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
Spokane 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.
"With Durheim and Groves acting as their agents, in July 2011 the Mitchells entered into a written purchase and sale agreement with the owners of the Hallett Property. That agreement contained a contingency on the closing of the Hallett Property, which was that the Solerno Property sale had to close before or simultaneously with the Hallett 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.
Durheim and Groves never told the Mitchells that the Solerno Property sale could not close. Instead, Solerno informed the Mitchells of the problem in early 2012. At that point, Durheim and Groves ceased communications with the Mitchells, and unilaterally, without informing the Mitchells, cancelled the boundary line adjustment process that the Parties had initiated with the County."
RECENT CASE UPDATES: 5/15/2014, Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Durheim, Groves and Windermere Manito. 6/25/2014, Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 6/23/2014, Defendant Paul Salerno's (Pro Se) Anser to Complaint and Counterclaim.
FILED
APR 17 2013
THOMAS R FALLQUIST
SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE
ARNIE MITCHELL and STORMIE MITCHELL, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
v.
GREG DURHEIM and JANE DOE DURHEIM, husband and wife; CAROL GROVES and JOHN DOE GROVES, wife and husband; and WINDERMERE/MANITO, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; and PAUL SOLERNO and JANE DOE SOLERNO, husband and wife.
Defendants
No. 13201539-5
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Archie Mitchell and Stormie Mitchell, by and through their undersigned attorneys, for their causes of action against the above-narmed defendants allege as follows:
I. PARTIES
1.1 Plaintiffs, Archie Mitchell and Stormie Mitchell, husband and wife, are residents of Spokane County, State of Washington.
1.2 Defendant Greg Durheim is a licensed real estate agent in the State of Washington, and does business in Spokane County, Washington.
1.3 Defendant Carol Groves is a licensed real estate agent in the State of Washington, and does business in Spokane County, Washington.
1.4 Windermere/Manito, LLC is a Washington Limited Liability Company, doing business in Spokane County, Washington.
1.5 Paul Solerno and Jane Doe Solerno are a married couple residing in Spokane County.
II. VENUE AND JURISDICTION
2.1 Venue and jurisdiction are proper in Spokane County Superior Court pursuant to RCW 4.12.010 as the property which is the subject matter of the lawsuit is located there, and RCW 4.12.020 as this is the county where the cause of action arose.
III. OPERATIVE FACTS
3.1 In or around June of 2011, Plaintiffs Archie and Stormie Mitchell ("the Mitchells") entered into an agreement with defendants Greg Durheim and Carol Groves ("Durheim and Groves") and their employer/principal, defendant Windermere/Manito, LLC ("Windermere"). The agreement was for Durheim and Groves to represent the Mitchells as real estate buyer's agents, and for Windermere to act as buyer's real estate broker.
3.2 The Mitchells informed Durheim and Groves that they needed to purchase property to satisfy a very specific purpose: a residence that could also operate as a commercial dog kennel for the Mitchells' dog breeding business of high value, pure bread German Shepards. Durheim and Groves also knew that the Mitchells were currently living in Alaska, and therefore the Mitchells' reliance would be even greater than that of the average client.
3.3 Durheirn and Groves found a piece of property with a residence located at 3508 W. Hallett Lane in Spokane, Washington ("the Hallett Property"). However, that land was not big enough to meet Spokane County requirements for the operation of a commercial dog kennel. Rather than searching for a completely different property, Durheim and Groves contacted an adjacent property owner, defendant Paul Solerno ("Solerno") and inquired if he would be willing to sell a portion of his property ("the Solerno Property") to the Mitchells, and participate in a boundary line adjustment in order to give the Mitchells a large enough parcel of property to operate the commercial dog kennel. Solerno responded affirmatively.
3.4 With Durheim and Groves acting as their agents, in July 2011 the Mitchells entered into a written purchase and sale agreement with the owners of the Hallett Property. That agreement contained a contingency on the closing of the Hallett Property, which was that the Solerno Property sale had to close before or simultaneously with the Hallett Property.
3.5 The Mitchells also entered a purchase and sale agreement with Solerno for the purchase of a half acre of the Solerno Property. As part of that agreement, the Mitchells paid $1,000.00 to Solerno in earnest money, and put another $19,000.00 in escrow.
3.6 By September 2011, the Solerno Property sale was no closer to closing than it had been in July, and the Hallett Property owners were anxious to get the Hallett Property sold. 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.
3.7 In September of 2011, worried about losing the sale of the Hallett Property, Durheim and Groves advised the Mitchells to forgo the contingency in the purchase and sale agreement for the Hallett Property and to go ahead with the Hallett Property closing. Durheirn and Groves encouraged the Mitchells to just complete the Hallett Lane closing and told the Mitchells that the Solerno Property closing wouldn't be any problem, that it would just take more time.
3.8 Relying on the representations and assurances of Durheim and Groves, the Mitchells eliminated the contingency in the purchase and sale agreement for the Hallett Property, and went ahead with the closing of the Hallett Property in late September of 2011.
3.9 Durheim and Groves never told the Mitchells that the Solerno Property sale could not close. Instead, Solerno informed the Mitchells of the problem in early 2012. At that point, Durheim and Groves ceased communications with the Mitchells, and unilaterally, without informing the Mitchells, cancelled the boundary line adjustment process that the Parties had initiated with the County.
3.10 Durheim and Groves also made other representations and assurances to the Mitchells that the Hallett Property would meet the Spokane County requirements of running a commercial dog kennel. After the Hallett Property closed, the Mitchells learned from Spokane County officials that the Hallett Property would not meet County requirements and additional changes would have to be made in order to bring the Hallett Property into conformance with those requirements.
3.11 Though the Mitchells have continued to try to work with Solerno and his mortgage lender, to date the Solerno Property sale has never closed. As a result, the Mitchells have not been able to operate their dog kennel business, and they have had to keep their dogs on the inside of their house at most times, because the property is not large enough to allow them outside. This has resulted in damages to their home.
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Groves/Durheim/Windermere)
4.1 Plaintiffs contracted with defendants for defendants to find them property suitable to their needs. Defendants failed to find appropriate property, and ceased trying to aid the plaintiffs after defendants received their commission for the sale of the Hallett Property. This breach has directly and proximately caused plaintiffs to suffer damages in amounts to be proven at time of trial.
V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTIES
(Groves/Durheim/Windermere)
5.1 RCW § 18.86.030 and § 18.86.050 impose certain duties on real estate agents and brokers. Based on the above operative facts, the defendants breached their statutory duties, including but not limited to the duty of loyalty, the duty to exercise reasonable skill and care, the duty to deal honestly and in good faith, and the duty to disclose all existing material facts.
5.2 The defendants' breach of their statutory duties have directly and proximately
caused the plaintiffs to suffer damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial.
VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(Groves/Durheim/Windermere)
6.1 Though the defendants knew or should have known that the Solerno Property would not close, the defendants made assurances that the Solerno Property closing would not be any problem and encouraged the plaintiffs to give up an important contingency in the purchase of the Hallett Property. The plaintiffs reasonably relied on the assurances and representations of the defendants, and as a result have suffered damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial.
6.2 Though the defendants knew or should have known that Spokane County regulations would require additional, costly changes to the Hallett Property, the defendants represented to the plaintiffs that the Hallett Property was in compliance with all regulations, so that the Hallett Property would appear to better meets the plaintiffs' needs. The plaintiffs reasonably relied on the assurances and representations of the defendants, and as a result have suffered damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial.
VII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - BREACH OF CONTRACT (Solerno)
7.1 Solerno's failure to transfer to the Mitchells that portion of his property which he agreed to transfer in the Purchase and Sale Agreement is a material breach of that agreement. The Mitchells have been damaged by Solerno's breach of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and ask the court to grant specific performance, or if that is not possible, then an award of damages in amounts to be proven at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for judgment as follows:
a. For a judgment against defendants Groves, Durheim and Windermere/Manito, LLC, jointly and severally, in amounts to be proven at the time of trial;
b. For an order of specific performance directed at defendant Solerno; or, in the alternative, a judgment for damages, in amounts to be proven at the time of trial;
c. For an award of pre- and post- judgment interest in the amount of 12% per annum;
d. For an award of plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees and costs;
e. For all such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable.
DATED this 16 day of April, 2013.
FELTMAN, GEBHARDT, GREER
& ZEDAANTZ, P.S.
By: ________________________________
JP. DIENER, WSBA #36630
Attorney for Plaintiffs
___________________
SPOKANE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS and VESTUS CLASS ACTION PARTIES FILE A STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER OF THE ASSOCIATION'S RECORDS, CLAIMING DISCLOSURE "...will cause damage to the Spokane Association of Realtors and/or its members."
"The Spokane Association of Realtors has requested that these records be subject to a protective order...
...These records are distinct from other records in that they are confidential in nature, the disclosure of which to other persons will cause damage to the Spokane Association of Realtors and/or its members....
...The confidential documents and information shall be used by the party to whom the documents are disclosed solely for the purposes of this lawsuit, and may not be copied, filed in court, disseminated, published, communicated, distributed or otherwise used except as provided In this order. Use of the confidential documents and Information for oral and/or written dissemination to any member of the public; any member of the media Including radio, television, print digital optical, or otherwise via computer, telephone, facsimile, or any other communication medium; or to any person not otherwise specifically authorized herein is strictly prohibited."
DOWNLOAD THE STIPULATED MOTION & ORDER HERE
FILED
MAY 28 2013
THOMAS R. FALLQUIST
SPOKANE COUNTY CLERK
Judge Linda G. Thompkins
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
CARYL HELLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VESTUS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; BRIAN SANDUSKY and JANE DOE SANDUSKY, individually and the marital community composed thereof; and AARON CUNNINGHAM and JANE DOE CUNNINGHAM, individually and the marital community composed thereof,
Defendants
No. 13-2-0061106
STIPULATED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ON SPOKANE
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS RECORDS
I. STIPULATION
Defendant Brian Sandusky, Jane Doe Sandusky, Aaron Cunningham, and Jane Doe Cunningham issued a subpoena to the Spokane Association of Realtors regarding various ethics complaints filed by plaintiff Caryl Heller and non-party Curtis Price. Declaration of Allison J. Moon in support of stipulated motion for protective order; Exhibit 1. The Spokane Association of Realtors has requested that these records be subject to a protective order. Therefore, the parties, through their respective counsel, and counsel for the Spokane Association of Realtors have agreed to the following protective order regarding the use of the Spokane, Association of Realtors' records In this litigation,
Dated this 13th day of May, 2013.
PAUKERT & TROPPMAN, PLLC LEE SMART, P.S., INC.
By: ________________ By: ________________
Breean L. Beggs, WSBA No. 20795 Jeffrey P. Downer, WSBA No. 12625
Andrea L. Asan, WSBA No. 35395 Allison J. Moon, WSBA No. 41876
Attorneys for Plaintiff Caryl Heller Attorneys for Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham
DEMCO LAW FIRM, P.S. LUKINS & ANNIS, P.S.
By: ________________ By: attached__________
Lars E. Neste, WSBA 28781 Kelly E. Konkright, WSBA No. 33544
Attorney for Defendant Vestus, LLC Attorney for non-party Spokane Association of Realtors
II. ORDER
The parties to the above-captioned lawsuit and counsel for the Spokane Association of Realtors stipulate and agree to the terms of the protective order below regarding the Spokane Association of Realtors' records produced in response to Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham's subpoena.
1. Scope. The provisions of this order apply to "confidential documents and information."
2. Definition. This order relates to "confidential documents and Information." The terms "confidential documents and Information" as used herein shall mean all documents provided by the Spokane Association of Realtors in response to Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham's subpoena. Any oral communication regarding those documents is included within the definition. These records are distinct from other records in that they are confidential in nature, the disclosure of which to other persons will cause damage to the Spokane Association of Realtors and/or its members.
3. Use in this litigation only and under the terms described herein. Except with prior written consent of the Spokane Association of Realtors, the confidential documents and information may be disclosed only to counsel who files an appearance for the parties.
The confidential documents and information shall be used by the party to whom the documents are disclosed solely for the purposes of this lawsuit, and may not be copied, filed in court, disseminated, published, communicated, distributed or otherwise used except as provided In this order. Use of the confidential documents and Information for oral and/or written dissemination to any member of the public; any member of the media Including radio, television, print digital optical, or otherwise via computer, telephone, facsimile, or any other communication medium; or to any person not otherwise specifically authorized herein is strictly prohibited.
If the confidential documents and Information are used In a deposition, the court reporter shall be asked to designate the deposition exhibit or that portion of the transcript as "Confidential." That portion shall be sealed In an envelope marked "Confidential" at the conclusion of the deposition and shall only be accessed by legal counsel as necessary for purposes of this litigation consistent with the manner set forth In this order. The confidential deposition exhibits and portions of the deposition transcript shall not be filed in court, further distributed, communicated, reproduced, or stored in any manner and are considered confidential documents and Information.
Counsel of record may use those confidential documents of record for the purposes of this litigation only and may not be flied in court unless the documents are filed under seal and in compliance with GR 15, 31 and applicable case law. [sic; no paragraphs numbered 4 or 5]
6. Non-waiver of objections to discovery. Nothing herein shall affect any party's or person's right to object to any discovery request, including the right to assert that no discovery shall be had of certain documents or Information.
7. Destruction of documents and termination. The provisions of this order shall not terminate at the conclusion of this litigation and continue to be binding. This court retains and shall have jurisdiction over the parties, their attorneys and all recipients of the confidential documents and Information for the enforcement of the provisions of this order following termination of this case. The confidential documents and information shall be returned to the Spokane Association of Realtors within 30 days following the completion of the lawsuit, including any Appellate review.
8. Enforcement. If the provisions of this order have not been adhered to, the Spokane Association of Realtors may seek relief from the court. The parties agree that the court should enforce any clear violations of the order.
DONE IN OPEN COURT this 24th of May, 2013.
____________________________
Hon. Linda G. Thompkins
Presented by:
PAUKERT & TROPPMAN, PLLC LEE SMART, P.S., INC.
By: ________________ By: ________________
Breean L. Beggs, WSBA No. 20795 Jeffrey P. Downer, WSBA No. 12625
Andrea L. Asan, WSBA No. 35395 Allison J. Moon, WSBA No. 41876
Attorneys for Plaintiff Caryl Heller Attorneys for Defendants Sandusky and Cunningham
DEMCO LAW FIRM, P.S. LUKINS & ANNIS, P.S.
By: ________________ By: attached__________
Lars E. Neste, WSBA 28781 Kelly E. Konkright, WSBA No. 33544
Attorney for Defendant Vestus, LLC Attorney for non-party Spokane Association of Realtors