Real estate agent who cut King County trees boasts of views in listing

The high-end real estate agent who cut more than 140 trees in a King County park last year has now cranked up the asking price of his home by $1.5 million, citing the once-in-a-lifetime mountain views it offers, court documents show.

Publicly and in court filings, the agent, Vlad Popach, has said he needed to remove dozens of decades-old trees for the safety of his home and family. But privately he's looking to cash in on the views created by chopping the trees out of King County's Grand Ridge Park, county attorneys argue.

There's really no doubt that Popach, who lives with his family in Issaquah's private Highlands neighborhood, hired a mystery company to chop, limb and top the 142 publicly owned trees. He's admitted as much to The Seattle Times, other news outlets and in court filings. County officials last year estimated the cuttings caused millions in damage.

The question now emerging is why.

County attorneys sued Popach in civil court in June, seeking damages, and they expressed concern last month that he might try to avoid payment if he loses.

Meanwhile, Popach is hoping to settle rather than argue in open court. And he continues to drag his feet with the legal proceedings, county attorneys argue.

State prosecutors are still investigating and debating whether to press criminal charges.

Popach continues to argue in court that nearby trees still endanger the house and his small children. The property - one of the top features on his website - is listed with a sale pending.

Emergency or vanity?

The mass cutting first came to light after a trail camera set up by a neighbor down the slope from the Highlands captured footage of a large log barreling down the hillside like a missile.

That homeowner tracked the path of destruction up the steep slope and toward an expensive development off Issaquah's Grand Ridge Drive. There, he found dozens of trees slashed and sawed. Turns out, the trees all sit within the county's Grand Ridge Park. In all, 72 were stripped of their limbs, 45 were cut down, 18 were topped and seven more were otherwise damaged.

The damage cleared out a view between three mansions on the hill and the mountains to the south. The gap can be seen from Interstate 90.

Neighbors down the hill contacted King County officials, who began to investigate and initially estimated the damage at around $2.3 million.

Popach has acknowledged that he knew the crews he hired - who he has repeatedly refused to name in court and to The Times - would be cutting on King County land. But he defended the work, arguing the trees posed a threat to his home and that an automated message from a county phone line granted him "verbal permission."

King County attorneys disagreed. They argue Popach cut the trees to improve the view at his home. They filed a civil suit to that effect last summer, naming Popach, his wife and two other neighbors who also work in the real estate business as defendants.

Earlier this year another real estate agent came forward and his testimony seems to corroborate some of the county's arguments.

In late 2023, and before construction on the house was finished, Popach told another real estate agent that he would accept $5 million for the property in an off-market sale, King County attorneys argue in their court filings. But late last year, after the tree cuttings, Popach increased the price substantially.

In photos texted to that same real estate agent, who could not be reached for comment, Popach showed off the mountain views at his house.

County attorneys filed screenshots of the August conversation with the court. In them, Popach texted that his is the best house in the neighborhood and "certainly the only one with great light exposure and views. All else are dark and gloomy."

That, plus all the other upgrades he had made to the home were worth more, Popach texted.

Now he wanted $6.5 million. Since he wasn't actively looking to sell, Popach texted that he felt comfortable setting his own price.

"I'm not interested in negotiations," he texted. "I understand if this price doesn't work for your clients."

It didn't and the conversations fell through, the court documents show.

Popach did not respond to a request for comment.

Up for sale

If Popach wasn't actively trying to sell his home last year, he was this spring. As of mid-April it was listed as a featured property on his website with a sale "pending."

But again, the question is why.

Popach claims, in court documents, that it's because his family is growing and they need more space than this 4,500-square-foot home has to offer. But county attorneys think otherwise.

"It defies belief that one who holds himself out to be a ‘specialist in luxury residential real estate' did not have the foresight to consider whether the home he procured and built was suitable for children before moving into it," county attorneys wrote this month.

Indeed, the family has three children and the home has four bedrooms (and four bathrooms), they note. And Popach only sought to sell the place after the civil suit began.

County attorneys argue "after enjoying one summer with their newly cleared views," Popach intends to "flip" the home, having listed the property publicly in March, "a time of year commonly considered ideal for listings and sales."

Throughout much of the rest of the lawsuit, county attorneys have struggled to get much more information out of Popach. They note in filings that he has not replied to their requests for discovery and sometimes invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate.

Still, Popach holds to his belief that the trees in question posed a hazard, should they have fallen. He even hired an expert, a consulting arborist named Favero Greenforest, to file a report on his behalf. But even then, there seems to be some contradiction.

In March and April court filings, Popach said that trees continue to fall from the King County park onto his property, "endangering" the house and his small children. He hasn't felt comfortable further cutting these trees since the lawsuit began, he argues, nor does he feel the county is up to the work.

"Remarkably, this concern about the danger of hazardous trees falling on his residence is wholly absent from the Zillow listing, choosing to highlight the scenic ‘vistas' offered by the property instead," county attorneys noted in April.

Greenforest, who sometimes testifies in cases like this but declined to comment for the story when reached by phone, wrote a report in late March. He noted that some of the trees, which weren't cut down entirely, are now likely to die in the coming decades. But, Greenforest wrote, "there are no recreational trails or other high value targets within striking distance of these trees and I see no reason to remove them."

Greenforest's report offered his own estimate for the damage caused by Popach's cuttings. Cleanup, reseeding grasses and replacement trees would be worth $19,699.24, he figured.

That's 1/117th the early estimated cost county officials figured when the damage was reported last year. County attorneys noted the cost of those tree replacements would be for saplings, as opposed to "fully grown, mature trees," which are what Popach had cut.

The dollar amount matters. State law allows for damages to be tripled in cases like this, which could bring the total to nearly $7 million if the county's assessment is correct and Popach loses at trial. Or the figure could be closer to $60,000 if Greenforest is correct. Not to mention, additional costs for restoration, emotional damage, arborist fees and court costs could also be tripled.

A similar case settled in 2017 when West Seattle homeowners agreed to pay $440,000 after destroying more than 150 trees there. City attorneys also offered one family immunity from criminal charges in exchange for naming the other property owners involved.

A judgment in the county's favor would be one thing. Actually collecting the money would be another.

King County attorneys in April expressed concern that Popach might sell his house and transfer the money somewhere outside of the judge's jurisdiction. They asked the judge for what's called a "writ of attachment," which would effectively set any money from the sale aside in a type of trust where it would remain until the case finished.

Popach argued back that he has neither the intention to flee nor to hide money from the sale of his house. He and his family have set down roots in King County and do not plan to leave, he said.

Ultimately the judge sided with Popach and denied the county's motion on April 15.

Under investigation

While the number of trees cut by Popach's mystery crew might seem relatively small, they're public property, meaning they belong to the people of King County. The loss of these decades-old trees also comes at a time when scientists and conservationists warn that the world will need to safeguard its forests, particularly old growth, as a way to capture and store the ever-increasing greenhouse gasses churned out by human development.

A civil trial against Popach, his wife and neighbors is scheduled to begin in January. But at the same time, prosecutors are still considering whether to press possible criminal charges.

Initially detectives with the King County sheriff's office were investigating the case but in February spokesperson Brandyn Hull confirmed they had passed their files to state prosecutors.

A spokesperson for Washington Attorney General Nick Brown confirmed the office is still investigating a criminal case but declined to comment further.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published April 22, 2026 at 6:44 AM.