An excerpt from Judge Freeman’s decision (full transcript of hearing below):
“I will be doing a one page order that will allow the clerk to do what it needs to do … to put something up on the website as far as making it easier for homeowners to be able to print out the required form and submit it, to essentially ensure that it is the individual that is seeking it. That will be my decision. Still working out the details with … the Clerk’s office.”
To reclaim fees collected and held by the court from previously sold properties, please contact the Whatcom County Court Clerk/Registry directly:
Court Clerk: Raylene King
Chief Deputy Clerk: Sandra Kiele360-778-5560
SKiele@co.whatcom.wa.us
Judge David Freeman’s Judicial Assistant:
Terri Neil
360-778-5788
TNeil@co.whatcom.wa.us
scdept4@whatcomcounty.us
Superior Court Accounting Technician:
Shea Rhodefer
360-778-5575
SC_LFOClerk@co.whatcom.wa.us
The full transcription:
On April 21, 2025 Mr. Andersson inquired about the Judge’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Release Funds from Court Registry, filed on February 14, 2025. Below is what the Judge decided (as recorded on machine transcription):
Mr. Andersson:
“Your Honor, we had a motion here about a month ago. If you made any progress on that?”
Judge David Freeman’s Decision:
“Yeah, I’m denying the motion. I’m working with the clerk’s office. I have discussed we have overlapping vacations for about 3 weeks. I will be doing a one page order that will allow the clerk to do what it needs to do and I am encouraging, although I have no control over the clerk’s office, to put something up on the website as far as making it easier for homeowners to be able to print out the required form and submit it, to essentially ensure that it is the individual that is seeking it. That will be my decision. Still working out the details with Miss Keeley in the Clerk’s office.”
Additionally, on April 21, 2025 there was a hearing before Judge David Freeman on Plaintiffs’ Petition for Further Relief for Orders Striking Void Amendments. Judge David Freeman’s Decision as recorded on machine transcription:
“I reviewed the materials ahead of time, the original petition, the response by all three parties and the reply. This is the same issue that was before me in September. As far as the separate order, other than there were multiple separate orders, I declined to order separate orders back in September when they were presented. This is a motion to reconsider that and I’m denying it.
I am considering an order nunc pro tunc [Latin term meaning “now for then” to correct the earlier ruling] that would include the assessor numbers on the caption in case it needs to be filed as a clerical error on the court’s part. Again, that Division Three case might have limited purpose as well and was not available back in September. But certainly, the courts announced intent was that those 6th and 7th Amendment was void ab initio [Latin term meaning from the beginning] and it may have been a clerical error for the court not to include the recording numbers in the caption for that purpose based on what I’ve reviewed.”