LN
Ruffec,#2Author of original report
Fri, December 14, 2012
I forgot to also mention I am not a man but a female senior citizen and I have nothing to hide, I am not that one who ripped off homeowners
LN
Ruffec,#3Author of original report
Fri, December 14, 2012
I totally disagree with your rebuttal. I can produce emails sent between us when you kept making excuses for not paying me, phone calls went straight to answer phone. Why did you not pay your homeowners if you are as innocent as you say. A lot of your homeowners went over to Contempo and we all had the same experience. I could not come to your offices as I live in France and could not afford to pay for an airfare on the hope that you would pay me if I came to your offices. You left me with high utility bills, and no payments as well as no refund of deposit.
randy
Florida,#4REBUTTAL Individual responds
Fri, December 14, 2012
Making up stories and not putting your name to accusations is all this person has done. His story of chasing us for his money is hillarious. The office was open Monday thru Friday 8 to 5 everyday and Saturdays till noon. I and Amy were there everyday as was all the other employees. After June I was not the CEO as he stated and from September I was no longer part of any ownership or employeed at the company.
AS part of the divorce from Elaine I transferred all ownership to her in September and she later closed the company, liquidated it as well as three other companies I transferred ownership of to her. She had control of all monies and what she did with it I have no idea. I do know she was continuing to cash checks on the company account as late as November 2011. When I left the Company there was money in the bank accounts, tens of thousands of dollars of receivables, and over 100,000 of hard assets.
Subsequent to her clsoing and liquidating the company she and her attorneys also accused me of taking money but after investigations there was no proof of that. I have been cleared by attorneys, Judges, and also creditor investigations.
So before a non-named accuser is believed a person should investigate the facts.