contact with the Roberts before the transaction, and the DBSI North Stafford purchase to
demonstrate that Donnerstag's conduct was not a substantial contributing factor in the Roberts'
purchase. See Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 132. Donnerstag referred the Roberts to DBSI in a
March 31, 2008 e m
- ail. Robert Roberts acknowledged that following the referral, Donnerstag
had no participation in the transaction. The Roberts submitted to DBSI the final purchase
agreement and tenancy in-
- common agreement for the property on April 14, at least two weeks
later. During these two weeks, the Roberts identified and settled on the DBSI North Stafford
investment without Donnerstag's knowledge, advice, or input. Accordingly, this time lapse
between Donnerstag's referral and the sale also fails to show that Donnerstag's conduct was a
substantial contributive factor in the Roberts' investment. See Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 132.
In sum, Donnerstag's mere referral of the Roberts to DBSI does not amount to a
substantial contributive factor in the Roberts' DBSI North Stafford investment; nor did it amount
to real promotional conduct. Because Donnerstag was not a substantial contributive factor in the
DBSI North Stafford sale, the trial court properly concluded that he was not a seller under the
Act. Consequently, CB Richard Ellis, Inc. necessarily did not control a seller under the Act, and
the Roberts' claim against CB Richard Ellis, Inc. also fails.
11
No.43018 5
- II
-
We affirm.
Johanson, J.
A.
C.
j ,
We concur:
J
Quinn-Brintnall, J.
12