Complaint Review: Diversified Financial Services Corp.

 You Mr. Washington do not speak the truth and I am not going back and forth with you, we will be going to court soon. When you do an inspection you do the whole house , not walk in the front door and and say that 's good I don't have to see the house and where's my money like your so call lender did and I do have witnesses. You are a con and your parthers in crime. Have a great day ! PS Buyers beware dont use this guy services you will lose your hard earn money with his buddy the so called hard lender.

 We are submitting this letter in response to the complaint posted by Juanita Russell. First and foremost, we at Diversified Financial Services Corporation serve the public with Integrity and Honor. We have a high tolerance for obtaining funding for difficult/non-traditional commercial loans, but an out-right lie we have zero tolerance. The prospective borrower professed that she was a real estate investor, and that she needed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to purchase a property located in Baltimore, Maryland, and an additional twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for repairs/renovations. I (Earle Washington) contacted a private lender and arranged a conference call with Juanita Russell and the private lender, at which time he (the lender) discussed the terms, conditions, and parameters of the loan, including a detailed explanation of all fees and the non-refundable upfront charges for an inspection of the property. During that conversation, Ms. Russell (borrower/client) agreed to pay the cost of the inspection in the amount of $425.00, and it was reaffirmed with her that this cost was an “out-of-pocket” expense that would be non-refundable. When meeting the lender at the property for the scheduled inspection, Juanita and her partner (Eddie) tried to convince the lender to roll the cost of the inspection fee into the loan. The lender’s reply was an adamant “No”. He explained again to the borrower/client and her partner that the fee is for the inspection, and that the payment was expected at the time the service is performed. However,, the borrower/client did not pay at the time of inspection, most likely in an attempt to get the lender to accept the course of action as preconceived by her and her partner. After being contacted by the lender for non-payment of the inspection fee, I contacted Juanita Russell to ascertain whether she was still interested in pursuing the loan, for which she confirmed she was. Juanita Russell gave me the funds of four hundred and twenty-five dollars ($425.00) in cash for the inspection, which I in turn forwarded to the lender’s attorney, and received a receipt for the fee. The loan for the acquisition and construction funds was approved with a scheduled date for closing (May 14, 2014). Juanita Russell's title company informed her of amount she needed for closing ($3,030.15). Once the borrower/client realized she did not have adequate funds to close, she contacted me (Earle Washington) suggesting that the lender change the terms by rol1ing all costs into the loan. I (Earle Washington) contacted the lender to explain her situation and respectively request the terms she proposed. He denied the request, with the explanation that the lender requires a financial investment on the borrower’s part (skin in the game). After Juanita Russell realized she could not circumvent the closing costs and did not have the required funds for the transaction, she withdrew the loan, decided not to close, and asked for a refund of the inspection fee. The lender reiterated to the borrower/client that as stated in their previous discussions, the inspection fee was non-refundable. We (Diversified Financial Services Corporation) never accepted nor requested any upfront fees on our behalf. Ms. Russell's only recourse was to make a false accusation about Diversified Financial Services Corporation/Earle Washington, hoping to force us to reimburse the $425.00 by damaging our reputation and creditability, which could have a negative impact on our capacity to conduct future business. She has falsified facts and failed to recognize her own shortcomings with her inability to successfully function as a real estate investor. Her specific claim that she paid for an inspection that never occurred is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, as both she and her partner, Eddie, were present at the time the lender inspected the property. Any prospective lender should thoroughly consider all business dealings with her, and ensure all aspects of any loan are fully documented. We have a copy of the Settlement Statement (HUD-1) as prepared by the closing agent/title company, and a copy of the receipt for the inspection to confirm the above described events. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Earle Washington at 240-882-2324.