Lisa Frazier and my missing $19k, Part 2

Posted August 12th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

I said, "Lisa, we both know it says no such thing. I had a hand in the creation of that law, remember?"

Dear Rob,

Why refuse the check?

It has to do with overages escheating to the county, of course.

All these nonsensical interpretations of convoluted laws are to maximize the county’s chances of funds escheating.

So, whenever things don’t add up in a Washington State tax sale scenario, just look at it in terms of escheating funds and everything will instantly become perfectly clear.

Keeping my cool

Nina stood at the counter, trembling, getting angrier and angrier, wondering if she’d be out on the street tomorrow with no place to call home.

I wasn’t about to lose my cool. That would not have helped anything.

Still, it was incredibly heartless to put Nina through that nonsense. With foreclosure hanging over her head and the loss of her home in the balance, this was not the time to be playing games with ridiculous interpretations of tax sale statutes.

Rob, do you really think the legislature intended for people with cashier’s checks in their hands, standing at county treasurer’s counters trying to pay their taxes, be denied that right and subsequently lose their properties at tax sales?

I didn’t think so.

Getting it done

I patted Nina on the back and whispered, “don’t worry, we’ll get it done.” And right about then, Lisa came to her senses, deciding to take the money and end Nina’s turmoil.

By then, she was in tears.

But, we got it done and prevented another foreclosure from happening (with just minutes to spare).

Nina and I sat in my car for a long time afterwards.

We’d made it back to her house and she wanted to let me know how much she appreciated what I’d done.

Her father was dying in Alabama, and with the foreclosure handled, she could get on a plane and go visit him before he passed. Now, she wouldn’t have to wonder who’d be living in her home when she got back to town.

I drove home feeling great, as you can imagine, having done a wonderful thing for Mark and Nina. Where no one else dared to as much as attempt it, I’d pulled it off.

I am, after all, the Tiger Woods of foreclosure rescue.

Friday’s sale

The sale turned out to be exciting, and that worthless, no-access lot of mine sold for $22k, creating a $19k overage.


We’d later learn the fellas bidding on it assumed they were bidding on the mobile home, and that’s how the numbers got so far out of whack. Unbelievable.

I contacted Lisa Frazier to inquire about the overage and let her know I’d be filing an application to collect my funds.

I had a valid power of attorney from both Mark and Nina that allowed me to claim the funds under their names, as required by the statute, and I advised Lisa of such.

Her response?

“State law requires me to mail the application to the former owners’ home.”

I said, “Lisa, we both know it says no such thing. I had a hand in the creation of that law, remember?”

She said, “Yes, I do.”

I said, “I have a valid power of attorney from both Mark and Nina and will be claiming those funds per the statute using that documentation.”

legal advise

Why Lisa’s silly story?

She subscribes to the, “it’s okay to con a con man, or scam a scammer, or cheat a cheater,” rule, apparently. I’m guessing she views me as such, and that’s why she made absolutely sure I didn’t get the money.

Who’s got my $19k today?

Not me.

Lisa or someone from her office or the county contacted Nina and told her “the law says it’s your money.” That same someone also advised Nina to revoke the power of attorney she’d given me and submit her own application to claim the funds.

So, under the county’s direction and with its assistance, she did exactly that, picking up a check from Mason County for the $19k overage profits that were rightfully mine.

the dust settles

I pulled off a nearly impossible foreclosure rescue, spending $4k and making sure Mark and Nina’s home wasn’t snatched out from under them.

And for my troubles?

I got scammed.

Nina now claims I cheated her, strangely enough. I don’t think she actually believes it, but when the county is telling you it’s a scam and says “come on down and pick up your check,” you figure the county must know what it’s talking about.

Today, they’re living in my home, rent free, with my $19k in their pockets.

You’re welcome, Mark and Nina.


how this would have resolved?

Had the county not interfered and I allowed to collect my profits, things would have turned out remarkably well.

With $19k in hand, I have all kinds of options. I don’t have to be concerned about doing something with that property and have created enough room to allow Mark and Nina to keep it.

Deeding it back to them on a low-interest owner contract and allowing them to make payments of a couple hundred dollars of month would have worked just fine.

Now, that won’t happen.

Instead, I’m guessing, they’re going to get sued, evicted, and be on the street, and they can thank Lisa Frazier for all her help.

That really is a shame. It would have been nice to see them keep it.

And the punch line?

Rob, here’s the funny part . . .

Your office believes Mark and Nina are the victims of a scam. I kid you not.

Because your office is unwilling to admit its interpretation of RCW 84.64.080 has no merit, is fundamentally flawed and wholly unconstitutional, it views Mark and Nina, a couple who flat-out stole $19k from me, as victims.


I lost the $4k I invested as well as the $19k in profits that should have been mine, and now have to defend myself from nonsensical claims that I attempted to scam Mark and Nina.

That doesn’t seem a bit twisted to you, Rob?

I mean come on; I can only do so much, (the Tiger Woods thing not withstanding).


Joe Kaiser

6 Responses to: “Lisa Frazier and my missing $19k, Part 2”

  1. Jason responds:
    Posted: August 12th, 2007 at 7:44 am

    “That same someone also advised Nina to revoke the power of attorney she’d given me and submit her own application to claim the funds.”

    I hope that this “someone” is an attorney. If not, I believe they are practicing law without a license.
    Would you agree?

  2. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: August 12th, 2007 at 8:29 am


    Don’t know if that’s what it is or not. You may be right.

    I do know it’s bad advise, in any case.


  3. Jack Stivers responds:
    Posted: August 12th, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    I’m no doctor, but it seems Mark and NIna each suffer from a severe case of enlarged greed gland, as well as short-term amnesia no doubt brought on by a small, cash windfall.

    The long-term prognosis doesn’t look good, however, and they’ll likely get very little assistance from the county (aka co-conspirators) when the fertilizer hits the fan and they subsequently hit the road.


  4. Gray responds:
    Posted: August 17th, 2007 at 3:08 am

    Hmm, I don’t get it. That “worthless, no-access lot of mine sold for $22k” and yet “Mark and Nina’s home wasn’t snatched out from under them”? There seems to be an important detail missing. There were two lots, and you let only one go into the auction, right?

  5. Gray responds:
    Posted: August 17th, 2007 at 3:18 am

    Ok, ok, fuhgedaboutit. Sry, Joe, I should have read part 1 before part 2. It’s really two lots, ok!

  6. Gray responds:
    Posted: August 17th, 2007 at 3:44 am

    Hmm, even after reading both parts, still a bit confused. Joe, you said there were three judgments, exceeding the value of the property. What value? That 50k assessment? Or your own, careful evaluation (about 4k)?

    Also, I simply don’t know enough about US law and regulations regarding debt. How do judgments work, are they bound to the property (so you would have taken over responsibility for them when purchasing the lots) or are they against the persons (so that Mark and Nina would still be in a lot of debt, even after selling their estate)? Could you pls give some more details on how the judgments complicated the deal here?

Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:

You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:

Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.