| Description: |
Norman B. Maas (WSBA No. 7380, admitted 1977), of Kenmore, has been disbarred by order of the Supreme Court effective January 3, 2002, following a hearing. The discipline is based upon his filing a frivolous claim, making false statements to a court, and obstructing another party’s access to evidence between 1982 and 1996.
Mr. Maas represented his friends Mr. and Mrs. R (the Rs) in several business transactions. In 1982, Mr. R was the principal owner of a new business in need of financing. After careful analysis of the business opportunity, Mr. H, a private investor, agreed to make a $25,000 unsecured investment in the company. When the company needed more money, Mr. H. agreed to make another investment, but only if it was secured by a deed of trust on the Rs’ personal residence.
In March and April 1983, Mr. H verified four pre-existing lien holders on the Rs’ residence. These lien holders included a savings and loan, Norman B. Maas ($12,000), a corporation wholly owned by Maas ($4,500), and the original seller of the Rs’ company. Mr. H verified the current balances and arranged for the company to assume Mr. R’s personal debts, to allow more security for his own loan. Mr. Maas prepared the documentation for this transaction.
Mr. H loaned the company an additional $32,000 and believed that his loan was secured in second position, just behind the savings and loan. After this transfer, neither Mr. R nor his company received any further billings from Mr. Maas. The last billing, dated May 1, 1983, indicated a total outstanding bill of $1,307.67. The promissory note to Mr. Maas had a notation "paid-in full" written on the note. A request for reconveyance was also found, but the date was blotted out. The Maas corporation debt also indicated it had been paid in full and had a request for reconveyance. The date on this document was also unreadable.
The reconveyance deed was never executed or recorded. The hearing officer concluded that no current balance was owed by the Rs to Mr. Maas at the time of the H loan. The hearing officer found that Mr. Maas participated with the clients in providing a facade of lien holders on the Rs’ property so that they could exempt their home from their bankruptcy petition. The liens also assisted the client in obtaining an advantageous settlement of Internal Revenue Service claims. Mr. Maas did not discuss his own deed of trust with Mr. H when he prepared the deeds for the company loan.
In April 1996, 17 years after the promissory note and deed of trust were executed, Mr. Maas commenced foreclosure proceedings against the Rs and Mr. H, among others. Mr. Maas asserted that he was owed almost $500,000 on the original $12,000 debt, based on 24 percent interest compounded monthly. During the lawsuit, Mr. Maas and the Rs cooperated with each other. Mr. Maas indicated that he did not maintain payment records, even though he had previously been in banking.
The hearing officer found that, in fact, at the time the foreclosure action was filed, the Rs owed no debt to Mr. Maas. During his deposition in the civil suit, Mr. Maas testified that he had a "gentleman’s agreement" with his clients to put them back into a house of their choice after the foreclosure. The hearing officer also found that Mr. Maas blacked out the words "paid in full" on the promissory notes prior to producing them in the civil litigation.
Mr. Maas’s conduct violated RPC 3.1, prohibiting lawyers from filing frivolous claims; RPC 8.4(c), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; RPC 3.3, prohibiting lawyers from knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; RPC 3.4, prohibiting lawyers from unlawfully obstructing another party’s access to evidence; and RLD 1.1(p), prohibiting lawyers from engaging in conduct demonstrating unfitness to practice law.
Anne I. Seidel represented the Bar Association. Kurt M. Bulmer represented Mr. Maas. The hearing officer was David R. Tuell.
|