First, applying Haberman, we look to see whether additional factors, other than
Donnerstag's referral, contributed to the DBSI North Stafford sale. See Haberman, 109 Wn.2d
at 131. After Donnerstag's referral, DBSI's Rottman promoted his company to the Roberts,
providing that DBSI was a "great company, it's safe, conservative"that has "been in business 27,
28 years."CP at 119. DBSI, without Donnerstag's knowledge, presented properties —including
DBSI North Staffordto
— the Roberts for a 1031 exchange. In fact, the Roberts reviewed these
9
No. 43018 5
- II
-
DBSI properties before settling on DBSI North Stafford, and Donnerstag played no role in this
selection process. Accordingly, a number of other factors beyond Donnerstag's referral
contributed to the Roberts' DBSI North Stafford investment. Therefore, under the first part of
the Haberman test, Donnerstag's referral was not a substantial contributive factor to the sale
under the Act. See Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 131.
Second, we consider whether Donnerstag's conduct created a continuous and active
operation up to the time of sale, or whether Donnerstag's conduct created a harmless situation
unless acted on by others for whom Donnerstag was not responsible. See Haberman, 109 Wn.2d
at 131 3
- 2. Here, Donnerstag's referral does not demonstrate that he engaged in a continuous or
active operation up to the time of sale. Rather, his referral created a harmless situation until
acted on by DBSI, over whom Donnerstag had no responsibility. He learned of the DBSI
tenancy in-
- common program, determined that the Roberts might be interested in it, and then