State v. Kaiser, 254 P.3d 850

Between 1998 and 2008 Kaiser and his partners engaged in ~400 transactions with property owners facing tax foreclosure through multiple entities.
Kaiser bombarded owners with thousands of solicitations promising to help keep their property or home and falsely claiming prior foreclosure prevention success.
Owners entered into two transaction types: overage play (claiming to secure excess sale proceeds) and partial interest deals (trust-based arrangements where Kaiser obtained control).
In overage plays Kaiser paid small sums to owners, obtained title, allowed tax sales to proceed, and intercepted or retained the overage funds via powers of attorney and attorney arrangements.
In partial interest deals, homeowners signed documents transferring significant rights and control to Kaiser as trustee/co-beneficiary, with Kaiser dictating sale terms and keeping most proceeds; rights for homeowners were illusory and heavily conditioned.
The Attorney General sued Kaiser for CPA violations; a consent decree was entered against several co-defendants, while Kaiser proceeded with Unclaimed Funds Inc. to target restitution funds.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment finding multiple deceptive and unfair practices and ordered injunctive relief; Kaiser's liability and remedies were thereafter litigated in the bench trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Intercepting overage funds violates the CPA	Kaiser intercepted funds due to record owners under RCW 84.64.080.	Stephenson distinguished; overage structures did not implicate CPA.	Yes; intercepting overage funds violated the CPA.
Use of power of attorney and attorneys to conceal overage funds violates the CPA	POA and attorneys were used to hide overage and obtain funds for Kaiser.	No hidden conduct proven; defenses insufficient.	Yes; this conduct violated the CPA.
Overage play agreements were unfair or unconscionable under the CPA	The terms misled homeowners and concealed material facts, creating grossly unfair contracts.	Transactions were legitimate financing arrangements.	Yes; the overage play agreements were unfair and unconscionable.
Partial interest deals: trustee/co-beneficiary role violated the CPA	Kaiser controlled sales and profits to his own benefit, breaching fiduciary duties.	Deals were private agreements between homeowners and Kaiser.	Yes; acting as both trustee and co-beneficiary violated the CPA.
Public-interest impact of four other transactions and injunctive relief	Additional trials showed broad harm affecting the public; injunctive relief appropriate.	No independent public-interest violation proven for those transactions.	Yes; the four other transactions affected the public interest; injunctive relief upheld.

Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wash.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1986) (deception need not be intentional to violate CPA; capacity to deceive the public)
Ralph Williams' N.W. Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 87 Wash.2d 298, 553 P.2d 423 (Wash. 1976) (unfair or deceptive acts—material terms and disclosure standards under CPA)
National Bank of Washington v. Equity Investors, 81 Wash.2d 886, 506 P.2d 20 (Wash. 1973) (contract and fraud concepts used to assess deceptive practices)
Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm't Co., 106 Wash.2d 1, 721 P.2d 1 (Wash. 1986) (preliminary injunction standards and contract/claims context)
Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wash.2d 331, 103 P.3d 773 (Wash. 2004) (unfair or deceptive practices; contract fairness considerations)
Stephenson v. Pleger, 150 Wash.App. 658, 208 P.3d 583 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguishes impact of statutory rights on contract validity)
In re Estate of Drinkwater, 22 Wash.App. 26, 587 P.2d 606 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978) (fiduciary duties and self-dealing by trustees)
Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 91 Wash.App. 722, 959 P.2d 1158 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) (definition of deceptive conduct within CPA framework)
Equity Investors (as cited in National Bank of Washington v. Equity Investors), 81 Wash.2d 886, 506 P.2d 20 (Wash. 1973) (contract interpretation and deception analysis under CPA)