Windermere Real Estate/South Sound Inc

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:There appears to be a little mix-up with the address. The correct address for the Windermere office should have been [redacted] Federal Way WA 98003.In response to Windermere’s paragraph: I was a buyer from Windermere but not from the [redacted] a[redacted].  It was the Windermere office in Federal Way at [redacted], Federal Way WA 98003. The listing agent was [redacted] and our buyer agent was [redacted]. [redacted]’s phone number is [redacted]  Both worked at in the same office and it was [redacted] that referred us to [redacted].We did hire an attorney to try to reason with Windermere outside of the courtroom but apparently we can’t be reasonable with an unreasonable group of individuals.  We didn't drop the matter.  We had just not started it.  We wanted the public to know the truth about how unethically business is conducted by some individuals at Windermere, and this very arrogant response from Windermere has proved just that.  How can you say your company acted in good faith when every document we submitted cleary says the opposite?  Have you even reviewed the documents?  Maybe you have but chose to ignore just like everyone else before you.  There is most certainly a basis for a claim, all of our documentation shows that we were never told about the septic and that our property were connected to public sewer not once but multiple times throughout the documentation.  We are not pursuing the seller but we are pursuing Windermere for its negligence, unprofessional and unethical business practices.Sincerely,[redacted]

To whom it may concern:
 
I received a complaint with the above reference number on August 14th from a [redacted]. We never represented this individual as a buyer of our seller’s listing. The [redacted]’s hired an attorney to explore their options. Our attorney became involved in the matter. The [redacted]’s...

have apparently dropped the legal matter as there is no basis for a claim against Windermere. We are unaware if they are pursuing the seller. My company acted in good faith throughout the transaction.
 
John** T[redacted]
Designated Broker
Windermere [redacted]
[redacted]

Re: [redacted] Estate/[redacted] Federal Way, Washington 98023 Dear [redacted] and [redacted]: Our firm represents Windermere Real Estate/South Sound, Inc., Jenna M[redacted] as Selling Broker, and Kathy C[redacted] as Listing Broker, (collectively, "Windermere") with respect to the sale of the above-referenced property (the "Property"). This letter is in response to your expressed concerns regarding the Property's septic system. We understand your frustration in not knowing that the Property is connected to a septic system instead of sewer until recently. Unfortunately, Windermere is under no obligation to connect the Property to a sewer system, and was under no duty to verify the status of the sewage system during the subject transaction. I. BACKGROUND Windermere and the seller, [redacted] (the "Seller"), the personal representative of the Estate of [redacted], entered into an exclusive sale and listing agreement for the sale of the Property. On or about May 16, 2014, the Seller represented to Windermere on the Listing Input Sheet that the Property was connected to a public sewer system. Exhibit 1. Based on such representation, Windermere published the Property's listing on the Northwest Multiple Listing Service and indicated that the Property was connected to a sewer system. On May 26, 2014, you signed a Residential Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Agreement") to purchase the Property from the seller, [redacted] (the "Seller"), the personal representative of the Estate of [redacted]. The Seller signed the Agreement on May 29, 2014. Exhibit 2. In addition, the Seller represented on the Optional Clauses Addendum to Purchase & Sale Agreement that, to the "best of Seller's knowledge", the Property was connected to a public sewer system. Exhibit 3. On or about June 16,2014, Ms. M[redacted] spoke with the City of Federal Way (the "City") pursuant to a question you had regarding the ability to subdivide the Property. The City informed Ms. M[redacted] that the Property may be subdivided but that, among other things, one lot would be subject to height restrictions. You did not ask Ms. M[redacted] to obtain information from the City regarding the Property's sewage system. Ms. M[redacted] had no reason to ask the City regarding the Property's sewage system. And, Ms. M[redacted] did not ask the City regarding the Property's sewage system. After the subject transaction closed, it became evident that the Property was not connected to a public sewer system, but rather septic. The news came as a surprise to all parties involved. II. WINDERMERE HAS NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING THE SEWAGE SYSTEM But, as more fully-explained below, you purchased the Property "as is", you approved an inspection contingency including an inspection regarding the sewage system, you agreed that you were not relying on any representations by any of the brokers, and Windermere had no duty to investigate the status of the sewage system or verify any statements from the Seller regarding whether the Property was connected to a sewer or septic system. A. The Property was Sold "As Is" The Agreement identified a number of addenda that become part of the Agreement, including Seller's Counter Offer (the "Counteroffer"). Exhibit 4. You signed the Counteroffer on May 30, 2014, which explicitly set forth that you purchased the Property "as is", and that the Seller made no representations or warranties regarding, among other things, utilities, which includes the sewage system. The Counteroffer also stated that the Seller had no knowledge of the property or the premises. Despite those explicit disclaimers, you agreed to the terms of the Counteroffer, and signed the same four days after executing the Agreement. B. Inspection Contingency Approved On May 26, 2014, you signed an inspection contingency that included a sewer inspection and an "advis[ory] to consider conducting an inspection of any on-site sewage system". Exhibit 5. The contingency expressly set forth that the "Agreement [was] conditioned on Buyer's subjective satisfaction with inspections of the Property and the improvements on the Property". On June 6, 2014, you approved the inspection contingency as set forth in Inspection Response Form 35. As a result, you expressly stated that the sewage system met your subjective satisfaction. Exhibit 6. C. Waived: Information Verification Period and Property Condition Disclaimer Further, you agreed that you were not relying on any representations by any of the brokers to the subject transaction. On May 26, 2014, you signed the Agreement's General Terms Form 21, including paragraph "x" Information Verification Period and Property Condition Disclaimer that expressly stated that you bad 10 days after mutually accepting the Agreement to verify the condition of the Property. Exhibit 1. Paragraph "x" also included language expressly stating that none of the brokers agreed to investigate
or confirm any matter related to the subject transaction, and that brokers do not guarantee the condition of the property. Because you did not provide any notice identifying any materially inaccurate information within 10 days of mutual acceptance of the Agreement, you effectively agreed that information provided by the Seller and Windermere was accurate. D. Windermere under No Duty to Verify or Investigate Finally, Windermere had no duty to verify or investigate any representations regarding the sewage system. Duties of brokers are governed by statute. RCW 18.86.11 0. To that end, RCW 18.86.030(2) expressly states that a broker owes no duty to verify the accuracy or completeness of any statement by any source reasonably believed by the broker to be reliable: . ..a broker owes no duty to conduct an independent inspection of the property or to conduct an independent investigation of either party's financial condition, and owes no duty to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of any statement made by either party or by any source reasonably believed by the broker to be reliable. Because Windermere reasonably believed statements regarding the condition of the Property, Windermere was under no duty to verify whether the Property was connected to a sewer system. Similarly, brokers owe no duty to investigate any matters that the broker has not agreed to investigate. RCW 18.86.030(1)(d). You never asked Windermere to investigate-and Windermere never agreed to investigate-the status of the Property's sewage system. Therefore, Windermere was under no duty to investigate sewage system, and Windermere did not investigate the sewage system-either when Ms. M[redacted] spoke with the City or otherwise. III. CONCLUSION As shown above, you were on notice that the Property was being sold without representations or warranties, and Windermere had no duty to verify or investigate the status of the Property's sewage system. It is unfortunate that you did not discover that the Property is connected to a septic system until after closing. However, Windermere cannot agree to be accountable. Windermere clearlyhas no legal responsibility under the parties' Agreement or law. Very truly yours,
[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:We’ve bought real estate properties before so we know what thewords “as-is” means.   “As-is” pertainsto the actual structure of the property. It doesn’t give any agent the legal right to falsify the listinginformation.Ms. C[redacted] said it herself that the price of the propertywould depend on the property was on sewer or septic.  With 12 years of experience as she claimedshe had, how could one just conveniently “forget” the very critical piece ofinformation on the Listing Input Sheet, which she knew the seller would reviewand sign, but remember to put that same information on other forms includingthe final listing which the seller, Ms. [redacted], claimed that she did not seebefore or after it was published.  Pleasesee attached Declaration (Exhibit #5) from the seller, Ms. [redacted], in which she saidshe had no idea when asked by Ms. C[redacted] if the property was connected topublic sewer.   We urge those who have the authority to reviewall original copies provided to the seller and those in Windermere’s possessionas it seems to us that some of document copies (Exhibit 3 & 4 from ourinitial response) were altered only after the purchase of the property had beenfinalized.We agree that Ms. C[redacted] had no legal obligation toinvestigate information that Ms. [redacted] had to provide but that doesn’t give Ms.C[redacted] the right to falsify the information when the seller specifically saidthat she had no idea if the property was on sewer or septic.  It’s also hard to believe that any listingagent would agree to sell a property for someone without reviewing the historyof the property especially when the agent knows the seller did not live on theproperty.  Given 12 years of experience,Ms. C[redacted] should know that well.  Wewould urge who have the authority to request an audit on system access made by KathyC[redacted] and Jenna M[redacted] to website http://mls.realist.comas this is the website where, we understand, many real estate agents use toaccess property detail reports.  If Ms.C[redacted] and/or Ms. M[redacted] did have access to the title report of the propertyprior to the sale and failed to disclose the information, that would be very unethicaland unprofessional, and most likely possible violations.    About the easement, though it’s not the main subject of whatthis complaint is about but since Ms. C[redacted] mentioned it, we want to add afew words of our own.  First of all itwas us who found out about the easement and we have proof to prove it (please seefile “Exhibit #6”).  We were talking toan official at the City for Federal Way via email about the potentialsubdividing of the lot, that Ms. C[redacted] claimed in the final listing, andthat was when we learned about the easement.  Ms. C[redacted] and Ms. M[redacted] were then acting as if they were in shockwhen we broke the news to them.  It wasthen they claimed that they would talk to the seller to lower the listingprice.  This is just to show that Ms.C[redacted] didn’t voluntarily disclose the information about the easement as sheclaimed in her response.  She only did itafter we found out about it.  The listingof the lot subdividing had issues in itself as it appeared to us that it wasalso misleading.  We could have ended uplosing an additional great sum of money and a huge disappointment if we didn’thave the conversation with the city official that day.   It’s really hard for us to believe anythingthat Windermere says is genuine at this point. Those who understand the real estate profession or anyprofession for that matter know that with great experience comes with greatresponsibilities.  But without workethics, great experience could potentially lead to bad consequences.  And what happened to us is the proof of thesebad consequences.  We don’t have theresources to understand the legal aspects of the doings done by Ms. C[redacted] andMs. M[redacted] but it’s clear to us that there was a great absence of work ethicsdemonstrated by the two agents in this case.   This whole experience has put a tremendousstress on us emotionally and financially, all could have been avoided if Ms.C[redacted] and Ms. M[redacted] had exercised the required skill, followed guidelines andbeen more disciplined  with their workethics.   Windermere can stop this bydisciplining their employees and hold those who do wrongs accountable and beresponsible for mistakes they make whether those mistakes are unintentional orintentional.  Until then we doubt thatthese types of practices will go away.  Sincerely,[redacted]
 
[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]