Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wash. 2d 756

Jametsky faced foreclosure risk after job loss and $10,000+ in back taxes; he sought a loan against his home due to equity; he was introduced to Flynn and Haber who arranged a deal that purported to be a loan but resulted in Jametsky deeding his home to Olsen for $100,000 and signing a lease with buyback option; Jametsky received only about $4,697 while intermediaries took commissions; after months, he learned there was no loan and that he had transferred title; eviction notices followed; Court denied DPCA relief, Court of Appeals affirmed; Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding property can be distressed before a certificate of delinquency and remanding for factual inquiry to determine distress.
The act protects distressed homeowners from equity skimming and predatory schemes, and is remedial in nature requiring liberal construction in favor of consumer protection.
The DPCA applies to transactions involving distressed homes or distressed homeowners and requires a factual inquiry into whether a property is distressed before DPCA protections apply.
The defendant argued for a bright-line rule tying distress to issuance of a certificate of delinquency; Jametsky and the AG urged plain meaning and liberal construction; the Court adopted plain meaning but liberal, case-by-case inquiry.
The case remands to evaluate whether the property was distressed under RCW 61.34.020(2)(a) by considering relevant factors without requiring a certificate of delinquency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a certificate of delinquency is required before a property is distressed under RCW 61.34.020(2)(a)	Jametsky/AG: distress can exist before delinquency certificate; plain meaning supports protection.	Olsen/Jametsky: distress only after certificate of delinquency.	Distressed status can exist before a certificate; require factual inquiry.
Is RCW 84.64.050 a related statute that defines distress	Not a related statute; should not narrow distress.	84.64.050 demonstrates narrow distress definition.	Not a related statute; does not define distress.
How should “at risk of loss due to nonpayment of taxes” be construed?	Plain meaning: vulnerable, protective interpretation.	Narrow interpretation favored by respondents.	Plain meaning applied; liberal, case-specific inquiry required.
Is the DPCA a remedial statute to be liberally construed in favor of consumers?	Yes, to curb equity skimming and predatory schemes.	Standard statutory interpretation applies.	DPCA construed liberally in favor of homeowners.
What framework should trial courts use to determine distress under DPCA?	Balancing multiple factors to determine at-risk status.	Limited criteria tied to certificate; unclear.	Provide nonexclusive factors and starting framework for factual inquiry.

Campbell & Gwinn, LLC v. Dept. of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2002) (statutory interpretation and liberal construction of remedial statutes)
State v. Breazeale, 144 Wn.2d 829 (Wash. 2001) (interpretation and de novo review of legal questions)
State v. J.M., 144 Wn.2d 472 (Wash. 2001) (standards for statutory interpretation in criminal context (briefly cited))
Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters v. City of Everett, 146 Wn.2d 29 (Wash. 2002) (remedial statute, liberal construction in public interest)
Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, 171 Wn.2d 486 (Wash. 2011) (remedial consumer protection statute; liberal interpretation)
State v. Pike, 118 Wn.2d 585 (Wash. 1992) (consumer protection statutes foster fair dealing)
Underwood v. Truck & Auto, 32 Wn. App. 4 (Wash. App. 1982) (illustrative of statutory construction approach)