Posts
'via Blog this'
http://www.windermere.com/
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Windermere-Real-Estate-Reviews-E155297.htm
Advice to Senior Management – Lower the fees to match the mmarket.Advice to Senior Management – Adjust commission split to reflect current economic conditions.
“I was invisible to the management. I don't htink the head ever said Hello to me.”
Former Anonymous Employee – Reviewed Jun 04, 2011
Pros – Good locationa nd advertsing to bring in clients.
Cons – Everyone is out for themselves in the real estate world, it appears.
Advice to Senior Management – Say hello to the lower level employees once in a while.
“Very Professional”
Current Realtor – Reviewed Apr 20, 2012
Pros – Excellent company, and locations...not too corparate.
Cons – There really is not any down size, but if I have to name one, it would be they need more locations!
Advice to Senior Management – Have agent functions and contest.
Helpful Review? Yes | NoFormer Agent in Seattle, WA – Reviewed Sep 14, 2010
Pros – This is a good place for someone starting out or someone who is completely incompetent with technology. The canned programs are pretty easy for just about anyone.
Cons – Office fees are way too expensive. They will try and make you feel like "one of the family" and create a sense of community to justify the the fees, but in the end the services are simple and not justified by the cost (up to $29,000 per year). What they offer was ahead of the curve in 2000, but this industry has changed very rapidly and they had fallen behind in cost to benefit by 2010.
Advice to Senior Management – Wake up and let go of the old model. Things have changed and the way agents work and survive have changed radically.
Helpful Review? Yes | No“Broker/Owner the problem”
Current Managing Broker in Bainbridge Island, WA – Reviewed Oct 26, 2010
Pros – Windermere is a fantastic brand, or has been over the years, with market dominance in the region, state, and on Bainbridge Island. The very best reason to work there is that the agents are the top people in the industry, and wonderful people.
Cons – The broker/owner is unable to provide the leadership, support staff and fairness in compensation/split.
Advice to Senior Management – Listen to your top agents. Take the long view instead of chasing the dollar today. For the agents to succeed, the corporate culture needs to be positive and upbeat with adequate support.
___
| ses | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Windmere Real Estate  | Available | Sandpoint, ID | |||
| 2. | Windmere Real Estate Corporation | Available | Los angeles, CA Moreno valley, CA | Maria Jocson (PRESIDENT) |
|
| Businesses |
|---|
3. | Kenneth Steven Fleming | Available | Anaheim, CA Tustin, CA Moreno Valley, CA Irvine, CA Mission Viejo, CA Santa Ana, CA Newport Beach, CA | Southern California Real Estate Group Sterling Wealth And Assett Management Fc Homes Fund I, Llc | |
| 4. | Kenneth S Fleming | Stuart, FL | Kgb Ventures Llc Kgb Ventures, Llc Kgb Ventures, Llc |
| s | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Fc Homes Fund I, Llc | Available | Irvine, CA Moreno valley, CA | Kenneth Steven Fleming (REGISTERED AGENT) |
At all times herein relevant, defendants MIKE BAILEY, JUDITH BAILEY, and Does 1 - 10, were the persons, corporations, partnerships, trusts, or other forms of entity(ies) who owned, operated, rented, leased, managed, controlled, maintained, modified, and repaired that certain residential property located at 12050 Redbud Road, Desert Hot Springs, California, which was at the time of the events alleged herein rented or leased by the said defendants to Daniel Gonzales, Bianca Felix, and their children, including the decedent. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that defendants MIKE BAILEY and JUDITH BAILEY have been at all times relevant herein residents of the County of Orange, with their principal residence in the City of Huntington Beach.
7. Defendants MIKE BAILEY, JUDITH BAILEY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOCAL, INC., WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, and Does 1-25, and each of them, at all times relevant herein, were negligent, careless, and reckless in their ownership, operation, management, control, modification, repair, rental, leasing, and servicing of the subject residence, which was occupied at the times relevant to this action by the plaintiffs and their children.
4. Defendants WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOCAL, INC., WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, and Does 11-20, are now, and have been at all times relevant herein, persons, corporations, partnerships, or other forms of business entity who are at all times relevant to this action doing business and/or residing in the State of California, including but not limited to the County of Riverside. The said defendants, at all times relevant herein, were responsible for the leasing, rental, maintenance, repair, servicing and control of the aforesaid residential property at 12050 Rosebud Road (hereinafter simply "the subject residence"), which was at the time of the events alleged herein occupied by plaintiffs and their children, including the decedent.
5. The true names, capacities and defendantship of defendants designated herein as Does 1-50, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to plaintiffs, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names, and will ask leave of this court pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure to amend this Complaint when such names, capacities and defendantship have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that each defendant designated herein as a "Doe" was responsible, negligently or in some other legally actionable manner, for the events which caused injury and damage to plaintiff, under legal theories which include, but are not necessarily limited to, absolute liability, product liability, strict liability in tort, breach of expressed and/or implied warranties of merchantability and/or fitness, recklessness, wantonness and wilfulness, fraud and deceit, common law negligence, and dangerous condition(s) of property; although the identities of said Doe defendants may be known to plaintiffs at the time of the filing of this Complaint, plaintiffs are ignorant of the facts constituting a cause of action against the said Doe defendants.
6. Plaintiffs allege upon information and belief that at all times relevant herein, defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, assistants, consultants, and the like of their co-defendants, and were, as such, acting within the course and scope of said agency, service and employment at all times relevant herein; and, each and every defendant was negligent in the selecting, hiring, monitoring, supervising, and continued employing of each and every other defendant as an agent, servant, employee, assistant and consultant.
7. Defendants MIKE BAILEY, JUDITH BAILEY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOCAL, INC., WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY, and Does 1-25, and each of them, at all times relevant herein, were negligent, careless, and reckless in their ownership, operation, management, control, modification, repair, rental, leasing, and servicing of the subject residence, which was occupied at the times relevant to this action by the plaintiffs and their children.
8. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the defendants, and each of them, the minor son, decedent ERIK RYAN GONZALES, was caused to suffer a fatal drowning which caused his death on May 25, 2011.
9. As a direct, proximate and legal result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the defendants, and each of them, as aforesaid, plaintiffs, as the parents of decedent ERIK RYAN GONZALES, have been, and will forever more be, deprived of Erik's care, comfort, love, society, attention, protection, support and services, and have sustained and will sustain in the future non-economic and economic damages in amounts which have not been ascertain, but are within the unlimited jurisdiction of this court, and will be the subject of proof herein at the time of trial.
10. As a further direct, proximate and legal result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the defendants, and each of them, and the resulting wrongful death of their son, plaintiffs have incurred obligations and expenses for transportation, funeral and burial, in amounts according to proof at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs DANIEL GONZALES and BIANCA FELIX pray for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
1. For economic and non-economic damages for the wrongful death of their son, ERIK RYAN GONZALES, according to proof at the time of trial.
2. For economic damages for funeral, burial and related expenses, according to proof at the time of trial.
3. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
4. For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper under the laws applicable to this action.
DATED: 11/21/11 YUHL STONER CARR LLP
Windermere Real Estate founder John Jacobi named as Third Party Defendant and sued for Indemnification, Contribution, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Contract inBank of America vs. Windermere Puyallup Canyon Road; Windermere corporate counsel Paul Drayna alleged to have sent WPCR's new franchiser, Better Homes & Gardens, predatory email. REPORT HERE
• INCOMPREHENSIBLE HUMAN TRAGEDY •
WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE COACHELLA VALLEY—BENNION & DEVILLE FINE HOMES—SUED FOR WRONGFUL DEATH DUE TO NEGLIGENCE IN RENTAL HOME CHILD DROWNING.
PREVIOUS DEFENDANTS WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SERVICES COMPANY, WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE SOCAL, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11/22/2011
"As a direct, proximate and legal result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the defendants, and each of them, the minor son, decedent ERIK RYAN GONZALES, was caused to suffer a fatal drowning which caused his death on May 25, 2011." —COMPLAINT FILED NOVEMBER 11, 2011
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.
• WINDERMERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPLAINTSPAGE •
Should Windermere Property Management be trusted with investment properties?
RENTAL FEES: Absolutely ANYTHING to avoid returning a deposit or paying a legal judgment...
STALLING DEADBEATS: WINDERMERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT APPEALS A $2,080.61 SMALL CLAIMS DECISION, BUT FAILS TO PERFECT THE APPEAL, SO COURT ORDERS WINDERMERE'S APPEAL DISMISSED AND JUDGMENT OF $4,595.64 IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS...
...AT PUBLICATION OF THIS REPORT, WINDERMERE HAS STILLNOT PAID THE TINY JUDGMENT
Mark and Laurie Sison sued Windermere Property Management in a Pierce County small claims action, and won. Windermere immediately appealed to the Superior Court in a RALJ appeal—review by the Superior Court of a final decision of a court of limited jurisdiction.(For further info, Washington Courts RALJ appeal rules here.)
The party filing the appeal—Windermere Property Management, in this case— is required to do three things to perfect its appeal: 1) transmit the record; 2) transcribe the actual small claims trial, and; 3) post a superscedeas bond—an appellant’s bond to stay execution on a judgment during pendency of the appeal. (Click here for a Windermere superscedeas bond in another case.)
Windermere performed step 1 of its appeal, but failed to perform steps 2 and 3. The Sisons hired Tacoma veteran tenant-landlord attorney, Elizabeth Powell, who began asking the Court to dismiss Windermere’s appeal, and the Court eventually indicated it would dismiss the appeal unless Windermere perfected its appeal. On October 7, 2011, the following order dismissing Windermere’s RALJ appeal:
DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING WINDERMERE'S RALJ APPEAL HERE
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF PIERCE
NO. 10-2-12957-5
Sison, Mark and Laurie,
Plaintiffs
vs
Windermere Property Management,
Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING RALJ APPEAL
JUDGMENT SUMMARY
JUDGMENT CREDITOR PLAINTIFFS MARK AND LAURIE SISON
JUDGMENT DEBTOR WINDERMERE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
PRINCIPAL JUDGMENT AMOUNT $2,080.61
INTEREST POST JUDGMENT AT 12% $ 290.03
COSTS ON APPEAL (ATTORNEY FEES) $2,225.00
TOTAL JUDGMENT AMOUNT $4,595.64
INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE ON ALL AMOUNTS AT 12% PER ANNUM
ATTORNEY FOR JUDGMENT CREDITORS: Elizabeth Powell, WSBA No. 30152
ATTORNEY FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
THIS MATTER having come on regularly before the undersigned Court and the Court, having reviewed the record provided by the Plaintiffs/Respondents, and having listened to the argument of the attorney for the Plaintiffs/Respondents now finds that:
Even after having been given two extensions of time, Appellant/Defendants have not filed a superscedeas bond, have not filed a transcript of the proceeding, and have taken no action of record since September 10, 2010.
From the foregoing findings of fact, the court draws the following conclusions of law: This action should be dismissed, and the Plaintiffs/Respondents as the prevailing party are entitled to a judgment against the Appellants/Defendants in the amount of $4,595.64.
From the foregoing findings and conclusions the Court now ORDERS THAT:
This appeal is DISMISSED. The Plaintiffs/Respondents shall have judgment as detailed in the summary. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 7th day of October, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment