Complaint Review: Financial Funding LLC

As stated by several posters, Financial Funding extracted so-called "due diligence" fees from one of my clients. This happened around a year ago - in May/June 2013. There was a similar pattern of engaging in deceptive and misleading practices designed to induce reliance on information which later proved to be without any merit whatsoever.

Financial Funding received a total of $12,500 from my client, for which $5,500 was for an inflated cost appraisal, and $7,000 for due diligence/underwriting fees. While these sorts of fees are a reality in the world of Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities (CMBS) financing, the application of those fees is a bit different. That is, when investment banks and other legitimate lenders collect something for due diligence, it is with the intention to fund the deal ... unless they uncover something highly irregular. Most of the underwiting is done well in advance of issuing a Term Sheet. In addition, investment banks and other legitimate lenders will readily provide information on funded transactions ... just for the asking. Not so with Financial Funding LLC (Now CRE Finance).

I have a paper trail, including email threads and certified correspondence to support these statements. All of this activity took place prior to the first posting here on the Ripoff Report. At that time I felt that we would be the only voices crying in the wilderness. There was a tremendous amount of documentation and loan support inforrmation  submitted; but in the final analysis the financing request was not funded.

Finally, based on responses to other "Ripoff Reports" about this same company, one can safely predict that they (FF LLC) will respond with a litany of reasons (excuses) for their lack of performance. But honestly, how many times can they come back with, "it's not us, it's them"? Perhaps something like this should be escalated to the Enforcement Division of the Financial Crimes Unit in the Justice Department.  A thorough investigation of their pattern and practices might put an end to it. Otherwise they'll continue doing this sort of thing with impunity.

 Rebuttal to Financial Funding Response #1) Let's be clear as to who the victim is here. They have to file a response because if they don't, they are admitting to my claim. Don't believe any of it. Let's focus on What happened with "Upfront Money Fraud" and stop the companies that illegally charge them and get away with it. Kennedy Funding was involved in illegal practices of charging upfront money without delivering funding of loans. Remington Financial (father and son scam) ended up having 8 people soon to be in prison in the sentencing hearing on March 25th in Philadelphia and now Financial Funding LLC (Father and Son) that will end up realizing scamming investors is criminal. How can you sleep at night? How?

#2) Financial Funding LLC soon to be CRE-Finance uses a "tease, bait and switch". Directly and through the Brokers community, Sponsors sign up and give up their requested information and based on that information, Financial Funding LLC soon to be CRE-Finance issue LOI. Within the LOI (non binding and drafted by high caliber attorneys)the language calls for 3rd party costs. Appraisals and credit reports are ordered using the Sponsor's money, however the real costs and actual invoices do not leave their offices. In my case The appraisals came in exactly at the projected values, however through their underwriters Terri Galligan and Robert Salmon, the values were cut. An excuse to deny the loan and in my case all 4 of them!. Counter offers are issued to lower the loan amounts requested, hoping that the Sponsor backs out. In my case I signed all of them to call their bluff. Multiple emails and conference calls and a trip to Eaton Town N J did not get me anything. No loan (s) and loss of $37,000 Wire transfer.

#3) Financial Funding LLC then hired a New York Attorney. Why not? It is cheaper to pay an attorney few hundred Dollars than to give back the $37,000 Just imagine that if they do 30 clients a month and pocket the difference between the actual cost and the total up front money paid of averaging $10,000 / client times 30 days = $300,000 / mo OR $3.6 Million a year. If they could even make loans which apparently there is no evidence that they do, can they make this kind of money in loan fees?

#4) Don't take my word for it. There are several reports not just from Sponsors but also appraisers that they did not get paid! What does that tell you? rip off the appraisers and lower the cost and higher the profit.

#5) I do have several legitimate companies and multi offices nationwide unlike Todd and Richard Tretsky (Father and Son) that have their two offices in N J and N Y and are NOT licensed to solicit other States sponsors. Guess what? They do solicit in all 50 States. Who do you think pays the rent for a NY office on Wall Street? Victim Sponsors do.

#6) Their attorney and I tried to settle. They offered $7,000.00 I did not respond. Then they lowered their offer to $3,000 and I rejected it. Why? Because exposing them to the future victims and soon to be Government agencies means a lot more to me. Signing a confidentiality and closing my mouth and look another way is not me.

If you are a victim of them, come forward, don't be scared. They can write whatever they want but the facts are that is more profitable to take upfront money, share it with an attorney and not pay the 3rd party or pay as little as you can. Rip Off report readers and future sponsors are intelligent.Questions to ask are: Have they made any loans? what type? to whom? Are they brokers or direct lenders? and Do they actually have "credit lines" ? Per a phone call with Richard Tretsky "they make short term 12% bridge loans with 2 points". Later by talking to legitimate lenders I found out that my properties (where they are located) were not qualified for CMBS loans as were promissed. WHY WASN'T I TOLD THAT BEFORE I WIRED $37,000 ?

In response to the complaint from J.W. in Torrance CA, which was written by Jessie Wright, of Torrance CA.

Mr. Jessie Wright did apply to us for a loan in May of 2013 for three properties, of which he then changed to request the addition of a fourth property for us to consider. Jessie Wright had applied for one loan to encompass all of the four properties, but then requested that we change them to individual applications instead, as he intended to sell two of the properties within the first 12 - 24 months. Jessie Wright was not sure if the four properties would qualify on their own; however he wanted them separate as each property was held by one of his different business entities.

We did issue the Letters of Intent to Jessie Wright which stated that “the letter was for discussion purposes only. It does not constitute an offer of commitment by Financial Funding LLC to lend any money or agree to the aforementioned terms or any other terms. Unless and until Financial Funding’s loan committee has approved the loan and a commitment letter is executed and delivered and has been accepted by the borrower in a timely manner, there is no legally binding obligation on the part of Financial Funding LLC. The application fee listed on the LOI is non-refundable”.

After the Letter of Intents were executed, and after our preliminary due diligence was completed, we issued Jessie Wright the four term sheets. The term sheet states “this term sheet is for discussion purposes only and is subject to Lender’s satisfactory completion of its due diligence, internal credit approvals and satisfactory legal review, all of which shall be at Lender’s sole and absolute discretion. Whether or not the transaction contemplated herein closes, borrower and sponsor shall be jointly and severally obligated to pay all Lender out of pocket fees, costs and expenses related to this transaction, including, without limitation, the fees and expenses of Lender’s outside counsel, title report fees and costs, survey costs, and costs incurred in obtaining and/or reviewing due diligence materials, including without limitations, appraisals, environmental and engineering reports and travel costs of Lender’s personnel or representatives. All reports shall be satisfactory to Financial Funding in all respects”. On the signature page of the term sheet, the last line before the signature specifically states, “This term sheet does not impose any obligation on the Lender to make the loan”.

The term sheet also included a list of pending conditions that are required by underwriting to complete the transactions. On none of Jessie Wright’s four files did he ever fully complete all of the conditions requested.

Upon receipt of each the appraisals, we notified Jessie Wright was notified that the values came in below the estimated valuation and due to this fact, the loan amount originally requested cannot be honored. All due diligence has ceased on the applications, as we needed Jessie Wright to provide a signed statement accepting a counter offer of a maximum loan amount on each property based upon the maximum loan to value as on the executed term sheet. Once the signed statement was received, the diligence will continue. It clearly states that accepting the counter offer is subject to Financial Funding’s satisfactory completion of the due diligence, internal credit approvals and satisfactory legal review. The counter offer does not impose any obligation on Financial Funding to make the loan.

Jessie Wright provided documentation that would not be able to be used by any lending institutions and while we tried to work with him, there were too many obstacles to overcome. Such as:
o His properties did not cash flow to a level where any of them would qualify.
o The documentation provided was not acceptable (white out, incorrect dates, incorrect company names and blank spaces on some of the entity documents; inconsistencies between rent rolls and actual leases; some of the leases had expired, some were not executed correctly, some had incorrect lessor names, etc.).
o Underwriting for any mortgage company, bank, or CMBS Lender, the occupancy and income qualification purposes, the Month to Month leases are not acceptable.
o Places like LoopNet and Costar asks for lease start dates and end dates. What is important is that Month to Month leases are not financeable, yet Jessie Wright’s Long Distance Management and Equity Management Partnerships does not seem to mind having month to month tenants.

On all four of his properties, we asked him to provide income and expense statements (a T12 and also a historical operating statement). When we compared the operating statement to the tax returns of Desoto Plaza, Jackson Square Promenade and McCall Village properties, we came to the conclusion that he was either lying to us or lying to the IRS. His income was overstated to us and understated to the IRS. His expenses were understated to us and overstated to the IRS. This is a big red flag that should be pointed out to the IRS at some point.

On the Jackson Square Promenade property located at 2460 Terry Road, Jackson MS, Jessie Wright provided us with financial statements that he completed over $1,800,000 of capital improvements; however when asked for canceled checks, bills and receipts to verify the capital improvements, he failed to be able to provide any legitimate documents. The appraisal that we had completed by a national firm (CBRE) does not evidence the claimed capital improvements.

On properties that Jessie Wright presented, he presented two sets of Income and Expense statements
o First he presented us with an Operating Statement and T12,
o Then he provided copies of the tax returns.
o On three out of four properties, the income and expense statements he provided to us never matched with his tax returns. The fourth property was acquired within 2013, therefore he was not able to provide tax returns.
o Once again, the IRS returns painted one picture and the income and expense statements painted another. Jessie Wright clearly tried to give us false and misleading statements, something that I feel is brought to the attention of the IRS and federal authorities.

In an attempt to ameliorate the problem with Jessie Wright,
o We provided him the appraisal copies of all four of his properties and
o We offered to provide an assignment letter to any bank and
o We offered him a partial refund, less our out of office expenses.
o Jessie Wright stated that the appraisals, all completed by nationally recognized appraisal firms, would not be useful to him at all, even with assignments. If this is the case, then why, on the May 29, 2013 listing, Jessie Wright posted on LoopNet for the Jackson Square Promenade property that it was “Just appraised at $5,550,000”. It appears as if the “non-useful appraisal” was useful and used by Jessie Wright. He has since removed the entire listing from LoopNet that was posted on May 29, 2013. We do have copies of this May 29, 2013 listing.
o We had our attorney deal with a mediator to try to settle with Jessie Wright. We could not settle with him.
o Jessie Wright became hostile towards our attorney to the point that our attorney said that he would not deal with Mr. Wright without bringing suit, as among many things, he called our attorney dishonest.

Jessie Wright currently has two properties listed for auction, as evidenced on LoopNet and Auction.com. One of the properties is Desoto Plaza Shopping Center, located at 1219-95 Main Street, Southaven MS and the other property is Jackson Square Promenade, located at 2460 Terry Road, Jackson MS.
o On the Jackson Square Promenade auction listing, Jessie Wright states that the property is 58% occupied. This includes the month to month tenants, as well as a management/leasing office, redevelopment office, a freight area and a tenant that does not have to pay rent. However, when you deduct the units that are month to month tenants or pays no rent, the occupancy number drops about 10%.
o Jessie Wright had stated to us that he has a list of possible tenants that want to move into the Jackson Square Promenade. If this is the case, then he would not have a reported “58% occupancy”.
o According to the statistics from Costar, (please see the attached) the probability of leasing 2460 Terry Road, Jackson MS above 80% is 9 months of marketing time. For 100% occupancy, it is 18 months of marketing time.

Jessie Wright has many different companies, such as CFC Properties, First Boise Investments LLC, McCall Village Investors Corp, McCall Village Investors Ltd, Desoto Plaza LLC, California Financial Corp, Enterglobe Enterprises LLC, Long Distance Management Property Management Consultants and Cristiano Solteros, Christian Singles, Christian Singles Seniors, Lutheran Singles, Episcopalian Singles, Southern Baptist Singles, and California Retail Properties.

All of the above companies seem to be run out of an Executive Suite that is a 600 sf office at 23133 Hawthorne Blvd, #110 in Torrance, CA.

It appears that Jessie Wright creates new companies and changes his company names on a regular basis.

When searching the web, there seems to be numerous complaints regarding the Christian Singles and the other “singles” companies that Jessie Wright owns that shows unhappy customers requesting financial reimbursements.

Jessie Wright presents himself as a guru that is trying to sell real estate management services.
His company, Long Distance Management claims that they can empower you to manage your shopping center, anywhere as an absentee owner for an average of $1.00 per square foot of gross leasing area of your center; and
His company, Equity Management Partnership will be your managing equity partner for your shopping center or mall. He will manage your center for you as an absentee manager until it reaches an acceptable value before it is sold.

As such an experienced absentee manager, it is strange that the portfolio for their company as listed on their website totals 5 properties, of which, 4 are currently owned by Jessie Wright and 1 property was previously owned by Jessie Wright. One would think that as he touts his proven management system, there would be more properties in the portfolio.

Prospective buyers of either Desoto Plaza Shopping Center or the Jackson Square Promenade, please beware of the above facts and make sure that you do your due diligence. As noted, you can see the discrepancies and the problems, including a lack of sufficient NOI on his properties, all of this information, if you enter into a contract, is a part of the due diligence of the contract. There are too many real estate get rich schemes out there and we would hope people have enough sense to not fall for them.