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

It’s all over but the shouting, and I’ve lost.

The AG’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted on Friday, Nov 21, and I am forevermore a foreclosure rescue scam artist.

And the fact I did 400 transactions without a single complaint or that of the 30 families I rescued, all are still in their homes today with more equity than when we first met?

Didn’t matter a twit.

It’s really simple . . . if you’re a foreclosure investor today, listen up, you are a predator that must be stopped (AG spent in excess of a million bucks coming after me).

Thanks for following along these last couple years, and no regrets, I hope. Certainly, none from me.

See you around, or not,

Joe Kaiser

M. C. Escher, the amazing 20th Century artist (you’ve seen his works before, Drawing Hands – 1948, and Relativity – 1953) created the woodcut pictured above – Angels and Devils.

What do you see?

Black or white?

The story goes that you see what your preconceptions allow you to see. So, if you see black devils where others see white angels, it’s said to be something inside your head that makes it so.

Or not . . . that whole concept might just be a bunch of huey.

In any case, it’s a great metaphor for how this investigation and subsequent lawsuit were handled.

Humming along

I have some two dozen families still in their homes, having rescued them from foreclosure. And while they all have their share of problems (most haven’t made the agreed rental payments), every one of these transactions is humming along just fine.

Anyone unbiased or without preconceptions would look at this track record and say, “remarkable,” particularly in light of the fact we’re now told your office has NEVER seen a legitimate foreclosure rescue.

But, you didn’t call it remarkable, did you?

You saw only devils and called it a scam.

Everyone a Victim

I recently talked to one fellow we rescued who is again 100% owner, having bought us out. He calls the transaction we did with him, “the perfect solution.”

What do you call it?

A scam, and you’ve listed him as my victim. In doing so, you ignore reality in order to fit your twisted “we see devils” preconceptions.

Onerous

You say that in order to be restored to full ownership, our partners must overcome “onerous” terms.

The fellow mentioned above, in three plus years, NEVER MADE A SINGLE PAYMENT. And, when it came time to retain full ownership, we sold him our share on an owner contract, with nothing down, and paid all the closing costs out of pocket.

Additionally, we loaned him $10,000.00 so he could pay off his credit cards and, with a little luck, refinance the whole thing sometime soon.

“Onerous?”

Only if you’re blind to anything but devils.

Last Example

In the last few years I’ve worked with half a dozen attorneys in order to secure the overages we created. They’re not going to be happy when they find out you’ve branded them as my partners in crime.

They are all respected, real estate knowledgeable attorneys whose ethics are beyond reproach. They’d never do anything that might be considered improper or questionable. Certainly, they wouldn’t in a million years agree to assist me in a scam.

And yet here they all are, considered by your office to have abetted my tax overage scheme. Clearly, you’re only capable of seeing devils, even when doing so means accusing respected attorneys of misconduct.

Remarkable, and it begs the question . . .

Is there nothing you won’t do to make your facts align with your case, or is your office comfortable with recklessly tarnishing the reputations of upstanding attorneys in order to have a shot at winning it?

Pre-Ordained

The outcome of this investigation was decided before the facts were known. As a result, the facts are meaningless. They have to be in order for your case to have any kind of chance.

What you should have done, Rob, is looked at the facts and realized we’re not devils at all. Some folks look at us and actually see angels.

But, there was no possibility of that happening, was there?

The outcome was already decided upon and with your office looking to get a new foreclosure law passed, it was on a mission to bring down an investor or two.

And why not . . . we’re all devils anyway.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

I was glad to see your office busted Foreclosure Assistance Solutions, (FAS) a foreclosure rescue outfit out of Florida, and that at risk homeowners won’t have to deal with that nonsense any longer.

Firms offering false hope by promoting schemes to extract $1,500 a whack from people they know they won’t likely help should be put out of business. Good job.

I do have one other observation, though . . .

No help needed?

AAG Jack Zurlini, talking to the Spokesman Review about the settlement with FAS, says . . .

Homeowners behind on their payments should immediately call their lender and try to work out a deal. Anything FAS could have done for the people, the people could have done for themselves. — Jack Zurlini
Assistant Attorney General

Okay, fair enough. These folks in foreclosure are perfectly capable of negotiating their own rescue deals with loss mitigation departments and don’t need outside help.

Got it.

Perfectly incapable

But that doesn’t make sense, because your office has sued me for scamming these very people, except in my case you’ve characterized them as incapable, the exact opposite . . .

His victims generally lack adequate financial knowledge, skills, expertise and experience nesessary to indenty and evaluate effectively their available alternatives or to otherwise fully appreciate the one-sided nature and consequences of the deal being offered to them by Defendant. — State of Washington v. Joseph M. Kaiser

My question, Rob, is which is it?

Both ways?

People in foreclosure cannot be perfectly capable in one breath, and perfectly incapable in the next.

So how is it your office claims they can handle difficult negotiations, (with their home hanging in the balance,) without any outside help, against trained, experienced, foreclosure mitigation pros who have only their own firm’s interest in mind?

Yet, when these same people met with me, according to your lawsuit, they were lacking in any and all skills necessary to negotiate their way out of a wet paper sack.

See the problem?

How convenient

It is dishonest, Rob, doing this thing you do, making up facts to fit your claims and when convenient, flipping them 180 degrees.

And that’s why you claim people in foreclosure are more than capable of handling their own financial affairs in FAS’ case, but are incapable of doing so in mine.

Exact same people, exact same situations, yet completely different characterizations coming out of your office.

You cannot have it both ways, and I really wish you’d stop making this stuff up to suit the situation at hand.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser