See the Windermere Gallery of Rogues and Victims The Renovation Trap   * Welcome to Our Story * Welcome to our home * 8209 172nd Avenue, N.E., Redmond, Washington, 98052 “The Cottage” Windermere says it has The highest ethical standards ... uncompromising honesty and integrity Does it?  You be the judge.  (cached)

We are Mark and Carol DeCoursey, and we live in Redmond, Washington.  We are making our renovation disaster known throughout the country because we've discovered grave public policy issues are at stake, not just for the people of Washington, but for homeowners everywhere.

For years, a Windermere real estate agent had been funneling his trusting clients to a construction company, without telling his clients he had an interest in the company, and that the company was not registered, not insured, and not bonded.

We, too, trusted that agent.  He put together a home purchase and renovation package for us, and brought the construction company into the deal.  As a result, we have been brought to the edge of financial ruin.

When we went to Windermere and asked them to make up the damage done, they told us we'd HAVE TO SUE.  When we did, Windermere's in-house law firm used lawyer tricks to stall, obstruct, and to send our legal bills through the roof.

Windermere Welcomes Us to Washington

Back in 2004, we were new to Washington.  We wanted to buy a home but prices were going through the roof.  Unless we acted soon, we'd be forced out of the housing market.  We needed someone we could trust to help us to move quickly.

We thought we found that person in Windermere Realtor Paul H. Stickney.  Stickney had been with Windermere for about ten years and was on the Board of Directors of Redmond's United Methodist Church.  He seemed like a pillar of the community.  We trusted him.

We found a house in Redmond in a perfect location, on a big lot.  The house was structurally sound, but we didn't want to live there!  Built in 1969, it was dark and dreary . . .

Stickney suggested we might be able to renovate the house within our budget.  He said that Bob Trustworthy of Trust Me Construction ("TMC", footnote) was the best contractor he'd seen in his many years' experience.  TMC had a unique pricing structure that brought great value to the consumer, and TMC did superb finish work.  Stickney suggested we meet with Mr. Trustworthy at the house and get his opinion.

At the meeting, both Trustworthy and Stickney had many suggestions.  Stickney wrote down the suggestions and price ranges for the work as Trustworthy looked on.  Based on the evaluation of Messrs. Stickney and Trustworthy, we decided we could afford to buy the house and hire TMC to renovate it.

But Stickney didn't give us some critical information:

• Stickney didn't tell us he was one of the original incorporators of TMC, a 20% shareholder, and its Vice President.  (Click here to see Stickney tell MSNBC's Undercover: Home Wreckers show that he didn't know he was Vice President.)
• Stickney didn't tell us that he and Trustworthy were partners in a joint venture to turn six acres of Trustworthy's land, located near downtown Sammamish, into a shopping mall.  Stickney had taken out a loan in his own name to improve the property, and secured the loan with the land.  Trustworthy agreed to make payments for Stickney whenever he could.  We later discovered that at the time we met with them in 2004, they were behind on their payments and Stickney was begging the lender to forgive a payment or two.  As we learned recently, after our money began to flow to TMC, TMC wrote several checks directly to Stickney and some to the lender.
• Stickney didn't tell us that TMC was not registered, bonded, or insured as required by state law.  Remember, Stickney told us he'd seen TMC's work "for years."  (Click here to see Stickney telling MSNBC's Undercover: Home Wreckers show that he "never paid attention to the licensing of any of my subs.")
• Stickney didn't tell us that TMC used unlicensed workers to do plumbing and high voltage electrical work, and that they routinely worked without building permits and inspections.
• Stickney did not tell us he had NEVER seen TMC do structural work — even though Stickney recommended TMC for structural work on the home we were considering. 

The results?  The renovations were a disaster.  Our home does not meet Code, and we cannot obtain an Occupancy Permit.  We cannot sell it. 

Trust Me Construction:

• Did structural damage to a house that was previously structurally sound
• Used unlicensed persons to do all the plumbing work.  The plumbing work does not meet Code.  We've had sewage gurgling up from the downstairs bath drain
• Used unlicensed people to do some of the high voltage electrical work. The electrical work does not meet Code. In fact, the metal drain in the upstairs tub had been electrified at up to 110 Volts, AC — enough to kill you
• Installed roof trusses incorrectly
• Failed to build Code-required sheer walls
• Built an unstable kitchen/dining room extension
• And much, much more!  See Construction Defects

We Get Sued ...

On April 1, 2006, we were served a Summons: V&E Medical Imaging Services, Inc. ("Automated Home Solutions"), TMC's high voltage electrical sub-contractor, filed suit on us claiming they had not been paid by TMC.  (We had already overpaid TMC's bid price by more than $60,000 — there should have been plenty of money to pay the electricians.)

In response, on April 4, we wrote a courteous letter to all concerned — including Stickney and Windermere.  We told them what had occurred, and asked that they make up the damage done to us — without using the courts.

We Get Sued, We Must Sue ...

On May 18, 2006, we met with Windermere executives and the Windermere attorney, John Demco, and showed them the documentation on this webpage.  They did not argue with any of our facts, nor did they deny what Stickney had done.  But when we asked that Windermere make up the damage, Demco told us we'd have to sue.

Why would a corporation like Windermere force dissatisfied customers to sue? Because when it comes to legal fees, big corporations like Windermere can spend dissatisfied customers under the table.  Windermere even has what amounts to its own in-house law firm, the Demco Law Firm.  (John Demco is a Windermere broker).

When large corporations like Windermere use pre-tax dollars in court-room battles with individual homeowners, they have it made in the shade.  So Windermere drags its feet and stalls by inventing bizarre excuses for not producing witnesses for depositions.  Windermere also files idiotic and meritless pleadings, which of course must be answered, thereby raising legal fees even higher.

All Windermere and other large corporations need do is force the legal bills of private citizens through the roof, and wait their opponents to cave in.

This is how Windermere protects agents such as Stickney against the lawsuits Windermere insists be filed.

Windermere Tells Customers,
"Suck Up Your Losses, Get On with Your Life"

It's their standard line — and they strongly imply that is the only sane approach to life.  For example, referring to RATHOUSE victim Gary Kruger, Windermere Atty. Matthew Davis wrote to Judge Mertel on July 31, 2007:

To give you some context, I personally have been dealing with Kruger now for four years now, and I have come to know him fairly well.  I think it would be fair to say that Kruger is consumed with his animosity toward Windermere.  He has never accepted the judgment in his 2002 case as final, and he maintains hope that a large settlement with Windermere is just around the corner.  I have tried to convince Mr. Kruger that he had his chance with the legal system and needs to live with the result even if he disagrees with it. — RE: Settlement Conference - Windermere v. Kruger, No. 05-34433-4 SEA August 1, 2007, bottom of page 2

But Windermere, John Demco, Demco Law Firm, and Mr. Davis himself do not follow their own advice.  For every adverse decision they file a "Motion for Reconsideration;" for every judgment, a "Motion for Retrial;" and for every final judgment, an appeal.  The Gallery tells the tale.  Like a sociopath, Windermere is never wrong in its own eyes, regardless of the facts of the case.

How can an organization have "the highest of ethical standards" when it is devoid of self-correction?

Windermere's "so sue me" attitude . . .

Perhaps  John Jacobi (he's a former banker and founder of Windermere) and his family are so thick with the Washington good ol' boy network that Demco expects Windermere will never get an adverse decision.  Or maybe Demco thought he could waste our legal budget with frivolous filings and specious arguments so that we'd never get to trial. (See right column concerning the tactic used on Gary Kruger.)

The phrase, "so sue me," is the stuff of comedies, but you rarely hear of anyone so litigation-eager in real life.  So, why did Demco want us to sue?

Civil Rule 11 of the Superior Court of Seattle states:  "(a) . . . the signature of a party or an attorney constitutes a certificate . . . that the pleading, motion or legal memorandum . . . is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation . . ." 

Well-heeled corporations famously defeat legal complaints by out-spending their opponents.  Windermere, "the Northwest's largest real estate firm"  violates Rule 11 with a vengeance. 
    Since we hired a law firm to represent us in a lawsuit Windermere insisted we file --  at the time of this writing, January 2009 -- our legal bills stand at approximately

$500,000.00

That's how Windermere handles customer complaints.  Windermere insists the customer sues, and then wipes the customer out.  Yeah, that works.  But should it?  See RAT HOUSE example, right column.

If You Take Us to Court, We Wreck Your House

Hear Attorney Matthew Davis of the Demco Law Firm (representing Windermere) and another member of our esteemed Washington Bar threaten to demolish our house if we do not give up our legal claims.

Windermere's DARK Clause

Sometimes mistakes are made.  Sometimes employees act improperly and customers are damaged.  A reputable company apologizes, makes up the damage, and life goes on.

But things are different with Windermere.  From a few examples we have unearthed, we find that Windermere:

1. Denies liability
2. Conducts a protracted and exhausting legal battle that the average homeowner can't sustain
3. Offers settlement at a fraction of the damage
4. Refuses to cover the expenses of the legal battle
5. Insists on a "dark clause" in the settlement contract to guarantee the world will never hear how Windermere betrayed its promise of The highest ethical standards ... uncompromising honesty and integrity.  Mission Statement, cached

In such fashion, Windermere's public record is without blemish.  Who has ever heard of a problem?  We might as well ask, who complains of the mob?  Those who might complain are keeping their silence in cement gumboots the bottom of the East River.  Let us have a look at some of Windermere's "cement gumboot" contracts:

1. Gary Kruger was sold a property infested with rats.  The agent had a history with the property and knew of the problem.  Nevertheless, the agent did not disclose the problem to Kruger.  The courts have rule that a failure to disclose material information when there is a duty to disclose constitutes fraud.  When Kruger sued, Windermere exhausted his legal war chest, then had his claims dismissed on summary judgment.  (Full story.)  The facts of the case did not see the light of day.  When Kruger set about to tell the public of his experience, Windermere sued him for "trade libel" [case 05-2-34433-4 SEA].  Then Windermere offered to settle the case, but included a "Dark Clause" to forbid Kruger from further publishing the facts to the public.  See the Kruger Dark Clause.  Kruger refused to sign, and Windermere dismissed its own case.
2. DeCourseys (webmasters of this page) had a complaint and lawsuit against Windermere.  On the eve of trial, Windermere offered to settle for a fraction of the damages ($75,000 of more than $500,000 in damages) with no compensation for legal costs.  A "fundamental" part of the proposal ("of utmost importance to Windermere") was the infamous Dark Clause.  See the Dark Clause from that proposed settlement.

Note in particular the phrases asserting that the Dark Clause is of "utmost importance" to Windermere.  A single mention of the facts of the incident in question could cause "damage" to Windermere in the amount of $25,000!

The reader must wonder, how would the daring escape of a lone fact cost Windermere these terrible losses?  Would so many potential customers reconsider their decision to use Windermere if they had all facts in hand?

So You're Thinking of Suing Windermere?

As mentioned elsewhere, you should be aware that Windermere will try to waste you as the Russians wasted Napoleon's army, avoiding pitched battle and letting the Russian winter of the courts starve you out.  Windermere has a stock line of arguments they use throughout their cases, including such brilliant legalisms as:

A Windermere agent is not an agent of Windermere

and

The Washington Law of Real Estate (co-written by Demco) exempts an agent from fiduciary duty

But you should know also that Windermere has been too clever by half sometimes, dancing out of the legal frying pan and into the fire.  A litigant would do well to study the history of Windermere's arguments.  We have some information that might help.  See Forced to Sue a Windermere Franchise, Broker, or Agent?.

Department of Licensing Defies Washington Law

It is a truism:  Regulatory agencies often become captives of the industries and professions they are convened to regulate.  Historian Gabriel Kolko's seminal work, The Triumph of Conservatism, shows how big business uses regulatory agencies to stabilize the market and give themselves a competitive advantage.

Many government agencies forget that they exist to protect the public.  Instead, they work to advance the agendas of the industrial, business, and professional interests they are supposed to oversee. 

*    *    *

In Vancouver, Washington, a doctor doing gynecological examinations had been touching the genitalia of his patients with his ungloved hand and taking photos.  When one abused patient drove 160 miles to testify at his Department of Health disciplinary hearing, she was told she was not needed and was sent home.  The doctor got off with a slap on the wrist, and was even allowed to edit the Department of Health's disciplinary order.  See Weak regulation fosters more abuse/The state allows hundreds of doctors, counselors, others to keep practicing despite their sexual misconduct, The Seattle Times Post-Intelligencer "License to Harm" series, April 23, 2006 (cached).

*    *    *

And what of the Department of Licensing in the Paul H. Stickney/Windermere Real Estate/SCA matter?  Despite the Jury Verdict of October 30 and the Judgment of November 14, DOL refuses to take any disciplinary action on Paul H. Stickney and Windermere for failing to disclose Stickney's egregious conflict of interest.  DOL even asserts that real estate agents and brokerages are not bound by Washington's Consumer Protection Act.  In reading this whitewash, we must remember DOL's disclaimer that "We [DOL] do not have the authority to ... make judicial determinations.  Our remarks to not constitute legal opinion."  (May 8, 2007)

Thanks to the Washington State DOL, Windermere and Stickney continue to do business among a trusting Washington public.  Notice the phrase used by the DOL: in the May 8, 2007 letter:

"... the evidence does not rise to the level to support the issuance of charges against Mr. Stickney's real estate license."

In 2006, the SEC declined to look into Bernard Madoff because:

"... because those violations were not so serious as to warrant an enforcement action."

Notice the similarity of the excuse used by the DOL in the Windermere case to the excuse used by the SEC in the Madoff case.

Here is the history of our correspondence with the DOL.  In particular, see DOL's December 8, 2008 response to the Superior Court judgment and our December 27, 2008 letter to Ms. Liz Luce, Director of the DOL. 

*    *    *

In another case, Windermere demonstrated intimate knowledge of the DOL's day-to-day activities when the Windermere attorney, Matt Davis, wrote to the court on July 31, 2007.  Davis wrote that RAT HOUSE victim, Gary Kruger (see above in right column) "has hounded the Department of Licensing without success to pursue disciplinary actions against Windermere."  (Page 2, paragraph 5, emphasis added.) 

Isn't that amazing?  DOL complains to Windermere about a member of the public who is trying to get DOL to do its lawful job!

Given so many examples of complicit watchdogs, would anyone be surprised to learn multiple law enforcement agencies are looking the other way to make things easy for the development/real estate/construction industry?  See Home Building boom relies on illegal workers, The Seattle Times Post-Intelligencer, September 17, 2006 (cached).

Other recent reports of regulatory outrages:

• Jailed doctor keeps license, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 6, 2007 (cached).
• Revenge, threats, coddling alleged, USA Today, April 4-6, 2008 (cached).
• Scathing report says chief interfered with cop probe, The Seattle Times, June 19, 2007 (cached).
• Cop 'escaped punishment', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 2, 2007 (cached)
• District ignored warnings, then silenced girls fondled by teacher, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 22, 2006 (cached)

Let's see how the DOL responds to a Writ of Mandamus.

Windermere and Conflict of Interest

Rodney Tom is our state senator.  He is an associate broker at the Kirkland-Yarrow Bay Windermere office.  In 2007, as a newly elected senator, Sen. Tom had impressive array of committee assignments: vice chair of the Early Learning & K-12 Education Committee; vice chair of the Judiciary Committee; member of the Ways and Means Committee; and member of the Consumer Protection and Housing Committee.

Consumer Protection and House Committee?  As a Windermere associate broker, Sen. Tom boasted of having sold entire sub-divisions for his builder clients.  So Sen. Tom had a seat on the very committee entrusted with protecting consumers from people like Sen. Tom's clients!

We regarded Sen. Tom's seat on the Consumer Protection and Housing Committee as a conflict of interest.  We made our opinion public (February 2007 letter to Editor of Post-Intelligencer), and we urged him to step down.

Until we attracted public attention to Sen. Tom's questionable committee membership, Rodney Tom's personal web site included a page entitled "Meet Rodney Tom," which we have cached here for posterity.  The original page is now gone.

On that webpage, Sen. Tom stated that Windermere was "the leading real estate firm in the Northwest."  That is, Tom reminded us that Windermere is ONE company.  Its branch offices operate under the same trade mark, have the same company logo, and share the same company-wide pension fund.  They have a company-wide standards and practices committee, they use the same forms and the same signs, and share the same law firm and the same insurance plan.  Windermere attorneys have argued in court that Windermere is one company and the court has accepted that argument. (PDF)

In calling Sen. Tom's seat on the Consumer Protection and Housing Committee a conflict of interest, we caught Windermere's attention.  During our July 18, 2007 deposition, Windermere's attorney Matt Davis questioned us closely on the subject.  He asked us WHY we thought Tom's Consumer Protection and Housing Committee assignment was a conflict of interest.  Our opinions on political issues are none of Windermere's business, of course, but Davis' interest was revelatory.

Sometime in the early months of 2009, the Consumer Protection and Housing Committee was disbanded.  We now have the "Financial Institutions, Housing, and Insurance Committee," and the "Labor, Commerce, and Consumer Protection Committee." Sen. Tom does not have a seat on either committee.

As a member of Washington's legislature, will Sen. Tom be concerned that the Department of Licensing flouts the law with regard to Windermere?  Will Sen. Tom permit his own vested interests in Windermere to taint his judgment on this issue?  We are hoping he takes the honorable path.  On April 15, we wrote to Sen. Tom suggesting he use his Senate influence to have a Writ of Mandamus filed on the Department of Licensing.  On June 11, he still had not answered, so we wrote a follow-up letter. 

On January 24, 2009, Senator Rodney Tom called us at home, refused to help with the general situation, and denied that he has any association with Windermere.  See an accounting of this call and our response.

Washington — Democracy or Corporatocracy?

Government of the people, by the people, for the people seems to have been replaced by government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation.  Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thom Hartmann tells the story of the loss of democracy in America.

In the contemporary USA, powerful corporations have assumed the role of feudal lords and citizens have been reduced to serfs.  The Renovation Trap website documents some of the destruction inflicted upon citizens by the real estate/development lobby in the Northwest.

But there are other stories.  See National Public Radio's two part series illustrating the power of the real estate development community in Texas, where the lobby appears to own the legislature and the courts.

• Part I: Did Builder's Clout Trap Couple In Dream Home?
• Part II: Critics: Texas Agency Favors Builders Over Buyers

Who Chooses Washington's Legislators, Administrators, and Judges?

Windermere acts as though it owns the state.  Its victims are many, and its predations bold.  See Windermere-Victims.com.  Why do they think they can get away with what they are doing?  Not the Governor, nor the Attorney General, nor the Department of Licensing, nor the mainstream Washington press will cast a critical eye at Windermere, despite the abundant documentation of its wrongdoing.

Evidence indicates that powerful interest groups — banking, land speculation, and real estate development interests — play key roles in choosing whom we elect.  It has been said that these interest control our legislature, our executive branch, and our judiciary.  Here are some articles of interest.

1. Realtors group accused of campaign violations, The Seattle Times, December 9, 2008 (cached)
2. Builders lobby aims its cash at Gregoire, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2008 (cached)
3. Rossi linked to builder fundraising, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 1, 2008 (cached)
4. Special-interest money fueling judicial races, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 16, 2006 (cached)
5. Panel rules on complaint against Hunt's campaign, The Olympian, August 14, 2008 (cached)
6. Judicial panel ethics group rejects BIAW complaint, The Olympian, August 13, 2008 (cached)
7. Ford should reject ad, claims group, The Olympian, August 8, 2008 (cached)
8. Judicial race funding scrutinized, The Olympian, November 24, 2008 (cached)

But What of Truth?

Washington Supreme Court says it's OK for politicians to lie about factual matters to the Washington public.  Will the Supreme Court say it's OK for real estate companies to lie, too?

• No lie, state Supreme Court rules candidates can make false statements, The Seattle Times, Thursday, October 4, 2007 (cached)
  
• Split court says candidates can lie, The Seattle Times, Friday, October 5, 2007 (cached)

Not all legal experts agree with that citizens and corporations have a right to lie.  "Publicly support those judges who demand truthfulness and honesty from all who appear in court and who impose meaningful sanctions for offenders." — Dale R. Harris, President, National Conference of Bar Presidents, Do Lawyers Lie?, published in The Colorado Lawyer September 2000 Vol. 29, No. 9 [Page 19]

But what happens when you tell the Presiding Judge of the King County Superior Court that a lawyer is lying, and offer the judge evidence?

Judge Bruce Hilyer's office returns your letter and documentation, and tells you he's not interested!  (Upcoming article.)

Guest Editorial from Judges Above The Law

One hand washing the other is the successful formula for good ol' boy networks everywhere