DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HERE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
PETER DOORISH,
Plaintiff,
vs,
WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, a Washington corporation; WINDERMERE REAL ESTATEIW ALL STREET, INC., a Washington corporation; RICHARD GANGNES and JANE DOE GANGNES, husband and wife; KAREN LA VALLEE and JOHN DOE LA VALEE, wife and husband,
Defendants.
NO. 08 - 2 - 4 2 3 4 5 - 0 SEA
COMPLAINT
I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.1 Plaintiff Peter Doorish is a resident of King County Washington.
1.2 Defendant Windermere Real Estate Services Company is a Washington corporation domiciled in Seattle, King County, Washington.
1.3 Defendant Windermere Real Estate Wall Street, Inc., is a Washington corporation domiciled in Seattle, King County, Washington.
1.4 Defendants Richard Gangnes and Jane Doe Gangnes are, on information and belief, residents of King County, Washington. Richard Gangnes is the owner and designated broker of defendant Windermere Real EstatelWal1 Street, Inc. In the event that defendant Richard Gangnes is married, the plaintiff alleges that all actions of such defendant alleged herein were done on the behalf of or for the benefit of his marital community with Jane Doe Gangnes.
1.5 Defendants Karen Lavallee and John Doe Lavallee are, on information and belief, residents of King County, Washington. Karen Lavallee is a real estate broker and the branch manager of the office of Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street, Inc., in West Seattle. In the event that defendant Karen Lavallee is married, the plaintiff alleges that all actions of such defendant alleged herein were done on the behalf of or for the benefit of her marital community with John Doe Lavallee.
1.6 This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. Venue in this Court is proper because Seattle, King County, Washington, is the location of the plaintiffs residence, the domiciles of at least two of the defendants, and the events giving rise to this Complaint.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
2.1 Defendants Windermere Real Estate/Wall Street, Inc., of which defendant Rich Gangnes is owner and designated broker and defendant Karen Lavallee is branch manager for its West Seattle office, is on information and belief an affiliate or subsidiary of Windermere Real Estate Services Company and is subject to the control of, or joint control with, Windermere Real Estate Services Company. Defendants Windermere Real Estate Wall Street, Inc., Gangnes, Lavallee, and Windermere Real Estate Services Company are collectively referred to in this Complaint as "Windermere" or "the defendants."
2.2 Windermere formally employed as a real estate salesperson Cheryl Jonet, who is presently deceased. On information and belief, Windermere first employed Ms. Janet in early 2000, in its West Seattle office managed by defendant Lavallee. Ms. Jonet also first received a real estate salesperson license in 2000. She was a Windermere employee throughout the period of the events and transactions giving rise to this Complaint. Windermere had authority to supervise, to direct, and to control the conduct and activities of Cheryl Janet in connection with her employment.
2.3 Before her employment by Windermere, Cheryl Jonet was a defendant and judgment debtor in numerous legal actions in courts in King County and Snohomish County including, but not limited to, a suit by a property vendor for mishandling earnest money years before she obtained a real estate license, suits for breaches of promissory notes, and unlawful detainer actions.
2.4 Peter Doorish believes and, therefore, alleges, that Windermere failed to conduct a reasonably diligent inquiry into the background of Cheryl Janet, including her legal and financial background, before employing her or, if it was actually aware of such background, failed to act reasonably in deciding to hire her and to retain her in its employ despite it. Such failure or failures to use reasonable care in hiring and in retaining Cheryl Janet enabled her, in the capacity of and with the aid of the status afforded by her by her employment by Windermere, to perpetuate a continuing course of intentional or negligent wrongdoing and breaches of contract and other legal duties throughout the years of her employment.
2.5 Cheryl Jonet's entanglement as a defendant in civil legal proceedings continued throughout her employment with Windermere. Windermere had cause to be aware of one or more of these proceedings but continued Ms. Jonet in its employment despite them.
2.6 During her employment with Windermere, Cheryl Jonet arranged, oversaw, and took charge of several real estate transactions, including the transactions involving Peter Doorish, in which she arranged for clients to purchase properties with her as selling agent and then secured, in relation thereto, loans from third parties to the purchasers, to herself or entities she controlled, or all of the foregoing, for the supposed purpose of remodeling. It is believed and, therefore, alleged, that Ms. Jonet positioned herself in relation to these transactions so as to enable her control of the disbursement of loan funds. It is further alleged that, in more than one of these transactions, she caused disbursements of loaned funds in a manner enabling her wrongfully to appropriate and to convert all or a portion them to her own possession and use. In at least several of these transactions, the remodeling of properties was not completed and the owners were left with damaged or partially demolished homes.
2.7 Peter Doorish believes and, therefore, alleges, that Windermere failed to engage in reasonable supervision over Cheryl Jonet's activities over the years of her employment, either by failing to take reasonable actions to be apprised her activities and conduct or by failing to take appropriate actions as her employer in relation to information about her activities and conduct of which it was aware. In either event, Windermere failed to exercise sufficient oversight of Ms. Jonet's activities.
2.8 In February 2005, Cheryl Jonet, as a Windermere employee, acted as the selling agent in the sale of a home owned by Peter Doorish, located at 13051 - 27th Avenue Northeast, Seattle, to Laurie Olson (hereinafter "the home"). Ms. Janet represented to Mr. Doorish that Ms. Olson was an attorney when, on information and belief, she was actually a clerical employee in the health services industry, as well as a single mother with four children.
2.9 It is believed and, therefore, alleged that Ms. Jonet promised Ms. Olson that she, Ms. Jonet, would take charge of payment of all continuing expenses entailed in Ms. Olson's acquisition of the home, including the monthly mortgage payments and arranging for a remodel project to add an accessory dwelling unit (ADD) in the home.
2.10 Before Peter Doorish's conveyance of the home to Laurie Olson, Cheryl Jonet raised with him the possibility his loaning funds to Ms. Olson for the proposed ADD project. Ms. Jonet did not mention any possibility that the remainder of the home, including portions that had recently been updated, would be subject to demolition.
2.11 After the closing of the sale of the home from Peter Doorish to Laurie Olson, Cheryl Jonet approached him to solicit a loan to Ms. Olson in the amount of $50,000, purportedly to install the ADU in the home. Ms. Jonet told Mr. Doorish that his interests were aligned with those of Ms. Olson, that he did need independent counsel, and she would have Windermere lawyers prepare all necessary documents. Mr. Doorish agreed to these arrangements and Ms. Olson signed a promissory note to him to be paid off with interest several years subsequent. Ms. Olson also executed a deed of trust in Mr. Doorish's favor.
2.12 On information and belief, Cheryl Jonet obtained control of the funds loaned by Peter Doorish and hired a contractor who performed work on the home unrelated to the proposed ADU project, including, but not limited to, gutting an extensive part of the home's interior and removing appliances. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, alleges that, Laurie Olson resided elsewhere at the time of these activities and was not aware of and did authorize the work Jonet was having done on the home. Peter Doorish was also unaware of these activities.
2.13 The home had not been restored to a level equivalent to its former condition when, in the Fall of 2005, Cheryl Jonet told Peter Doorish that Laurie Olson was overextended on the remodel project and would be declaring bankruptcy. Ms. Olson petitioned for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on or about October 14,2005.
2.14 Following Laurie Olson's petition for bankruptcy protection, Cheryl Janet advised Peter Doorish that he should recover title to the home through a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Ms. Jonet further advised that she would arrange for the work on the home to be completed and obtain a buyer for it. Mr. Doorish followed this advice and, in December 2005, received a deed in lieu of foreclosure from Ms. Olson.
2.15 After Laurie Olson's execution of the deed in lieu of foreclosure, Cheryl Jonet retained control over the property and access to it, including retaining the keys. Peter Doorish consented to this arrangement in view of his reliance on Ms. Janet's representations that she would oversee the work to restore the home and secure its sale to a new buyer.
2.16 Cheryl Jonet failed to take any action whatsoever to correct of the condition of the home or to obtain a new buyer following Ms. Olson's execution of the deed in lieu of foreclosure. She died in August 2006.
2.17 Peter Doorish was not aware and Cheryl Jonet did not inform him of the fact that there were substantial liens against the value of the home superior to the deed of trust that Laurie Olson had executed in his favor. He did not become aware of the existence of these liens until Summer of2006, when he learned that the home was subject to a notice of trustee's sale. It was only then that he gained access to the interior home and discovered its gutted condition.
2.18 Because of the encumbered and damaged state of the home, Peter Doorish was required to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to payoff lien holders to avoid foreclosure and to restore the home to a habitable and tenantable condition. Mr. Doorish also never received any payment from any source in relation to the $50,000 that he loaned for the supposed ADD remodel at the instigation of Cheryl Janet.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1. DIRECT LIABILITY OF DEFENDANTS.
A. Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision.
3.1 The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs 1.1 through 2.18 are hereby incorporated by reference in the following claims for relief.
3.2 The defendants had duties to use ordinary care in hiring, in retaining, and in supervising Cheryl Jonet, their employee, in order to avoid to the maximum extent practicable the risk of harm to foreseeable victims of Ms. Jonet's activities in the course of her employment.
3.3 In their hiring, retention, and supervision of Cheryl Jonet, defendants had a duty to use ordinary care to prevent the tasks, premises, and instrumentalities entrusted to her from endangering others in relation in relation to risks of which they were aware or, in an exercise of reasonable care, should have been aware.
3.4 The defendants breached the foregoing duties with respect to Peter Doorish in the manner described in this Complaint, including, but not limited to, by failing to exercise reasonable diligence to investigate Cheryl Jonet's background before hiring her and by failing to exercise an appropriate degree of supervision of her activities and conduct. Alternatively, the defendants breached the foregoing duties by deciding to hire and to retain Cheryl Jonet in their employment and by not adequately supervising her activities despite having knowledge of the risks that she posed to foreseeable victims.
3.5 The defendants are liable for the plaintiffs' damages, in an amount that will be established at trial, proximately caused by their breaches of their duties of ordinary care in hiring, retaining, and supervising Cheryl Jonet.
B. Violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
3.6 The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs 1.1 through 3.5 are hereby incorporated by reference in the following claim for relief.
3.7 The defendants, through Cheryl Jonet, committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the course of the transactions giving rise to this Complaint, in violation of Chapter 19.86 RCW, that affected the public interest and injured him in his property in an amount that will be proven at trial.
3.8 The defendants are liable to the plaintiff for their violations of the Consumer Protection Act, including for treble damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, in an amount that will be proven at trial.
COUNT II. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANTS.
A. Fraud and Fraudulent Concealment.
3.9 The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs 1.1 through 3.8 are hereby incorporated by reference in the following claim for relief.
3.10 Cheryl Jonet, in the course of her employment by the defendants, falsely represented material facts pertinent to the transactions giving rise to this Complaint, through both affirmative statements and silence implying the absence of adverse material facts, with knowledge of the falsity of her representations or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. Cheryl J onet made these representations intending that the plaintiff rely upon them. The plaintiff was unaware that these representations were false and reasonably relied on them in taking actions and making decisions related to the transaction giving rise to this Complaint, to his substantial damage.
3.11 Cheryl Jonet, in the course of her employment by the defendants, failed to disclose to plaintiff material facts regarding the transactions giving rise to this Complaint of which she was aware and that were not known or reasonably discoverable by the plaintiff. Cheryl Jonet's concealment of material facts damaged the plaintiff by inducing him to undertake detrimental decisions and actions, as described in this Complaint.
3.12 The defendants are vicariously liable for the plaintiff's damages caused by Cheryl Jonet's fraud and fraudulent concealment in an amount that will be established at trial.
B. Negligent Misrepresentation.
3.13 The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs 1.1 through 3.12 are hereby incorporated by reference in the following claim for relief.
3.14 Cheryl Jonet, in the course of her employment by the defendants, failed to exercise reasonable care and competence to obtain and communicate to the plaintiff complete and accurate information regarding the transactions and occurrences giving rise to this Complaint. The plaintiff, in taking actions and making decisions related to these transactions, reasonably relied on Cheryl Jonet's negligent false representations and silence as to adverse material facts.
3.15 The defendants are variously liable for the plaintiff's damages proximately caused by Cheryl Jonet's negligent misrepresentations in an amount that will be proven at trial.
C. Negligence.
3.16 The allegations in the foregoing paragraphs 1.1 through 3.15 are hereby incorporated by reference in the following claim for relief.
3.17 Cheryl Jonet, in the course of her activities in the scope of her employment by the Windermere defendants, and in accordance with both common law and statute, owed the plaintiff a duty of ordinary care, consistent with the standard of care applicable to real estate salespersons in the state of Washington, in relation to the transactions and occurrences giving rise to this action.
3.18 Cheryl Janet breached her duty of ordinary care to the plaintiff in the course of her employment by the Windermere defendants in the manner set forth in this Complaint. 3.19 The Windermere defendants are vicariously liable to the plaintiff for his damages proximately caused by Cheryl Jonet's breach of her duty of ordinary care in an amount that will be established at trial.
IV. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff, having pled a cause of action, requests judgment in his favor and the following relief:
1. An award of his damages in an amount that will be proven at trial, including treble damages pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act;
2. An award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to which he might be deemed entitled; and
3. Such other and further relief as the Court finds just and equitable.
DATED this 9th day of December 2008.
LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES R. HORNER, PLLC
By: ____________________________
Charles R. Horner, WSBA No. 27504
Attorney for Plaintiff