Print the value of index0
Southport Asset Management William Utnehmer Sonoma Construction Loan Scams, Real Estate Development Reviews Sonoma California
William Utnehmer Sonoma Real Estate Developer, Luxury Investment Scam Artist & Lawyer all in one.
Real Estate Partner, Sonoma Home Builder, Lawyer, Zig Energy Owner, Lawyer, Watch Designer, Workout Specialist, Construction Loan Manipulator....Bill Utnehmer has mastered these roles through manipulative strategies and duplicitous tactics fairly successfully over the years, so the following public information has been provided for you to review and make your own decision on who is right and who ends up being wronged.
Why am I sharing this?
To provide the generaal public and potential victims with credible information so they may make an informed decision. I help people manage risk.
How am I involved?
Originally I was contracted by a financial entity involved in litigation involving questionable real estate developers and suspected fraudulent activity. William Utnehmer, his wife Marie Utnehmer, past partners and multiple shell companies related to him were found to be involved.
What is my agenda?
Provide insight to help people make informed decisions.
What makes me qualified in determining Bill Utnehmer has wronged anyone?
I am an independent investigative consultant that services Financial Institutions, Insurance Companies and Law Firms across the USA. I specialize in cases relaating to investment fraud, white collar crime and theft.
William Utnehmer's reputation immediately seems questionable within minutes of performing a simple online search, however I don't pretend to be foolish enough to believe everything i see and read. My intention is to provide some insight on what reputable legal service providers have written and evaluated regarding litigation cases involving Mr. Utnehmer. To date, William Utnehmer has allegedly been involved in various investment scams totalling roughly $20 Million, half of which has been absorbed by financial entites and the other half through various independent victims throughout So uthern California. Public records reveal Mr. Utnehmer and wife Marie Utnehmer have managed dumping most of these debts through bankruptcy, however at least one case remains open and still in litigation. Utnehmer has managed to sustain some relationships throughout the Sonoma CA area with various Investment Lenders and Real Estae Service providers, and is currently developing homes in Sonoma via funds outsourced from unknown sources. What his intentions moving forward are cannot be determined, however his past has consistently reflected a carefully developed strategy that seems to only benefit him.
Let's take a look at a review of a recent case involving Utnehmer
macfern.com/partnership-that-never-existed-cannot-create-nondischargeable-debt/
What are the consequences of an improperly formed partnership? The case of Utnehmer v. Crull (In re Utnehmer), 2013 WL 5573198 (B.A.P. 9th Cir October 10, 2013), recently decided by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the 9th Circuit here in California, may shed some light on this question.
The Facts
In 2005, real estate developer William Utnehmer, the debtor and defendant in this case, undertook to develop a luxury property in Venice, California. Mary and Patrick Crull, the judgment creditors and plaintiffs in this case, were offered an opportunity to participate in the project, which they accepted. Utnehmer sent the Crulls a packet of documents, which included a cover letter, a loan agreement for $100,000, a promissory note, and a private offering memo. The loan agreement provided that $50,000 of the initial $100,000 was intended to be superseded by execution of a formal operating agreement which would recharacterize the $50,000 of the Crull's interest as an investor's equity interest in a limited liability company to be formed, with an annual preferred return, and a percentage participation in profits on a prorated basis. At the time these documents were exchanged, the documents for formation of the limited liability company and the operating agreement were allegedly being drafted. The parties subsequently executed a promissory note, which was consistent with the loan agreement but made no reference to the expected recharacterization of the $50,000 as an equity interest.
In June 2008, the property sold for $3,725,000. Other project creditors were paid, but Utnehmer told the Crulls that he could not pay them, so they sued him in state court and obtained a default judgment for the balance due under the note. Utnehmer countered the default judgment by filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The petition named the Crulls as creditors and sought to discharge the debt, and the Crulls countered by filing an adversary complaint to determine whether the debt was dischargeable.
The Courts' Rulings
At trial, the bankruptcy court found that the loan agreement created a partnership between Utnehmer and the Crulls, and, therefore, the debt could not be discharged. In reaching its ruling, the bankruptcy court relied on the defalcation criteria set out by Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(4), and the standard established by Lewis v. Scott, 97 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 1996). Defalcation is the misappropriation or embezzlement of money or funds held by an official trustee or other fiduciary, and section 523(a)(4) provides that a person who files for chapter 7 bankruptcy cannot discharge debts owed, which occurred due to fraud while acting in a fiduciary duty. Under Lewis, defalcation "includes innocent, as well as intentional or negligent defaults so as to reach the conduct of all fiduciaries who were short in their accounts."
Utnehmer appealed the bankruptcy court's decision, and the appellate court reversed, finding that (1) the standard established by Lewis had been abrogated by the United States Supreme Court in Bullock v. Bank Champaign, N.A. 133 S. Ct. 1754 (2013) (a defendant must have knowledge of or gross recklessness in respect to the improper nature of the relevant fiduciary behavior for a finding of defalcation), and (2) the terms of the loan agreement did not support a finding of a partnership between the Crulls and Utnehmer. The court specifically held that "where the parties purport to establish a partnership to engage in business at a future time or upon the happening of a contingency, the partnership does not come into being until the time specified or until the contingency is removed." Because the loan agreement did not indicate any intent to form a partnership or LLC at the time it was executed, or at any point before the execution of the operating agreement or LLC formation, it was insufficient to establish a partnership between the parties. Without a partnership, Utnehmer did not owe the Crulls a fiduciary duty under section 523(a)(4).
Protect YourselfWilliam (Bill) Utnehmer, a non practicing attorney boasts a successful and long standing reputation as both attorney and real estate developer in Southern California. The truth is he has multiple victims that he has taken for over 1 Million $$ through various shady contracts, conveniently misguiding victims using his knowledge of contracts and laws. Bill Utnehmer currently has multiple counties in California with court filings including fraud, real estate foreclosure, and fraudulent lease agreements. Bill Utnehmer has a stealth and stylish floor plan of supposed friends, accomplishments and references, but not one-including his now bankrupt former partner would agree From former contractors, multiple individuals and banks in Southern California, Utnehmer has certainly proven one fact. He is a scammer. BEWARE of anything that he and his 10 + companies are boasting. Companies Include
MUT VENTURES
CW DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
CWDP
WOLFE COMMERCIAL
THREE NAVY PROPERTIES
CHANGE THE WORLD INC
SIG ENERGY
ZIG ENERGY
CW BUILDING DESIGN
SAN FRANCISCO LAND & CATTLE
W DEVELOPMENT Currently Bill Utnehmer has moved to Rustling Ridge Vineyard (Sonoma) that he supposedly owns, but this has not been verified. Bill Utnehmer is a one of a kind-and many hard working individuals have learned the hard way, what that kind is the hard way
Utnehmer Court 2016 Watch & Learn
#2Author of original report
Thu, January 28, 2016
Watch recording for case: Crull v. Utnehmer, No. 13-60113
An appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's opinion reversing the bankruptcy court's judgment that a debt was exempt from discharge as a debt for defalcation by a fiduciary.
Complaint comments:
February 28, 2013, uslawman
I will attest this guy is a scammer!! He HAD a few contacts at some local banks here, and stole from multiple investors, banks and even his own partner. Gary Williams was an honorable man & Utnehmber hammered him for over $200,000.00 Your a disgrace to Germans