For the last few years you’ve been calling me a scam artist, saying the overage funds we claimed actually belong to former owners who sold us their properties because the law, RCW 84.64.080, says so.

You even sued me over it and won, obtaining a judgment that included nearly $650k in restitution to these same owners in repayment of the overage funds we collected.

I beg to differ

Of course, we’ve said time and time again the law says no such thing and could not possibly say such a thing. We bought properties and, as owners, any profits we created were ours to keep.

Who’s right?

The Court of Appeals ruled on your interpretation of RCW 84.64.080 today, forever answering the question, “Who gets the money?”

In this corner

Put succinctly, (and straight from the horse’s mouth), here’s your position . . .

After taxes are paid from the sale price, there may be substantial money left over. State law says that such a surplus rightfully belongs to the person who owned the property (when the suit to foreclosure was filed).— Assistant Attorney General David Huey

And here is mine . . .

A property owner in tax foreclosure is free to sell me his property, including any claim to future overage funds that may materialize at the tax sale. And once sold, his rights become my rights.Joseph M. Kaiser

The ruling

But who cares what I think? Here’s what the Court of Appeals, Division II, State of Washington has ruled . . .

Because RCW 84.64.080 was intended to protect the treasurer in paying out tax sale proceedings and not to determine ownership or prevent a tax-delinquent property owner from selling his or her interests, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine who actually owned the property at the time of the sale.

Who owned the property at the time of the sale?

That would be me, and, as such, I am the rightful owner of the overage funds in question. The ruling continues . . .

. . . the trial court erred in finding the assignment void under RCW 84.64.080 because the procedural nature of RCW 84.64.080 has no impact on determining the rightful owner of the proceeds. –Authored by Judge David H. Armstrong,
Concurring Judge J. Robin Hunt and
Judge Marywave Van Deren

Here’s the complete Court of Appeals Opinion.

The State v. Kaiser

We can now be certain RCW 84.64.080 has “no impact” on the ownership of overage funds. None, and it never did, in spite of the ridiculous claims your office made to the Court and in the press suggesting it did.

Likewise, we can now be certain that contrary to your office’s farcical contentions, the law does not unconstitutionally reinvest former owners with rights to claim proceeds from properties they’ve long since sold.

The Damage is done

With zero consumer complaints, this investigation started because Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Dick, upset about paying us overage funds (the County prefers to keep the funds), told your office we were violating RCW 84.64.080.

We weren’t, and Bob Dick was 100% in error.

As were all the county treasurers who told former owners “the law says it’s your money.” It doesn’t. Yes, Lisa and Barbara and Steve and Rose and Phil and McGoon and all the rest of you who said we’d scammed sellers by simply buying their properties (and paying them in full), we didn’t.

Also 100% in error was former AAG Cheryl Kringle, as are AAG David Huey and AAG James Sugarman today.

As are you and your office, Rob, about what we investors do. 100% wrong. Buying properties in tax foreclosure and using the sale as an exit strategy is not a scam and never was.

Overage Plays

And yes, it’s really that simple . . .

We bought junk properties in tax foreclosure, let them continue on to sale in hopes there’d be an overage, and the Court of Appeals has now confirmed any overages those sales created are ours to keep.

100% ours, in fact, and EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along.

It begs the question, “How could the Attorney General of the State of Washington be so completely wrong regarding basic, fundamental property rights?”

I shuddered at the very thought.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Jim Volk passed away earlier this month.

He was in his mid-eighties and had no family, but he did have a few friends who took good care of him when he needed it most. He died penniless.

Well, not quite penniless . . .

Unpaid Taxes

On December 18, 1997, King County sold Jim’s property for unpaid taxes.

And while he lost the property, there was substantial bidding activity with the winning bid $66,408.83 more than what he owed. As you know, those “excess funds” are Jim’s to claim.

Except that, Jim didn’t. And three years later King County Treasurer Phil Sanders confiscated the funds.

Thanks Darryl

A couple years pass, and Jim’s friends discover the letter from King County about the money he’s owed. They do what anyone would do . . . hire him an attorney to claim the money from the county.

After all, it’s his money.

The attorney files a claim with the county in September, 2002 (the dates are important here), and the County’s attorney goes to work to figure out a way to keep from paying.

And then Darryl Pheasant steps in.

The Association

On February 18, 2003, Grant County Treasurer Darryl Pheasant sends out an email to the “Association,” the group of Washington State County Treasurers.

The email contains a bombshell . . . the Washington State Department of Revenue’s opinion letter from the Audit Manager of the Unclaimed Property Section stating counties must pay out overages whenever the rightful party makes a claim and that claimants like Jim may make their claims “in perpetuity.”

I have a copy of both the email to the county treasurers and the DOR opinion, and there’s no disputing that (1) King County Treasurer Phil Sanders was sent the email and (2) was sent the opinion letter.

Stripped of his money

What happens next?

In March 2003, just a month after King County received the DOR’s opinion letter stating unequivocally the funds are and always will be Jim’s, King County DENIES his claim.

And Jim’s friends, who’ve footed the attorney fees in an attempt to get him his money, decide there’s nothing more they can do.

Jim dies penniless

So, to be clear about the timeline . . .

1. King County sells Jim’s property at their 1997 tax sale
2. a $66,408.83 overage is created
3. three years pass and the County claims the money as its own
4. two years later Jim’s friends learn of the funds and hire an attorney to help him get his money
5. Jim’s attorney files a claim with King County
6. THE COUNTY RECEIVES THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE’S OPINION LETTER STATING THE FUNDS BELONG TO JIM
7. the County IGNORES the DOR’s opinion letter and DENIES Jim’s claim for the money he’s owed
8. and Jim dies penniless.

Enough, King County

Will someone please tell Phil Sanders it’s not his money.

He’s done this now to Jim Volk and to Gordon Elliot and who knows how many other victims I discover by the time I’m finished with him.

And Rob, why is your office not putting an end to the county tax sale overage grab that happens annually right under your nose? I think Jim and Gordon and all the others like them are owed at least that much.

It is, after all, THEIR MONEY and clearly, as Phil has demonstrated time and time again, they need to be protected from this scam.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

As mentioned in an earlier post, some three million dollars has escheated to county expense funds in the last five to 10 years.

Though the record is incomplete, we have confirmation from Washington State county treasurers that no less than three million has gone unclaimed and now belongs to those counties through escheatment.

But, things aren’t always as they seem, are they?

Who’s escheating who?

Several months ago, on a hunch, I decided there had to be more to the story and got to work, pouring over the docs, the regs, and the statutes.

And, sure enough, by the end of the day, I’d found something.

Turns out in 2004, language was added to the overage statutes that, in my mind at least, confirmed what I’d maintained all along . . . that three million dollars is not, never was, and never can be the county’s money.

New Language

What was added?

Here’s the old statute . . .

In the event no claim for the excess is received by the county treasurer within three years after the date of the sale he or she shall at expiration of the three year period deposit such excess in the current expense fund of the county. — RCW 84.64.080, Pre June 10, 2004

And the new . . .

In the event no claim for the excess is received by the county treasurer within three years after the date of the sale he or she shall at expiration of the three year period deposit such excess in the current expense fund of the county which shall extinguish all claims by any owner to the excess funds. — RCW 84.64.080, Post June 10, 2004

Added is the very last part of the sentence, “. . . which shall extinguish all claims by any owner to the excess funds.”

If these funds escheated to the county, as we’ve been told for years, why is that new language even needed?

I’ll tell you why.

Use v. Own

Escheatment, it turns out, is a very big deal.

Our money can’t magically turn into some government agency’s money by accident, or without a good reason. And, equally important, it can’t happen without language in the law that clearly establishes the escheatment claims of the agency.

Does the statute, “at expiration of the three year period [the county treasurer shall] deposit such excess in the current expense fund” even address the ownership of those funds?

Of course not.

It merely says the county may USE the funds, much like the state uses unclaimed funds, but as to ownership, there is NO change.

None.

Moving funds from one account to another, as the law provides, IS NOT ESCHEATING, and WA state county treasurers know this. That’s precisely why, in 2004, the language, “forever extinguish,” was added to the law.

Denied claim

So what about pre June, 2004 overages?

They’re still owned by the folks who lost their properties to tax foreclosure. Yes, all three million dollars.

But, not according to Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor Bob Dick.

We recently submitted a claim to Pierce County for a pre 2004 overage and received the following response . . .

This is in response to your client’s claim for the surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure on real property that was sold on December 6, 2002. According to RCW 84.64.080, after three years from the date of sale any owner loses the right to claim the excess funds. Therefore, we are denying your claim. — Mas Jones
Pierce County Budget and Finance

That’s what the law says?

Hardly.

The Association

Of course, I’m not an attorney and my opinion doesn’t count all that much in these matters. I’m looking at things as a layman. Still, my gut tells me the fix is in.

And then I received records from one of the last counties to respond to my public records request.

I’d asked the state’s county treasurers for all records relating to discussions with other county treasurers about tax sale overages, and there it was, an email from Grant County Treasurer Darryl Pheasant to the “Association,” the group of all 39 county treasurers.

Curiously, though all county treasurers received this email, only one provided a copy, and trust me, it wasn’t Darryl Pheasant.

Subject: Fw: excess proceeds

> Judith Hauge
> (360) 664-2202

Six requests

What?

Apparently, Darryl disagrees with the State of Washington’s take on how excess funds should be handled.

And how are they to be handled?

It took us months and at least six separate requests to get a copy of the Department of Revenue’s Unclaimed Property Section document, “excessproceeds.doc” from Grant County. Six!

What was Darryl hiding?

A lot.

In Perpetuity

Patrick Tate, Audit Manager of the Unclaimed Property Section of the Washington State Department of Revenue, one would think, knows how those funds are to be handled. It’s his job to know.

And, according to the Department of Revenue, those excess funds DO NOT ESCHEAT TO THE COUNTY.

They never did.

Mr. Tate is quite clear about it, saying . . .

. . . RCW 84.64.080 does not extinguish the claim of an owner in excess proceeds . . .

In the third year, the county may move the money to its current expense account subject to the future claim of an owner . . .

The excess proceeds can be transferred to the expense fund, but the county would remain liable to pay owners in perpetuity . . . — Patrick Tate
Audit Manager, UPC, Dept. of Rev.

The smoking gun

Did he really just say “in perpetuity?”

You’re damn right he did.

The smoking gun?

excessproceeds.doc. (click link).

And Pierce County’s assertion my claim should be denied because the three years in which to claim it lapsed?

100% not true.

foreclosure scam

Here’s Mr. Tate, returning medals to Rosalynn Summers . . .

It’s clear, even though all county treasurers in this state know the overage funds they’re holding from pre June, 2004 tax sales are still owed to the folks losing their properties, at least one, Pierce County, chooses to pretend it does not.

I suspect the response from all other counties today to any claims against these overage will result in the same “sorry, you’re too late,” denial.

And that’s at least three million dollars of equities stripped from Washington State property owners.

There’s your next foreclosure scam, Rob, and btw, this one’s actually real.

And Mallia Marie’s $162k?

She’s assigned it to me, and I think it’s time I go get it for her. Don’t you?

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

I’m guessing this entire “foreclosure rescue scam” misadventure is the result of Pierce County Prosecutor Bob Dick’s issues with our idea of using tax sales as exit strategies.

He’s convinced our “overage plays” get in the way of his county’s overage plays, and that’s how this “zero consumer complaints” investigation got started.

Sure, I may be completely wrong, but I doubt it.

It’s a turf war

Readers who weren’t around from the beginning may not understand this so-called consumer protection lawsuit against me involved no actual consumer complaints.

In reality, it’s simply a turf war over tax sale overages.

We buy junk lots from people who’ve decided to just let them go, and we sometimes let the foreclosure process continue, hoping they’ll sell at a profit at the tax sale.

In 2002, when we did 12 of these in Pierce County alone, it became obvious we’d “cracked the code” and were a threat to the county’s gravy train.

Traditionally, unclaimed tax sale overages “escheat” to the county, and in 1999 Pierce County pocketed $162,026.14 when Mallia Marie failed to claim her funds (she didn’t know about them).

I suspect that $162k was still fresh on Bob’s mind when our 12 claims crossed his desk, and that was too much for him to ignore. He may have even developed a taste for this sweet, free money ($162k dropping into your lap will do that to you).

Insignificant

Who cares?

Well, not attorney Cheryl Kringle.

Cheryl, then an Assistant Attorney General, told my attorneys that unclaimed tax sale overages escheating to county expense funds were “insignificant.”

I beg to differ.

The Spreadsheet

On September 25, 2007, some seven months ago, I undertook the challenge of determining the so-called insignificance of funds escheating to counties through unclaimed tax sale overages.

Since then, we’ve exchanged hundreds of emails with county treasurers, paid hundreds of dollars for copying costs and postage, and spent hundreds of hours pouring over public record documents, assembling a “Who’s Escheating Who” spreadsheet.

Some counties were great and got us everything we requested without delay (thank you!). Some took months and fought us every step of the way (Grant County). And, at least one didn’t respond at all.

But, though hardly complete and likely filled with more than a few gaps, we’ve finished the project and have, as best as we can determine, the final results.

And now we know.

Windfall profits

I’ll provide the complete breakdown in the next few weeks, Rob, but believe me when I tell you the number is hardly insignificant. Unless, that is, you consider THREE MILLION DOLLARS insignificant.

Yes, thanks to my staff’s efforts, $3,010,213.69 is now documented to have dropped into the laps of Washington State county treasurers over the last 5 to 10 years.

Free money.

And the reason Bob Dick put you folks up to this foolishness?

I can think of 3,010,213.69 of them.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

King County appears to have pulled a fast one, and it sickens me.

Of course, as always when conjecturing, I may be completely wrong and everything may in fact be copacetic. But I doubt it.

In any case, my letter to Paula Adams, Public Disclosure Director for the King County treasurer, ended as follows . . .

Finally, I have made repeated requests for the Robert Elliot foreclosure file. Where is it? Why is there a delay? Would it stem from the fact that King County, under Phil Sanders’ apparent direction, has effectively stolen $93k from Gordon, his son?— Recent email to King County
Public Disclosure Director Paula Adams

Stolen?

You’d better believe it.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Yesterday, I addressed the issue of county officials determined to thwart my efforts to pay taxes.

Here’s an interesting letter from the Office of the Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney to Pierce County Deputy Prosecutor Bob Dick . . .

 

Whatcom County

Did he really just say that?

You may recall, Joe’s attempt to file the handwritten assignment was thwarted . . .
— Dave Grant
Whatcom County Deputy Prosecutor

Thwarted?

Are you kidding me?

What does your office say about the duty of county auditors to accept documents for recording?

Under current Washington case law, a county auditor or similar recording officer has a ministerial duty to record a document purporting on its face to affect title to real estate located within the jurisdiction, if the document is presented for recording and the appropriate fee is tendered.— Office of the Attorney General
AGO 1996 No. 12 – July 31, 1996

I guess Dave Grant knew better, huh?

Here’s the link to the entire opinion.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

Have you wondered what’s going on here with all these county treasurers refusing to accept tax payments?

And why property owners with cashier’s checks in hand, standing at the counters of county treasurers throughout this state, are being turned away so treasurers can foreclose on their properties a day or two later?

Does that make sense to you or is it nothing short of bizarre?

ONLY

County treasurers and county prosecutors believe their job is to prevent people from paying their property taxes. I kid you not.

They believe anyone can pay taxes on any property, provided foreclosure hasn’t started. But once it’s been filed, then, in the county’s interpretation, ONLY someone owning a recorded interest can pay.

Does the law really say that?

RCW 84.64.060

Here’s the statute . . .

Any person owning a recorded interest in lands or lots upon which judgment is prayed, as provided in this chapter, may in person or by agent pay the taxes . . . — RCW 84.64.060

Notice anything missing?

Had it included the ONLY word, then perhaps their argument would be more compelling. Still, though I disagree, I’ll give it to them and agree to disagree the law says you must have a recorded interest to pay taxes on a property in tax foreclosure.

My question, though, is “Why?”

Why would the county care who pays?

Isn’t collecting taxes the part of the job that matters here?

Or the better question . . . why are they so eager to thwart any attempts to pay taxes and in doing so create easily avoidable foreclosures?

Whatcom County

A few years ago, in Whatcom county, my partner and I purchased mortgages from two different lien holders on two properties in their tax sale. We paid the lien holders cash and they each gave us a hand written bill of sale.

We now owned both those liens and by “owning a recorded interest,” per the statute, we attempted to pay our property taxes to prevent the pending foreclosures from taking place.

We were thwarted.

The county refused to let me record my hand written agreements (although the law would seem to indicate recording was not needed, the fact I had been assigned the liens made me the owner of those recorded interests).

Just the same, I left a cashier’s check with the treasurer to cover the taxes and a day or two later they foreclosed, sending back my check.

Make sense?

Not to me.

Kitsap County

And my friend John, who stood at the counter in Kitsap County with a cashier’s check county Treasurer Barbara Stephenson refused to accept?

She went on to maliciously foreclose on his family home of some 50 years, a travesty.

Lewis County

Not to mention yesterday’s post where Rose Bowman, Lewis County Treasurer, returned my check and maliciously foreclosed as well, deciding that was the appropriate thing to do.

It wasn’t, Rose.

Pierce County

Or my friend Bill who’s suing Pierce County as we speak for refusing to accept his cashier’s check last year after having bought out the heirs of a property in the tax sale, only to have the county foreclose on it.

Was foreclosure really necessary, Bob?

It’s an overage play

The problem is epidemic, Rob, and it’s a dirty little game Washington counties are playing with property owners in this tax sale business.

What the heck is going on here, you ask?

The counties, hard at work on their own overage plays.

title challenged properties

The ONLY reason I can think of for this law is to make it more difficult to pay taxes so more properties can go to tax foreclosure so more overages can be created so more funds can escheat to counties.

And to guarantee that happening, county treasurers and prosecutors are doing whatever they can to thwart owners and investors alike from protecting their interests in title challenged properties (the kind where escheating funds happen most often).

Get the counties out of it

Again, I have no problem with a law that says only someone owning an interest of record can pay taxes on a property in foreclosure.

And if someone pays who was not authorized to do so, then the owner of that property should be able to sue him for damages (although I can’t imagine why he would).

The problem isn’t the law, Rob, it’s giving county treasurers and county prosecutors the power to decide who does or does not own a “recorded interest.”

Counties should be out of the picture entirely and have no say in the matter. Their conflict of interest is obvious.

Their job should simply be to accept payment and if not authorized, let the owner deal with whoever wrongfully paid.

Let the court decide

Ownership interests can be difficult to ascertain.

Title reports are notoriously inaccurate. Lawsuits over disputed land ownership are decided by judges who’ve seen evidence and heard testimony.

Yet I have to stand there and have some county clerk tell me I can’t pay taxes on my own property because I haven’t sufficiently proven to him or her that I have an interest?

Absurd.

THE JOB IS TO COLLECT THE TAXES, NOT TO CREATE OVERAGES THAT MAY LATER ESCHEAT TO COUNTY EXPENSE FUNDS.

Out-of-control

Do you not see what is happening here, Rob?

Isn’t it time you put a stop to this insanity and bring these county officials under control?

Believing their job is to thwart me and anyone else from paying our property taxes so they can turn around, foreclose and maybe pick up some free overage money for themselves is nothing short of obscene.

Thwarted?

Good grief.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

I spoke with a really wonderful gal from California this evening. It was a lovely chat.

She’s 79, living on social security and just barely getting by on the $1,100 a month she brings in. Still, she has this amazing spirit about her I found remarkable.

And, she’s got quite a story.

A wonderful life

She’d loved her husband.

Sadly, he died awhile ago, a victim of Gillian Berré Syndrome. She tells me it’s a form of polio.

He’d been a craftsman, an engraver of national repute whose work can be seen in the Smithsonian. Mallia says of his amazing talent, “it’s all in the wrist.”

When clients learned of his disease and his inability to continue working, they agreed there would be no one to replace him.

No one could replace him – he was just that good.

together forever

They would have been married 60 years last December, in love since he first walked her home from choir practice at their local Methodist church.

Her family had come from Tulsa, his, from a small town in Oregon, and somehow, in California, two school kids found each other and fell in love.

She said they’d had a wonderful life together, but that it wasn’t always easy.

He’d been shipped off to war and spent three years overseas, a soldier in the US Army during WWII, fighting for his country in Germany.

She’d one day fight a battle of her own, a survivor of breast cancer now going on five years.

news to Mallia

It was one of those conversations I never expected, and a joy to experience. Such a great lady, so many wonderful stories, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for the news I’d called to deliver.

You see, there was another chapter to add to her amazing life, and my job to tell it . . .

On December 6, 1996, Eize and Mallia Marie lost their property in Pierce County, Washington, in a tax foreclosure auction for the non-payment of property taxes.

This was news to her.

Her son, responsible for the tax payments, had apparently failed to pay and in doing so, failed to let them know.

bidders went crazy

Mallia Marie remembers the property as beautiful beyond words, some 20 acres on Fox Island overlooking the Puget Sound.

They’d bought it many years earlier when the owner, a local church desperately in need of a new roof, let them pay for that roof as a down payment for the property.

And they never missed a payment thereafter, sending the church $100 a month for many years to follow.

She hadn’t seen the property in a long time, but she let me know she’d never forget its breathtaking views of the water. Perhaps that’s why, on that Friday morning in Tacoma, bidders at the auction went crazy.

When the dust finally settled and bidding came to a close, $162,026.14 in overage, the amount bid over and above the taxes they owed, was created.

the applicable law

In the event no claim for the excess is received by the county treasurer within three years after the date of the sale he or she shall at expiration of the three year period deposit such excess in the current expense fund of the county which shall extinguish all claims by any owner to the excess funds.— Revised Code of Washington 84.64.080

later . . .

Mallia says she never knew what happened to their Fox Island land.

She doesn’t recall being told about the tax foreclosure sale or the overage that resulted. She thinks her son might have received notice, if there was notice, but she can’t be sure.

I don’t know what happened either, but what I am sure of is that three years later, when Mallia Marie failed to make a claim for the excess funds, that money escheated to Pierce County.

All $162,026.14 of it.

Insignificant?

Your office, Rob, has characterized overage funds escheating to counties as “insignificant.”

Try telling that to Mallia Marie, now devastated to learn she’s lost what amounts to her life savings.

And if it truly is insignificant, do you suppose Pierce County might be willing to give the money back?

I don’t suggest you try holding your breath.

We’re not worthy

And by the way, Rob, that’s how the pros work an “overage play.”

Hey, I’m more than happy to concede that Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Dick is, unquestionably, the Tiger Woods of tax sale overage plays. He’s earned the title, hands-down.

And that $162,026.14 windfall that went to the county?

I gotta tell ya, that was a thing of beauty.

Whoo-freakin’-hoo!

How hard can it be?

I’m sure Mallia Marie would love to hear from Pierce County.

No, really, give her a call, Bob, and let her know of the effort you folks made to tell her about the $162,026.14 you were holding for her.

She won’t be difficult to find (it took me 3 whole minutes).

Psssst . . . she’s in the phonebook.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

The information I requested last week from county treasurers under the Public Records Act is beginning to trickle in.

So far, with less than a quarter of the counties reporting, we’re up to about 50 overages that went unclaimed and were irrevocably transferred to county treasurers.

“Five-O”.

A little low

That’s about where I’d guessed we’d be, maybe a little low (but close enough at this stage). A lot of the bigger counties have yet to provide any information, so perhaps they will bump it up a bit.

Now, I’m wondering if it’s beginning to sink in?

To date, 50 instances of counties receiving windfalls, essentially free money, simply because the rightful owners of those funds failed to claim them.

Upon Application

Your office alleges that the people with whom I did do business would have been better off had I never contacted them . . .

. . . their real intent was to let the property go to auction and take any excess proceeds from the sale – money that would have gone to the property owner if the defendants hadn’t ‘helped’ them.— AG Robert M. McKenna
March 14th, 2007 AG press release

What about the 50 who never showed up to claim their funds? Are they better off, too, with me not having “helped?”

forever lost

When I work an overage play with someone who’s long since walked away, he’s guaranteed a profit.

To make that happen, I had to find him. Had I not, there’s a real possibility he’s now #51 on my list of folks who never knew their overage funds existed and never showed up to claim them.

Instead, his funds are forever lost to the county.

Questions and more questions

So, my questions . . .

How can you possibly know who’s going to show up and who isn’t?

And in light of that, my follow-up questions . . .

How can you say folks who sold me their properties would have been better off had they not?

Or is your office willing to (1) guarantee an overage will be created and if so, will you also (2) guarantee county treasurers will do whatever it takes to find them to (3) guarnantee they’ll let them know their funds are waiting to be picked up?

My PRA request info would seem to indicate, no, no, and no, respectively.

Which brings us to my last questions . . .

Rob, of the 50 folks whose funds went unclaimed, do you suppose selling their properties to me would have been a better solution than the $0.00 they ultimately received when the overage clock ran out?

Or, was the alternative (not selling to me) simply a better solution for the county?

The unfound

Windfall profits land in the laps of counties when rightful owners of overage funds don’t know they exist and fail to claim them. So far, my list is up to 50.

Since I track down these kinds of owners and buy their properties, unclaimed overage funds in their situations can’t happen, making it more and more difficult to grow that list to 51 folks who didn’t get their funds.

And more to the point, 51 instances where the county, did.

This is a turf war.

Joe Kaiser

I think it’s time we get to the bottom of this “escheating” thing.

As you know, I’ve maintained all along it was county treasurers and prosecutors who put your office up to this “foreclosure rescue scheme” nonsense, and this exercise, I believe, will show why.

Should be interesting.

12 Apps

After all, there had to be some reason for this investigation, especially since no consumer ever complained to your office about any transaction with me.

My guess?

Pierce County Prosecutor Bob Dick asked you to step in and put the hurt on me.

He was tired of me targeting abandoned properties and tying up tax sale overages that traditionally escheated to his county.

And me filing 12 Pierce County applications for overages in 2002 probably didn’t help.

betting it all

I’ve maintained all along this whole thing, at its core, is nothing but a turf war, with counties unhappy I acquire what they view as their exclusive property – unclaimed tax sale overages.

It’s been their gravy train for years, and me stepping in and spoiling all the fun was probably too much for them to ignore.

I’m betting it all that it’s why we’re here today, and more importantly, I think I can prove it.

The PRA

How?

So, let’s see what’s escheated over the last handful of years and learn why counties are so upset with me. To do so, I’ll be using the Public Records Act, asking county treasurers for their records.

And, I’ll be looking for support from your office to make sure counties are in compliance with the act.

This email went out to each county treasurer today . . .

Getting this investigation off the ground

So, as a result of this request, we’ll soon find out what the actual escheating funds numbers look like.

Even better, we’ll discover not only what’s at stake, but what precipitated this investigation and why there can be no doubt it is 100% agenda driven.

Stay tuned . . . it’ll be a hoot.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser