Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 882151.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 882151.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,732 chars
woke J ametsky and told him that they had a deal that would allow him to keep his

home and pay off his debts. All Jametsky had to do was pay them back over time.

Jametsky was relieved. In early November, they came back, roused Jametsky from

bed, and drove him to a Starbucks to sign the paperwork. When J ametsky asked what

the papers were for, he was told that they were for a loan. Jametsky signed.

Without knowing it at the time, Jametsky deeded his house to Olsen for

$100,000. Due to Jametsky's outstanding obligations and inflated fees, Jametsky only

received $4,697 from the transaction even though his house was estimated to be worth

$230,000. Flynn and Haber, on the other hand, received $7,000 and $3,000

respectively in commission.

3
  Jametsky
   No.
v. Olsen, 88215-1       

For some time, J ametsky made what he thought were loan payments to 0 lsen.

These were, however, under the documents Jametsky signed at Starbucks, rental

payments. The record is not entirely clear on the exact sequence of subsequent

events. But, over a year after the transaction, Olsen began sending eviction notices to

Jametsky, alleging nonpayment of rent and a failure to vacate at the end of the lease

term. Around the same time, J ametsky learned that he did not receive a loan, but

instead he had deeded his home to Olsen.

In July 2010, Jametsky filed a complaint seeking to quiet title and alleging

violations ofDPCA, unfair and deceptive practices, and a civil conspiracy. The trial

court found there were no genuine issues of material fact and granted Olsen's motion

for summary judgment in its entirety. The trial judge found that Jametsky's home did