which in turn financially damages the franchisee and the Area Representative.

 

            95. In the Modification Agreement, WSC enticed Plaintiffs to remain with Windermere by agreeing to make "commercially reasonable efforts to actively pursue counter-marketing, and other methods seeking to curtail the anti-marketing activities undertaken by Gary Kruger, his Associates, Windermere Watch and/or the agents of the foregoing persons." (Ex. E, § 3(A).) The Modification Agreement specifically suggested litigation as one type of counter marketing. (Id.)

 

            96. WSC also should have engaged and devoted significant resources in search engine optimization to target and diminish the Windermere Watch site content's appearance in internet search engines. On information and belief, WSC has failed to engage in any such campaign and has failed to devote resources to curtail the Windermere Watch.

 

            97. Despite their obligation under the Modification Agreement, and repeated requests by Plaintiffs that it take action, WSC has failed to take any material efforts to combat the Windermere Watch.

 

            98. WSC's failure to act has forced Plaintiffs to incur significant time and expense employing their own counter-marketing campaign to combat the damage that the Windermere Watch has caused to the Southern California franchisees. Plaintiffs have incurred in excess of $125,000 in additional expenses attempting to mitigate the negative impact of the Windermere Watch website activities.

 

            99. Because WSC failed to make commercially reasonable efforts to pursue counter marketing of Windermere Watch as required by the Modification Agreement, WSC has effectively breached its obligations under that agreement.

 

M.   After Plaintiffs Explore Selling The Business Back To Windermere, WSC Exploits The Attempted Transaction By Breaching The Confidentiality Provision

 

            100. After WSC had committed extensive contractual breaches and shown that it had a cavalier attitude toward its' legal obligations, Plaintiffs naturally looked to options for ending the relationship. Plaintiffs eventually explored selling the business, or parts thereof, back to Windermere and WSC.

 

            101. As part of these negotiations, Plaintiffs entered into a confidentiality agreement with WSC's President John Jacobi and had Jacobi and his associates sign the agreement (hereafter, the "Confidentiality Agreement"). Jacobi acted on behalf and in concert with WSC in signing the Confidentiality Agreement and exploring the sale. A true and correct copy of the Confidentiality Agreement signed by various representatives of WSC is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

 

            102. As part of the parties' negotiations, Plaintiffs shared the financial information necessary to value its business. Plaintiffs only shared such information for purposes of reaching a deal to sell the business or parts thereof.

 

            103. After the parties were ultimately unable to come to an agreement, WSC took the confidential and proprietary information and brandished it as weapon to use in its campaign against Plaintiffs. This includes informing Plaintiffs' employees and third parties that Plaintiffs are selling their business and using this and the information gained in the negotiations as leverage to attempt to get agents and employees to leave Plaintiffs businesses.

 

            104. WSC's conduct is in violation of sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Confidentiality Agreement. The Confidentiality Agreement expressly forbids the disclosure of any information obtained in the negotiations. (See Ex. J, § 1 [The Information ... will not be used by Jacobi or any of the Jacobi affiliates, other than in connection with Jacobi's evaluation of the transaction"], § 2 ["Jacobi may share the Information only with his accountant Kelly MacDonald, and not with any other of the Jacobi Affiliates or other third parties"]; § 3 ["Jacoby [sic] agrees that prior to disclosing any of the Information to any person ... Jacobi will cause such person to sign a confirmation, agreeing to be bound by the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement"].)

 

N.   WSC Also Violated The Confidentiality Provision In the Modification Agreement

 

            105. As part of the Plaintiffs' agreement to continue their relationships with WSC notwithstanding all of the problems confronting the WSC franchise system, the parties entered into the Modification Agreement which significantly modified (and reduced) the Plaintiffs' obligations under the franchise agreements. During the extensive negotiations leading up to the execution of the Modification Agreement, Plaintiffs provided WSC with sensitive, proprietary financial and other information, the contents of which are expressly protected by the Confidentiality Provision in the Modification Agreement.

 

            106. Plaintiffs are now informed and believe that WSC has disclosed to other franchisees in its system Plaintiffs' proprietary information provided to WSC as part of the negotiations surrounding the Modification Agreement and, to some extent, incorporated in the terms of the Modification Agreement.

 

            107. WSC's activities not only violate the express terms of the Confidentiality Provision, but they undermine the purpose of the negotiations giving rise to the Modification Agreement. (See Ex. E., § 15.) WSC's disclosure of the Plaintiffs' confidential and proprietary information has significantly harmed Plaintiffs' businesses.

 

O.   WSC Has Unlawfully Interfered With Plaintiffs' Franchise And Employment Relationships

 

            108. As part of its efforts to replace Plaintiffs and generate more fees, WSC has interfered with both B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal' s franchises as well as undermined Windermere SoCal' s role as Area Representative. WSC has implemented a strategy of attempting to poach Plaintiffs' employees through improper practices as well as replace Plaintiffs by inserting new franchisees in the region.

 

            109. WSC has directly and indirectly recruited Plaintiffs' employees and sales agents to join WSC or other franchisees. This has resulted in multiple sales agents and support staff terminating their employment with Plaintiffs.

 

            110. WSC has damaged Plaintiffs' existing relationships with franchisees (and prospective franchisees) in Southern California region by announcing, without Plaintiffs' knowledge, that Windermere SoCal was relinquishing its "servicing" rights under the ARA, when in fact Windermere SoCal has not expressed any such intention or plan.

 

            111. WSC supported and assisted a Windermere franchise to relocate into the same Northern San Diego County market, in which there was already a B&D SoCal franchise office already operating. WSC then pressured B&D SoCal to "give" its office over to this franchisee without any remuneration.

 

            112. WSC has authorized and approved the opening of various Windermere franchised offices within Windermere SoCal's territory without approval of Windermere SoCal.

 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Contract - Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement

(By B&D Fine Homes and Windermere SoCal against WSC)

 

            113. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            114. As alleged above, B&D Fine Homes entered into the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement with WSC on August 1, 2001. This agreement was later amended to include Windermere SoCal as a party.

 

            115. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, unless otherwise excused by WSC's breach.

 

            116. WSC breached the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement by failing to comply with the following requirements:

 

a. Section 1, for failing to provide the promised "services" to enhance Plaintiffs' "profitability;

 

b. Section 4, for failing to take necessary action (legal or otherwise) to prevent infringement of the Windermere trademark or the related unfair competition faced by Plaintiffs in the Southern California region as a result of the Windermere Watch websites;

 

c. Recital A, for failing to provide Plaintiffs with a viable "Windermere System" as defined in the agreement; and

 

d. Affiliate Fee Schedule Attachment, for failing to provide adequate technology systems in return for technology fees.

 

            117. As a result of WSC's breaches of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but far in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court.

 

            118. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover "reasonable attorneys' fees" under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. A, § 11.)

 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Contract — Area Representation Agreement

(By Windermere SoCal against WSC)

 

            119. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            120. As alleged above, on May 1,2004, Windermere SoCal entered into the Area Representation Agreement with WSC.

 

            121. Windermere SoCal performed all obligations required of it under the Area Representation Agreement, unless otherwise excused by WSC' s breach.

 

            122. WSC breached the Area Representation Agreement by failing to comply with the following requirements:

 

a. Section 2, for failing to provide Windermere SoCal with the uninterrupted right to offer Windermere franchised businesses in Southern California;

 

b. Section 2, for failing to provide a viable "Windermere System" as defined in the agreement;

 

c. Section 4.2, for failing to pay Windermere SoCal the termination fee — i.e. the fair market value of its interest in the Area Representation Agreement - following termination without cause;

 

d. Section 7, for failing to promptly and diligently commence and pursue the preparation and filing of all franchise registration filings required under California law and/or the United States of America; and

 

e. Section 13, for failing to provide a technology system to support the operation and development of the franchise system in Southern California, and for unilaterally increasing the technology fees to amounts that on information and belief bear no relationship to the amounts actually spent on Windermere's technology system.

 

            123. As a result of WSC's breaches of the Area Representation Agreement, Windermere SoCal has suffered (and will continue to suffer) actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but far in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court.

 

            124. Windermere SoCal is also entitled to recover "reasonable attorneys' fees" under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. B, § 21.)

 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Contract - SoCal Franchise Agreement

(By B&D SoCal, Bennion, Deville, and Windermere SoCal against WSC)

 

            125. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            126. As alleged above, on March 29, 2011, B&D SoCal, Windermere SoCal, Bennion, and Deville entered into the SoCal Franchise Agreement with WSC.

 

            127. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the SoCal Franchise Agreement, unless otherwise excused by the conduct of WSC.

 

            128. WSC breached the SoCal Franchise Agreement by failing to comply with the following requirements:

 

a. Section 3, for failing to provide the promised "guidance" to Plaintiffs with respect to the "Windermere System";

 

b. Section 6, for failing to take necessary action (legal or otherwise) to prevent infringement of the Windermere trademark or the related unfair competition faced by Plaintiffs in the Southern California region as a result of the Windermere Watch websites;

 

c. Recital A, for failing to provide Plaintiffs with a viable "Windermere System" as defined in the agreement; and

 

d. Affiliate Fee Schedule Attachment, for failing to provide adequate technology systems in return for technology fees.

 

            129. As a result of WSC's breaches of the SoCal Franchise Agreement, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but far in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court.

 

            130. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover "reasonable attorneys' fees" under the SoCal Franchise Agreement. (See Ex. D, § 13.)

 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Contract - Modification Agreement

(By all Plaintiffs against WSC)

 

            131. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            132. As alleged above, on December 18,2012, Plaintiffs and WSC entered into the Modification Agreement.

 

            133. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the Modification Agreement, unless otherwise excused by the conduct of WSC.

 

            134. WSC breached the Modification Agreement by failing to comply with the following requirements:

 

a. Section 3(A), for failing to make commercially reasonable efforts to curtail Windermere Watch and related attacks on the Windermere brand in Southern California; and

 

b. Section 15, for violating the confidentiality provision by disclosing to other franchisees in its system Plaintiffs' confidential, proprietary information.

 

            135. As a result ofWSC's breaches of the Modification Agreement, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but far in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court.

 

            136. Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover "reasonable attorneys' fees and costs" under the Modification Agreement. (See Ex. E, § 7.)

 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[sic; claim is actually #5 in order]

Breach of Contract — Confidentiality Agreement

(By all Plaintiffs against WSC)

 

            137. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            138. As alleged above, Plaintiffs entered into the Confidentiality Agreement on April 22, 2015.

 

            139. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the Confidentiality Agreement, unless otherwise excused by the conduct of WSC.

 

            140. WSC breached Section 1 through 3 of the Confidentiality Agreement by revealing confidential and proprietary information obtained in the negotiations.

 

            141. As a result of WSC's breaches of the Confidentiality Agreement, Plaintiffs suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but far in excess of the jurisdictional minimums of this Court.

 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

(By all Plaintiffs against WSC)

 

            142. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of their Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

 

            143. As alleged above, B&D Fine Homes entered into the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement on August 1, 2001, Windermere SoCal entered into the Area Representation Agreement on May 1, 2004 and B&D SoCal entered into the SoCal Franchise Agreement on March 29, 2011. Plaintiffs entered into the Modification Agreement on December 18, 2012 and Confidentiality Agreement on April 22, 2015.

 

            144. Incorporated into the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Area Representation Agreement, SoCal Franchise Agreement, Modification Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

 

            145. Plaintiffs performed all obligations required of them under the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Area Representation Agreement, SoCal Franchise Agreement, Modification Agreement and Confidentiality Agreement.

 

            146. WSC breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by acting in a manner so as to deprive Plaintiffs of the benefits of their agreements. This included

 

a. Failing to provide a viable Windermere System in the Southern California region. To the extent WSC provided services or assistance it was worthless;

 

b. Failing to make commercially reasonable efforts to curtail the Windermere Watch;

 

c. Marketing franchisees in Windermere SoCal' s territory without consultation;

 

d. Granting Windermere branch offices to third parties in markets served by Windermere SoCal;

 

e. Soliciting Windermere SoCal' s participation in offers and sales of franchises in violation of the franchise laws;

 

f. Improperly recruiting B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal's sales associates and other employees to join WSC and other Windermere offices;

 

g. Disclosing to other franchisees in its system Plaintiffs' proprietary information;

 

h. Failing to provide a modern and up to date technology system platform;

 

i. Increasing the technology fees to amounts that on information and belief bear no relationship to the amounts spent on Windermere's technology system; and

 

j. Failing to act in good faith and conduct its business such that Plaintiffs received the benefits of being part of a franchise system.

 

            147. As a result of WSC's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations

(By all Plaintiffs against WSC)

 

            148. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth therein.

 

            149. Windermere SoCal has valid, existing agreements with franchisees throughout its region concerning Windermere real estate brokerages.

 

            150. WSC had knowledge of the aforementioned agreement and knew of its value to Windermere SoCal.

 

            151. WSC intentionally disrupted the performance of the aforementioned agreement by:

 

a. Marketing franchisees in Windermere SoCal's territory without consultation;

 

b. Granting Windermere branch offices to third parties in markets served by Windermere SoCal; and

 

c. Soliciting Windermere SoCal's participation in offers and sales of franchises in violation of the franchise laws.

 

            152. WSC's conduct has prevented performance of the Area Representation Agreement by reducing Windermere SoCal' s ability to maintain franchisees in the region.

 

            153. B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal have valid, existing agreements with their agents in each of their locations.

 

            154. WSC had knowledge of the aforementioned agreements and knew of their value to B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal.

 

            155. After WSC gave notice to terminate the Area Representation Agreement and received notice of the termination of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement and SoCal Franchise Agreement, WSC set out to disrupt B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal' s agreements with their agents.

 

            156. WSC intentionally disrupted the performance of the aforementioned agreement by improperly recruiting B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal's sales associates and other employees to join WSC and other Windermere offices.

 

            157. WSC's conduct has caused B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal to lose employees thus preventing the performance of the employment agreements.

 

            158. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. WSC' s conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm.

 

            159. WSC's conduct was malicious, fraudulent and oppressive and done with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' contractual rights. As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

EIGHTH CLAIM OF RELIEF

Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

(By all Plaintiffs against WSC)

 

            160. Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as though fully set forth therein.

 

            161. Windermere SoCal's Area Representation Agreement allowed it to prospect franchisees throughout its region to add them as Windermere real estate brokerages. WSC knew of these prospective relationships.

 

            162. WSC intentionally disrupted Windermere SoCal's ability to solicit and enroll new franchisees by:

 

a. Marketing franchisees in Windermere SoCal' s territory without consultation;

 

b. Granting Windermere branch offices to third parties in markets served by Windermere SoCal; and

 

c. Soliciting Windermere SoCal' s participation in offers and sales of franchises in violation of the franchise laws.

 

            163. WSC' s conduct has prevented Windermere SoCal from being able to recruit additional franchisees in the region.

 

            164. B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal continually have attempted to expand their franchises by adding stores and real estate agents. WSC knew of these prospective relationships.

 

            165. WSC intentionally disrupted the potential acquisition of additional stores and agent by improperly recruiting sales associates and other employees in the region to join WSC and other Windermere offices.

 

            166. WSC's conduct has caused B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal to lose out on the acquisition of potential stores and employees.

 

            167. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. WSC' s conduct was a substantial factor in causing this harm.

 

            168. WSC's conduct was malicious, fraudulent and oppressive and done with a conscious disregard for Plaintiffs' contractual rights. As such, the Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

 

            WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief against WSC as follows:

 

            1. On the First through Sixth Causes of Action:

 

a. For compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial;

 

b. For a judicial determination and declaration that WSC did not have cause to terminate the Area Representation Agreement, as provided for in the agreement.

 

            2. On the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action:

 

a. For compensatory damages in amounts to be proven at trial;

 

b. For punitive damages in amounts to be proven at trial.

 

c. For a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining WSC from improperly recruiting B&D Fine Homes and B&D SoCal's sales associates and other employees to join WSC and other Windermere offices.

 

            3. For reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action pursuant to Section 11 of the Coachella Valley Franchise Agreement, Section 21 of the Area Representation Agreement; Section 13 of the SoCal Franchise Agreement; and Section 7 of the Modification Agreement; and

 

            4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

 

 

DATED: September 17,   2015                             MULCAHY LLP

 

                                                                        By: /s/ James M. Mulcahy

                                                                        James M. Mulcahy

                                                                        Kevin A. Adams

                                                                        Attorneys for Plaintiffs

                                                                        BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES,

                                                                        INC., BENNION & DEVILLE FINE

                                                                        HOMES SOCAL, INC., WINDERMERE

                                                                        SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

 

 

JURY DEMAND

 

            Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 8(b), Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.

 

 

DATED: September 17,   2015                             MULCAHY LLP

 

                                                                        By: /s/ James M. Mulcahy

                                                                        James M. Mulcahy

                                                                        Kevin A. Adams

                                                                        Attorneys for Plaintiffs

                                                                        BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES,

                                                                        INC., BENNION & DEVILLE FINE

                                                                        HOMES SOCAL, INC., WINDERMERE

                                                                        SERVICES SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

 
 

 

 

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

(Download the Complaint here.)

Windermere Bainbridge Island (owner Carter Dotson, left) and Agents Diane Sugden and Jan Johnson, Sued 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...”

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:

 

 

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.

 

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'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.

 

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[ ]."

 

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

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

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

 

 

Windermere franchise owner twice builds allegedly defective homes,

then sells them to unsuspecting buyers who are forced to sue:

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

MORE WINDERMERE AUBURN-BONNEY LAKE-LAKE TAPPS REVIEWS:

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

 

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:

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

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

READ THIS WiNDERMERE ELDER ABUSE CASE NEXT WASHINGTON APPEALS COURT, DIVISION 1—NOS. 58439-9-I, 58531-2-1: WINDERMERE AGENTS' ABUSE, UNDUE INFLUENCE and EXPLOITATION OF A VULNERABLE ADULT AT WINDERMERE ATTORNEY JOHN DEMCO'S SOUTH WHIDBEY ISLAND FREELAND WINDERMERE FRANCHISE.

 

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

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE COMPLAINT HERE

cate moyeWindermere Agent Don Hay and Windermere Real Estate Spokane Valley (Hay and Spokane Valley Owner Cate Moye at left) 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:

granlyAfter 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

 

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.

 

 

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..."

 

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

 

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 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. Update 8/22/13: Plaintiffs' attorney files Stipulation for and order of dismissal of Freeds and Windermere Lake Tapps

 

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." (Demco, Saul and Gabelein above.) 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.

 

STEALING COMPETITOR STRATEGY: IS PROMOTION THEFT THE WINDERMERE 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

Similar lawsuit from another Windermere competitor: U.S.DISTRICT COURT—NO. SACV10-01589 JVS (ex): JOSEPH R. DEVILLE, BOB BENNION, BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES [WINDERMERE COACHELLA VALLEY], A&L PARTNERS, ANDREA MARQUEZ, SUED FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT

Similar lawsuit: U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE—CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-cv-271: WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COMPANY AND SEATTLE-WEDGWOOD 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

Similar lawsuit: U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA—NO. CV-05401: WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND AND ASSOCIATE BROKER DEBBIE NITSCHE SUED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION.

 

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY / PALM SPRINGS / BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES REVIEWS

PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS: WINDERMERE COACHELLA VALLEY/BENNION and DEVILLE FINE HOMES AGENT, PEGGY SHAMBAUGH, CHARGED IN CONCURRENT CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

FEDERAL INDICTMENT No. CR 12 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. Click here to read or download a .pdf copy of the complete indictment.

 

COMPANION CIVIL CASE:

SUPERIOR COURT 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.

SHAMBAUGH, BENNION & DEVILLE, WINDERMERE COACHELLA, WINDERMERE SERVICES 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…”

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

 

CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE ABOVE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY—N0. RIC 10019843

"..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." (emphasis added)

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..."

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE—N0. 30-2009 00311045

Complaint alleges, " ...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."

CASE UPDATE: Following his federal indictment on bribery and conspiracy charges, the Court has granted a stay of this civil action against Defendant Gary Kovall, based on his assertion of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

 

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 & DEVILLE FINE HOMES INC., DBA WINDERMERE 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 ..."

 

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."

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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 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.

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..."

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

 

 

 

 

Aaron Shriner Seattle Real Estate Review: Former Owner / Managing Broker of the now defunct Windermere Real Estate SCA Redmond, Aaron Shriner, has become a Seattle Realogics Sotheby's International Realty Agent! Astute realty service consumers have the right to know Mr. Shriner's Windermere history before enlisting his services at Sotheby's:

CASE #1: Windermere SCA Redmond was proud home to certified Windermere swindler, Paul Stickney, 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 $1,030,627.00 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. (Shriner and Stickney at above left, respectively.)

 

 

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

 

 

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, KING COUNTY—NO. 13-2-36032-2 SEA

Windermere Real Estate East and Agent 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

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

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY—CASE NO. 07-2-08247-6 SEA

YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT A WINDERMERE EAST ASSOCIATE BROKER MIGHT BE DOING:

" Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Ivan G. Popchoi and Varvara M. Popchoi and against Csaba Kiss (left) in the total amount of $44,885,39, ... "On October 17, 2006, Melanie A. Leary, an attorney with the Demco Law Firm, P.S., sent Mr. Williams a written response to his October 6, 2006 letter. Ms. Leary advised Mr. Williams that she represented Mr. Kiss and relayed Mr. Kiss’s position that the Popchois were not entitled to the protection of the warranties provided by the Statutory Warranty deed executed by Mr. Kiss. Ms. Leary’s letter notified Mr. Williams that Mr. Kiss was “far more inclined to let a court decide” the Popchois’ warranty rights “than to spend money to settle” the Popchois warranty claim.”

 

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.

 

john jacobi REALTY PREDATOR and WINDERMERE CHAIRMAN (left) JOHN W. JACOBI'S HUGE 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 Real Estate 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.

 

IS HE AMERICA'S MOST UNETHICAL LAWYER? Lying to judges and knowingly filing false complaints and other fraudulent documents in their courts. Violating defendant civil rights and attempting to coerce illegal, unjust settlement agreements through intimidating emails, excessive legal expense and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Running away and voluntarily dismissing his own company's phony and process-abusive lawsuits on the eve of trial. He'll even try deliberately subverting a previously demanded and paid jury proceeding by surreptitiously ordering a bench trial. Is Windermere General Counsel, Lying Lawyer and Legal Process Cheat, Paul Stephen Drayna (left), the nation's most obtuse, unscrupulous and dishonest corporate attorney?

 

"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."

 

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."

 

 

Are you considering LISTING YOUR HOME with Windermere, or BUYING A HOME LISTED by Windermere? Despite Windermere's false promotion of "Uncompromising honesty and integrity," if anything goes wrong in your Windermere home deal, WINDERMERE WILL FORCE YOU TO SUE. Before you buy or sell with Windermere, focus on the risk of Windermere's well-documented history of unethical misconduct in home transactions:

 

WINDERMERE REDMOND REVIEW

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON—NO. 62912-3-I

PAUL STICKNEY WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE'S (A.K.A. STICKNEY TEAM) MILLION-DOLLAR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Plundering Paul Stickney (left) was officially adjudged by Washington courts as having a conflict of interest and failing to disclose it to his Windermere SCA clients—Mark and Carol DeCoursey—when he sold them a house in Redmond, Washington, and then recommended a remodeling company to the DeCourseys. But Stickney neglected to mention he was AN OWNER of the remodeling company he was recommending, which absolutely ruined their home. Stickney testified that he DID NOT KNOW he was named as the remodeling company's VP until AFTER the DeCoursey's lawsuit began. STORY HERE.

READ THE PAUL STICKNEY/WINDERMERE REDMOND SUPERSEDEAS APPEAL BOND HERE. READ THE WINDERMERE REDMOND SCA/PAUL STICKNEY $1,030,627.00 JUDGMENT HERE.

 

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. Jump to the Court's Opinion on Mr. Stickney here.

 

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.

 

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..."

john jacobi(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

 

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 and Windermere Real Estate/CIR Owner Marla Heagle, producing for fanchiser Windermere Services Company. "...Eppig 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."

 

 

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.

 

 

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."

 

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."

 

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."

 

 

WINDERMERE HIMLIE SHELTON REVIEW

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

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."

 

 

 

HOMESTREET BANK REVIEW • WINDERMERE MORTGAGE SERVICES SERIES LLC REVIEW

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

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."

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

 

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

 

 

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.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO—CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00522-CWD

WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE/CAPITAL GROUP of BOISE, IDAHO, SUED FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT—TITLE VIII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1968. WINDERMERE AGENT MARY LIESE ALLEGED TO HAVE TOLD AN IFHC TESTER, "WE PREFER PEOPLE 55 AND OVER."

 

Complaint Charges: "The Defendants have engaged in coercion, intimidation..." CASE UPDATE 07/19/2011: Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Intermountain Fair Housing Council. Defendants Steve Osburn and Mary Liese are now listed as employees at Windermere Boise—Access Realty.

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. Click to Windermere Bonney Lake - Lake Tapps lawsuits here.

 

"Windermere Real Estate Expanding its Brand into Colorado. Eric Thompson, (left) former president of The Group, Inc. will spearhead growth starting in Fort Collins: September 10, 2014, Seattle – OB Jacobi, second-generation leader and president of Seattle-based Windermere Real Estate has announced the company’s plans to expand the Windermere brand into Colorado, starting in Fort Collins." Initial startup personnel include Paul Hunter, Chris Murdza, Greg Rittner, Siduri Taylor, and Janet Tharpe. MORE HERE

The COLORADOAN reports that Eric Thompson’s departure from The Group, Inc., was a “mutually agreed upon decision.” A June 2014 COLORADOAN Newspaper report about Thompson states that, “Eric Thompson is out as president of The Group, Inc., ..." and “...The Group’s board of directors said Thompson’s departure was “a mutually agreed upon decision,“ and “...Susie Ewing, vice president, said “Eric did a great job while he was here, but the company was looking for a new direction.”

 

 

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