Twenty Four Seven Funding review: commercial lending 2

In response to the above: mr. chauvin you simply are misrepresenting the facts. you did not have the financiaql wherewithal to do the loan./ basically you did not have the money to make the purchase: *at this pont this is libel and slander*

You simply misrepresented as folows {the issue is threefold: 1) you never had enough equity /cash to make the acquisition versus the ltv in to the financial wherewithal caveat, {there is no matrix that includes 100% financing in this industry} and this is a material misrepresentation as outlined in our signed fee agreement., 2 the ability to cover the debt service as it relates to the new loan request, and 3, the project is not feasible as there is no way to secure a 1st security interest when there is no equity or cash to cover the ltv offset. these factors caused our company to loose a $78, 000 closing fee that we are do as per the transaction.}

Nobody gives 100% financing. you simply misrepresented{ see below} and since that time of this libel/slander posting;

you attempted ot apologize and seek our help further { see below you begging us to help youafter you wrotwe/posted this.
Art chauvin
To:
1twentyfoursevensubmissions@gmail.com
Date:
May 8, 2019, 2:16 pm
Subject:
Kelly,
The deal structure has changed. seeing if you want to take a shot at it and make it right?
Art c. chauvin
123 ouiski bayou drive
Houma, la 70360
Artcchauvin@aol.com
[protected]
[protected] (fax)

We have outlined below the entire scenario with your emails and our direct legal response to you. { see below}* in addition attached our references *

Twentyfour seven funding investment bankers to the commercial mortgage industry1330 avenue of the americas, new york, ny 1001 phone [protected] email: 1twentyfoursevensubmissions@gmail.com corporate finance

april 1, 2019mr. art c. chauvinownerwoa creations, llc123 ouiski bayou drivehouma, louisinana 70360

Re: $4, 000, 000 acquisition of owner occupied commercial strip mallproperty at 500 corporate drive unit in strip mall located inhouma, louisiana (the “collateral property”).

Dear mr. chauvin:

I am writing to you in response to your request for a refund of the retainer paid to our firm in connection with the acquisition of owner occupied commercial strip mall property at 500 corporate drive unit in strip mall located in houma, louisiana, unfortunately, we cannot comply. we are aware of your threat from you as follows:

On mon, mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 pm art chauvin wrote:youare wrong kelly, it is unfortunate that you are taking this stance. I am affiliated with a company in los angeles that does internet marketing and social media marketing and when someone searches you and your company it will not fair well. and, I personally will contact the companies that you introduced me to and let them know that you are a scam and that they need to distance themselves from you. ipromise that this $3500.00 dollars that you scammed out of me willcost you a lot more than me. artc. chauvin
123 ouiski bayou drive
Houma, la70360
Artcchauvin@aol.com
[protected]

The issue is threefold: 1) you never had enough equity /cash to make the acquisition versus the ltv in to the financial wherewithal caveat, {there is no matrix that includes 100% financing in this industry} and this is a material misrepresentation as outlined in our signed fee agreement., 2 the ability to cover the debt service as it relates to the new loan request, and 3, the project is not feasible as there is no way to secure a 1st security interest when there is no equity or cash to cover the ltv offset. these factors caused our company to loose a $78, 000 closing fee that we are do as per the transaction.

The response is as follows: we received a request for funding circa november 2018 from art c. chauvin (borrower) for acquisition of owner occupied commercial strip mall property at 500 corporate drive unit in strip mall located in houma, louisiana to our firm for review on 02-05-2019 and after numerous requests/conversations with the borrower to seek a funding source we issued our formal documents on 02-11-2019 for the acquisition of owner occupied commercial strip mall property at 500 corporate drive unit in strip mall located in houma, louisiana. our firm received the signed fee agreement on 02-12-2019 that accompanied the formal documents outlining the transaction. we then were retained by the borrower on 02-19-2019 at 4:50 pm est. to arrange for the refinance commercial loan acquisition of owner occupied commercial strip mall property at 500 corporate drive unit in strip mall located in houma, louisiana based on the information that was submitted and by your company/borrower.
After we were retained, we requested a list of items/ on 02-20-19 that the funder would need for the initial due diligence as outlined in our 02-05-2019 terms and conditions letter.
from02-20-02 to [protected] we received the preliminary due diligence items via email and waited for the full items to arrive from the borrower fro the underwriting to begin and our retainer was applied directly to underwriting the transaction as outlined in our 02-11-2019 formal documents and signed by the borrower. (see section expenses) expenses: the borrower(s) agrees to pay all costs associated with the loan including but not limited to, underwriting fees, attorney's fees, lien searches, filing fees, insurance premiums, appraisal reports, environmental reports and engineering reports whether closing occurs. underwriting fees will be considered earned when received and are for work performed by 24/7 related to property, borrower and market due diligence. (underwriting fee - $3, 500). we then began to package the deal for the bdo at boulder equities. once received the file was submitted to our funder boulder equities it was then noted that the borrower did not have the financial wherewithal caveat and feasibility caveat outlined in our formal documents. as the amount of the stabilization and down payment versus the purchase price are not enough to acquire the subject property as the funder will lend off the lesser of the purchase price or appraisal as per industry standard. the sales price is $3.9 and borrower wants $4.2 well over 100% financing? there is not enough income to add back to the purchase price to sustain the new loan amount. this term sheet contains only an understating between the lender and supersedes any prior understanding and agreements between them respecting the subject matter hereof. the funder will need to be satisfied that the borrower can cover the monthly payments on this loan, that the project is feasible and that there is a reasonable exit strategy to take them out of this commercial loan. they will also need to be satisfied with the borrowing entities financial wherewithal. if needed, your client maybe able to place a portion of the initial loan amount into an interest reserve account to cover the monthly debt service until the commercial loan is replaced or the property /entity is cash flowing. we stand by our signed formal documents.
The borrower not having the total down payment is on the borrower's side and is a materiel misrepresentation of the transaction as outlined in our signed formal documentations. thus, making the retainer non refundable our formal documents read: this retainer is refundable in the event that our funding source fails to provide a formal proposal to borrower in accordance with the terms outlined in our accompanying letter, provided that there have been no material misrepresentations or omissions made by borrower. misrepresentations or omissions made by borrower.in addition the retainer was applied to our underwriting fee's as outline abov evia our signed formal documents.
We represent the money not the transaction. west and by our formal documents. the bdo found during underwriting the following:
Om:dan page to:kelly fontaine
Date:feb 24, 2019, 9:03 amsubject:re: woa creations llc acquisition of a commercial strip mall in houma, louisiana (outlined rent roll) mailed-by:boulderequitypartners.com

Hi kelly, i’ve been working on this all weekend and am not coming up with the answers that any of us would like. please see my thoughts below. property is not stabilized and not enough income to add back to the purchase price for stabilization. minimum 70% occupancy required. client says property will appraise north of $4mm. problem is, the property value will be based upon the purchase price, $3.5mm or the appraisal, whichever is less…so $3.5mm. client is stating ltv is 72% but his figures are assuming the presumed purchase price, and it does not work that way. per my note above, value is dependent upon the appraised value or purchase price, whichever is less. pp = $3.5mm so with a proposed loan at $3.1mm, the ltv is 86%, which does not happen. max I can go (or any lender) is 75% ltv. with the current occupancy, 75% ltv is not achievable. I need at least a 1.2% dscr. I ran the numbers and for my lowest rate program, I have to get the ltv all the way down to 65% (loan amount of $2, 275, 000) before I get to 1.2 or greater dscr. I might be able to do a little better with my stated income program, but then again we have the occupancy issue, where the minimum is 70%. max amortization will be 30 years. one of my investors is a large bank in louisiana and they would likely be interested in this if I cannot fund in-house, but their max amortization will be 20 years, and the numbers simply will not pencil. recommendation: the only way I see this happening is for the buyer to come up with a cash heavy partner that can bring in a lot of equity so we can get the ltv down and the numbers work. then the seller can work hard to get the occupancy and income up, and we refinance once he does so. as it stands now, it is simply not fundable. or perhaps the seller and buyer form some type of partnership and they refinance the property with a short term bridge loan, get the occupancy up and then the buyer (your client) buys out the partner in a refinance once the numbers work. I know these are not the answers either of us are hoping for, but they are the realistic ones. looking forward to your thoughts. best, dan page boulder equity partners

Our funder still attempted tot move the file forward by the following as per the conversation between the bdo and borrower. as follows:om:dan page to:kelly fontaine

Date:feb 25, 2019, 10:20 amsubject:re: woa creations llc acquisition of a commercial strip mall in houma, louisiana (outlined rent roll)

Hi kelly, I just wanted to follow up on this email that I have the potential to do a one-year interest only bridge for this client, allowing him to get the property leased up so he can qualify for a long term loan. that stated… my comments below in regard to ltv and down payment still stand. if the client can bring in a money partner to help him purchase the property, we can make it work. or possibly if he does some type of deal with the owner as a refi, I might be able to make that work.
Happy to get creative if they desire.
After trying to move the file forward the borrower declined the option and still was asked about the down payment as per an equity partner /more cash in relation to the ltv..
The borrower went back to the seller and revised the transaction after the underwriting was completed and a resolution was issued.
We then explained the ability to cover the debt on the new loan to the borrower as follows:om:kelly fontaine to:art chauvin
Cc:kelly fontaine
Bcc:kelly fontaine
Date:feb 25, 2019, 1:34 pm

Art, it is the occupancy issue as it relates to the debt service coverage ratio dscr - this is in direct relation to the stabilization / financial wherewithal and caveats outlined.
We further summarized the dscr in relation to financial wherewithal: yes we keep coming back to stabilization and occupancy because nobody lends money to any entity who cannot show the ability to pay it back"now"not the future. nobody lends off the future as the future may never happen. occupancy will equal or show the income ability as that is how it works in funding. you have to show that the debt service can be met "now" not later. you cannot do that by future calculations or hopes that the occupancy will be there... of adding money in. unfortunately it does not work like that as industry standards are it is either the appraised value or purchase price with the ability to show the income is there now not the future. there is simply no guarantee on the future. no bank / funder does that. if that were the case there would be 100% ltv and that is not smart because, what if the occupancy never happens then the income will not happen. this is why dan suggested a bridge loan etc.. there is a matrix for each type of commercial transactions as per ltv, occupancy & stabilization, region & demographics, rural vs suburban vs metropolitan. when any of these factors change or do not align to the funders matrix in funding then the matrix tier goes down and this effects the rate, term and ltv on the loan. there are now 3 buildings as initially there was only 1."the strip mall".. and now there is a office building and storage unit. each of these structures have a different funding matirix and underwriting criteria that equal the whole transaction. the current occupancy is fine for the current owner and ability to cover the debt service.. not the future acquisition by your entity. now if the property was a refinance then yes the current occupancy would suffice because, of the income is current in relation to the current owners mortgage. the refinance matrix is totally different from an acquisition matrix.
We hear your response as per operating capital figured in.. unfortunately it does not work that way. funders lend off the appraisal or purchase price whichever is lower. no bank or hedge fund will give 100% funding. 80% is the max ltv.80+20 equals 100 and that is how the funding works in the industry. the funders portfolio will never assume all the risk. there is no 100% funding. funders want the borrower to have some 'skin' in the game. as per risk loss ratio. therefore, you would have to come up with 25% of the purchase price. our formal documents read..."the funder will need to be satisfied that the borrower can cover the monthly payments on this loan, that the project is feasible and that there is a reasonable exit strategy to take them out of this asset bridge loan. they will also need to be satisfied with the borrowing entities financial wherewithal
Initially the occupancy and cash flow works for the current loan/owner's mortgage on the subject property but, due to the fact, the occupancy is not there the income cannot be based on future stabilization. expenses of future calculations on equity are not how a file is underwritten by any bank. that is the purpose of the appraisal to show value. the appraisal must come in at $4.2mm by a third party - arms length transaction. the purchase price is $3.9mm. you still need to have 'skin in the game' 25% on a 75% ltv. no party/entity cannot get around that in funding. it has to do with risk vs loss ratio.
The matrix changes to a lower tier as the occupancy is lower: therefore the income is lower in relation to the new requested loan amount. the income has to be there as it reflects to income to cover the debt service.. the current income and future income are not the same matrixes.
The income has to be shown there now in order to show the ability to cover the debt service. and as it stands now the current occupancy does not support the loan amount. requested.
The subject property must meet the caveats: the funder will need to be satisfied that the borrower can cover the monthly payments on this loan, that the project is feasible and that there is a reasonable exit strategy to take them out of this asset bridge loan. they will also need to be satisfied with the borrowing entities financial wherewithal.
The ajtm loi is also underwritten the same way and the appraisal would have to come in at $4.2mm and you still have tot have some 'skin in the game' as it was a 70% ltv. respectfully that is why the option of a equity partner or partnership with the current owner was suggested because, you mus have some skin in the game. ajtm is asking for you to put in more money as dan of boulder equities suggested 2 days ago.
We have already packaged and re-packaged for other portfolios, as well as, sent 2 loi's to you as per preliminary due diligence as each funder likes to have a file packaged a certain way.
We are now awaiting the other bdo's review of the file and terms to be issued from those sources also.

In the interest of our $78, 000 closing fee; we then attempted to still move the file forward to a closing although the client misrepresented the financial wherewithal and feasibility caveats. the borrower thereafter restructured the deal a second time with seller: as follows:kelly,

I spoke with the sellers agent and discussed possible changes to the deal to try and get it done. would you be able to get funding for the following: selling price. 4.3
My 400k cash given to seller.
Seller financing of 500k.
This brings the loan amount down to 3.7 instead of 4.2. can you get this to work? art c. chauvin

We moved the file to 2 alternative funders as follows:

Both the original portfolio and the new portfolio reviewed the file as follows and the second funder gave 2 options as the first gave 2 options and they were declined by the borrower. therefore there were a total of 4 alternative options at this point that we worked for to get to earn our $78, 000 cloing fee.

Om:kelly fontaine to:art chauvin
Cc:kelly fontaine
Date:mar 4, 2019, 9:09 am

Art,
We are waiting on dan to see if the response/review would work.. so far ajtm has responded and we will update you as per boulder equities review of your restructure.

Ajtm have responded: as follows as per your request to change the purchase price and a seller second scenario you gave as follows:kelly, I spoke with the sellers agent and discussed possible changes to the deal to try and get it done. would you be able to get funding for the following:selling price. 4.3
My 400k cash given to seller.
Seller financing of 500k.
This brings the loan amount down to 3.7 instead of 4.2. can you get this to work?
Response: loi was issued.
— forwarded message —
From: anthony tomasi
Date: sat, mar 2, 2019 at 9:31 am
Subject: re: *2/2* response and update: 03-01-2019*: woa creations, llc - please advise asap
To: kelly fontaine

The borrower needs to have at least 10% down, $430, 000. as long as the borrower has 10% down we have no issues and we can fund. two options for them. we do not source funds for down payment. 1. instead of seller second on paper as part of our underwriting, as long as seller can show the funds to close in their bank account before closing we are fine.2. if option 1. won’t work then we will need to see the loan terms of the second mortgage. as long as the borrower has 10% down we have no issues and we can fund. from:kelly fontaine to:art chauvin
Cc:kelly fontaine
Date:mar 4, 2019, 10:49 am yes, that is correct. they said" the borrower needs to have at least 10% down, $430, 000. as long as the borrower has 10% down we have no issues and we can fund. "
On mon, mar 4, 2019 at 11:43 am art chauvin wrote:
Kelly, if I am reading this right, ajtm will fund the 4.2 if I show proof of the cash down payment of 430, 000. correct? art c. chauvin
123 ouiski bayou drive
Houma, la 70360
Artcchauvin@aol. comrom:anthony tomasi to:kelly fontaine
Date:mar 4, 2019, 11:44 amsubject:re: fwd *response : 03-04-2019*response to your restructure of the deal with seller 2nd*: woa creations, llc-we will fund 70% of the sales price, $3, 010, 000.10% borrower down payment and if the seller is going to hold a second that will be fine.

The second funder issued an loi to fund and the borrower reviewed it and rejected it. we then moved the file to another option in the interest of earning our closing fee.. again we represent the money not the transaction.

We then arranged a funding preliminary due diligence call as per third thefunders uw and the client agreed to speak with quaker state commercial funding with len keating the senior bdo at quaker state commercial funding and they issued a loi to fund. the borrower rejected this 3rd offer and changed the transaction again. rom:art chauvin to:1twentyfoursevensubmissions@gmail.com
Date:mar 6, 2019, 1:48 pmsubject:re: cc 447* response 03-06-2019 (the ability to cover the debt on the loan amount requested) current annual income as shown is 382, 836.00 which is 31, 903.00 per month. if we do a loan based on the retainer agreement of 4.0 mil on a 30 year amortization at 5.99 percent interest, the monthly payment is $23, 956.00 per month. this is 7, 947.00 less than the current monthly income. kelly, can we get a lender to fund based on the retainer agreement? I will find another avenue for operating capital. kelly fontaine to:art chauvin
Cc:kelly fontaine
Date:mar 6, 2019, 12:46 pmmy fontaine has spoken with you as per the updates yesterday and today.

We request all questions and responses to be in writing as this is best for all parties records in this transaction.
We have worked very hard on this file and continue to do so as the deal stands the best loi's have been issued based on the ability to service the debt.
can you prove the show the current income is there?
As per the information provided only shows the current owner has the ability to cover on the" current mortgage"not the future loan requested. (not future income)...
The borrower then did not understand debt service and the relation to stabilization a third time as follows:
You understanding of underwriting is wrong and as the borrower or seller the ability to underwrite a file is always on the funding side. you are not able to show the ability to cover the debt service on the loan you are requesting and again.. you cannot forecast or use future income that is not existing. funding does not work that way in a matrix. that ts industry standard and final.
The ability to cover the debt service must be shown or this file (this is the ability is now not future) it does not work on future income and this is our final response on this issue.. as outline in the caveats in our formal documents that correlate with our signed fee agreement.
The funder will need to be satisfied that the borrower can cover the monthly payments on this loan, that the project is feasible and that there is a reasonable exit strategy to take them out of this bridge loan. they will also need to be satisfied with the borrowing entities financial wherewithal. you have to come up with more more or the seller has to hold a larger note for the shortfall.
Our funders bdo are at the point where they are getting frustrated as the question has been answered and re answered and they are still trying to help. thus the ajtm offer.
please you must review all of our responses as we have outlined the responses and reasons and the ability to cover the debt service is the issue.. there is no current income able to prove that the loan amounts debt service can be covered. not future income - current income! you either have to get an equity partner /come up with more down payment or the seller has to hold a larger note. that is the solution. funders lend only to what you have the ability to pay back. you must show it now there must be income now.
We request all questions and responses to be in writing as this is best for all parties records in this transaction at this point.
Ajtm called and emailed they are ready to move forward. you must come up with more down payment or get the seller to hold a larger note. this is based on the ability to cover the debt service.

When we get an update from the other 2 bdo;s we will respond and we can only respond if they give an update... you are not understanding as per debt coverage on you loan request is different from the debt service on the current mortgage... the terms of the formal documents had to change based on the income as it reflects the ability to cover the debt service. the current income you are using only applies to the current mortgage. you cannot use that.. that is not how to underwrite.
We represent the money not the transaction that is between borrower and seller. the rate, term and amortization changes when the ability to cover the future loan debt is not shown. you simply have to show the income is there now.. to qualify for the loan amount requested.in fact ajtm noted the seller does not even have to hold a seller second if they can show prior to closing that the money is their in the sellers bank account. they will close the loan based on verification of the sellers funds and your 10% deposit of $430, 000.
Debt service on the requested loan amount is higher than the current owners mortgage. the monthly income you are calculating is based on the current income and again the final time.. you cannot use that income as per your loan request.. they are 2 separate matrixes.. dan explained this to you as we just received his update and he is getting very frustrated with the file as we have noted the debt service is the issue on the future requested loan amount. he offered a bridge and noted for the records that option was rejected a bridge loan for 1 year until the subject property is stabilized. and then refinance to a conventional loan
You cannot use the current annual income on your loan as at is not the same as the requested loan amount.. we have already noted that the income on the future requested loan is simply not there. ajtm noted the seller does not even have to hold a seller second if they can show prior to closing that the money is their in the sellers bank account. they will close the loan based on verification of the sellers funds and your 10% deposit of $430, 000.
Dan has offered a bridge loan... we are now awaiting quaker state to respond and we have one last option that is also reviewing.
We are awaiting both their reviews. ajtm is actually doing more than the matrix allows and is the best offer with the seller verification.
We will update as we get.
we updated the file as follows:and we asked repeatedly about the knowledge of the additional funds prior to the borrower moving forward. om:kelly fontaine to:art chauvin
Bcc:kelly fontaine,
Twenty four seven funding twenty four seven funding
Date:we responded as follows:
Rom:kelly fontaine to:art chauvin
Bcc:kelly fontaine
Date:mar 12, 2019, 12:39
Mar 8, 2019, 9:38 am

Thank you.
We have always been in the correspondence with the portfolio matrix with the current loi's you received.. that was boulder equities..

The original portfolio boulder equities/dan page found the issues with the not enough income to purchase the property, stabilization and the ability to cover the debt service as outlined in previous updates.

The file was not fully underwritten until we were retained and the file was packaged to boulder equities - dan page and as an alternative ajtm and quaker state. based on the preliminary findings by boulder equities.
The original terms change as the preliminary due diligence found that there is not enough income to purchase the property. you cannot get 100% financing. the original funding portfolio has never changed; it is the discovery of the issues changes the matrix. boulder equities was the portfolio.. the underwriting based on the preliminary due diligence items were reviewed by them and dan page has offered 2 solutions as per our updates (please review past noted updates) and emails. you noted that they would not work, at least the partnership would not work with the seller.. he noted you would need a equity partner for the purchase shortfall and /or he could do a bridge loan until the property was stabilized. there is not enough money to purchase the property as the highest ltv you can get is 70%. you must come up with 30% to make the acquisition happen.

Ajtm had the same review and concluded the seller did not have to come up with a note or an equity partner would not be needed if the seller could simply verify the money was there prior to closing, as well as, they would fund the deal on a stated income basis. thus, no need for tax returns, etc...

The terms are a max 70% ltv (ajtm) as per the matirix on"unstabilized properties.": because the property is not stabilized. we understand that you understand that... as you noted.
The funder will lend off the purchase price or appraisal whichever is the lesser. this is industry standard.

They, ajtm, are offering $2, 940, 000 from a purchase price of $4, 200, 000. that is 70%. you are purchasing so you have to come up with the balance which is $1, 260, 000.
Where is that coming from to sustain the income on the purchase price? ok we understand... you are putting in $400, 000 as per our understanding and notes.
Therefore, you need an additional $860, 000 in purchase to fund. where is the purchase income coming from? where is the additional monies coming from. to make the purchase?
The income is good to refinance the subject property not to purchase.
Please explain where is the purchase income of $860, 000 is coming from?

We are awaiting to see if quaker state will give a higher ltv and they stil work in the same parameters... meaning uou must make up the difference with more money or an equity partner.

Pease explain where is the additional purchase income of $860, 000 is coming from?

It is our professional opinion that the ajtm offer is best as it is the highest ltv,, a stated program, and the additional income only has to be verified prior to closing.

Our next best resolution would be a bridge loan offerd by boulder equities/dan page.
The same question will be with every funder in the nation of funding networks... where is the additional purchase income of $860, 000 is coming from?
We are awaiting the quaker state update..
Regards,

Thank you.
As noted the entire deal/matrix changed as per the ability to make the down payment for acquisition and cover the debt service.
We will review the file as per retainer refund.
hank you.
Unfortunately you are wrong and do not understand underwriting or the fact that stabilization is the key.

Once again.. the file was never underwritten until we were retained and all the preliminary due diligence materials were sent after we were retained.
Nobody underwrites files verbally... (the merits of the transaction must stand on it's on)..
Thank you for noting your recorded conversations! we stand by our formal documents!
You had plenty of time to research and review as per our formal documents. (this includes doing the math on the ltv!) you moved forward on your own merits as we allocated a window for review and extended it based on you needing to get the seller on page. we have not fallen short.. you understand stabilization and how effects and changes the matrix? thatis the point as well as yo u not having the 20% to put in the deal should have made a distinction for a party who understands"stabilization"that where was the remainding balance of the purchase coming from. the transction is between the buyer and seller.. we have nothing to od with down payments or the ability to cover the debt service as it relates to ltv.
Simply... your understanding is incorrect."this term sheet contains only an understating between the lender and supersedes any prior understanding and agreements between them respecting the subject matter hereof. "
You then moved forward as per the elements you represented inthe transaction.
Underwriting is not done verbally! the basic mathematics of 80% or 70% all must equal 100%.. as ther ei sno 100% funding.
Furthermore, since you took the legal approach... entireagreement: this term sheet contains only an understating between the lender and supersedes any prior understanding and agreements between them respecting the subject matter hereof. the funder will need to be satisfied that the borrower can cover the monthly payments on this loan, that the project is feasible and that there is a reasonable exit strategy to take them out of this commercial loan. they will also need to be satisfied with the borrowing entities financial wherewithal. if needed, your client may be able to place a portion of the initial loan amount into an interest reserve account to cover the monthly debt service until the commercial loan is replaced or the property /entity is cash flowing

Finally,
We are in review of the total file as noted earlier and will respond only when we are done from beginning to end of this review.
We will only respond after full review and all future responses until then will be held in our spam folder by which we answer every 30 days.
Please stand by ofr our review as per the request s it relates to our signed fee agreement and formal documents.

We updated the borrower as noted above and the borrower responded as per threats and we put them on notice:

On mon, mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 pm art chauvin wrote:
You are wrong kelly, it is unfortunate that you are taking this stance. I am affiliated with a company in los angeles that does internet marketing and social media marketing and when someone searches you and your company it will not fair well. and, I personally will contact the companies that you introduced me to and let them know that you are a scam and that they need to distance themselves from you. I promise that this $3500.00 dollars that you scammed out of me will cost you a lot more than me. art c. chauvin
123 ouiski bayou drive
Houma, la 70360
Artcchauvin@aol.com
985-856-4359we asked again as per the purchase price knowledge and decided the last option to earn our closing fee would be to search for an equity partner for the borrower with the understanding the retainer was earned. the borrower did not respond or move forward with confirming this option.

Rom:kelly fontaine to:art chauvin
Cc:kelly fontaine
We have noted the file as not having enough equity to purchase the property on the borrowers side, the stabilization elements that change the original matrix, the ability to cover the debt service, as well as, al the caveats outlined in our formal documents. we are in the business of closing loans.in the interest of earning /obtaining our closing fee of $78, 000 we will pursue an equity partner /jv partner to come to the deal as an acquisition components and based on the merits of the transaction move forward in funding this deal
This is to confirm the update that we will be attempting to obtain a equity partner to come to the table based on the best merits of the transaction as this current structure on the borrower;s side does not alow a acquisition of the subject property as it relates to this transaction.. we will only present the transaction on the merits of the deal and caveats outlined in our formal documents.

We will move forward only with understanding that we have worked very hard thus far and in the interest of obtaining a closing fee we are moving forward with the retainer earned to obtain our closing fee as it relates to this transaction.

Please advise with yes or no o move forward. as we will not entertain any other options as noted above..
Please advise immediately

Thisis a material misrepresentation by not having the financial wherewithal to move the tranaction forward as this is always on the borrower /seller side. thus, the purchase agreement between the parties. theborrower made a misrepresentation of the facts on 02-05-2019 on the documentation submitted prior to being retainedand the review of this worksheet /documentation is how we obtainedthe bridge based matrix; thus, issuing our formal documents on02-05-2019 based on the cash flows and assets being pledged. the funder will need to besatisfied that the borrower can cover the monthly payments on thisloan, that the project is feasible and that there is a reasonableexit strategy to take them out of this commercial loan. they willalso need to be satisfied with the borrowing entities financialwherewithal. if needed, your client may be able to place a portion ofthe initial loan amount into an interest reserve account to cover themonthly debt service until the commercial loan is replaced or theproperty /entity is cash flowing the borrower signed the fee agreement on 02-12-2019 attesting to the merits of the transaction. the fact is client/borrower does not have enough money or stabilization to sustain the new loan request are material misrepresentations as per our signed feeagreement and this makes the file not feasible as per high risk and ability to cover the debt service as it relates to stabilization. inaddition, our formal documents read thefunder must also be satisfied with their ability to perfect a firstsecurity interest against the collateral being offered. therefore, the retainer was earned and we are now being denied a closing fee of$78, 000 based on the misrepresentations by the borrower.

Thus, the borrower is now failing to proceed with the representations of the transaction as outlined in our 02-12-2019signed fee agreement and has the above material misrepresentations..“ the retainer is non-refundable in the event 24/7 has met its obligation to provide a funding source in accordance with the terms outlined inour accompanying letter and/or borrower fails to proceed with the financing. and"this retainer is refundable in the event that our funding source fails to provide a formal proposal to borrower in accordance with the terms outlined in our accompanying letter, provided that there have been no material misrepresentations or omissions made by borrower. the material representations as well as our signed formal documents noting the expenses caveat was initialed and signed. the borrower’s refusal to proceed and the material misrepresentations made on the transaction with this agreed to financing is denying us our $78, 000, closing fee. therefore, as per the signed fee agreement, the retainer is non-refundable under the circumstances. therefore, the client refused to proceed with the financing as they had agreed to do, as well as, the borrower made several material misrepresentations of the facts as per our signed fee agreement signed 02-12-2019 as per, financial wherewithal/ability to cover the debt service, feasibility, and exit strategy all of which not only denied us our closing fee but also per the agreement made the retainer non-refundable.
Our funder is ready to proceed with the loi"s issued and options noted on each update.. we encourage you to proceed with this scenario so that we can earn our closing fee of $78, 000.
I am sorry things did not work out and hope that we might be able tohelp the client in the future and would certainly apply this retainer to any such future financing activity.

If you wish to dispute the above you may, as per the agreement signed between us, you may take your complaint to the american arbitration association and we would abide by the arbitrators decision. kdf/saf
sincerely,
Kelly d. fontaine
Managing partner

References:

Dimitrios m. fousteris - trevor cole commercial corp - [protected] (ext. [protected] lexington
Avenue, new york new york

Raul encarnacion - “rymax electronics”-[protected] or [protected]-freeport, new york ($390, 000 refinance commercial property/lot)

Afsaneh kahien"lady couture of ny, inc "[protected] or [protected] ($70, 000 revolving line of credit)

Charles e. willet *"jas professional services "*sugar land, texas [protected] office [protected] (working capital funding 2 rounds total $40k)

Ana guevea"ana & leo inc"*florida [protected] ($20, 000 revolving credit line

Sonnie cooper - coopers liquors and deli inc. newark, new jersey [protected] locations funded $110, 000 working capital revolving credit line & expansion)

Nancy carlisle “quality care sitters” [protected] or cell #[protected]-beaumont, texas ($339, 000 refinance retail store * senor –debt)

Ira a. thorpe"ira l. thorpe & sons, llc"[protected] or [protected] ($15, 000 revolving line of credit)

Ismael ventura"ventura tax service"bronx new york [protected] or cell# [protected] (revolving credit line $22, 500)

James cammilleri “cammilleri holdings” * dba* burger king franchises 3 locations /hamburg / orchard park, new york ($1, 100, 000 commercial funding and working capital) d. fousteris [protected] ext 2153 or james cammilleri [protected]

Robin carter"art of vaping, llc "[protected] or [protected] ( ($25, 000 working capital unsecured revolver)

Felix winowski"legendary property solutions, llc [protected] (working capital components unsecured)

Kevin robertson - south central painting llc columbia, south carolina -[protected] ($20, 000 working capital funding)

Jesse blackwell - “del cielo development”-houston, texas [protected] ($35, 000 working capital advance)

Markos panans - “sweet bake inc. “, alexandria, virginia - [protected]- ($75, 000 credit lines and working capital)

Will lampton "straight line contracting, llc" [protected] or [protected]
(working capital and asset based funding)

Christoper and ange ramirez* "ramirez hauling and trucking" *houston texas [protected] or [protected] ($10k working capital funding unsecured)

Angela libman, “libman realty”, ri-[protected] ($800k acquisition)

John houston - houston trucking & transportation -[protected] ($10, 000 working capital line)

Samih shakir - “scarborough auto care”- scarborough, ontario-[protected] ($150, 000 working capital revolving capital line)

Dr. harinderjit singh [protected] ($13.5m refinance) of sheraton in augusta, georgia

Martin sullivan –“valero maintenance company”-710 spinner road, desoto, texas-[protected]
($25, ooo working capital 2nd position revolver)

Steve wiseth - “health quest chiropractic” grand forks, north dakota [protected] ($40, 000 credit line and working capital)

Jim howie-“2000 design” toronto, ontario [protected] ($50, 000 working capital revolving credit line)

Martin bueno-“ martin bueno insurance agency” santa fe springs, california -[protected]
($75, 000 working capital line)

Richard a. dillard, hartford, alabama-[protected] ($110, 000 hard money closing on dairy & poultry farm)

“o’neil’s liquors”- charleston, south carolina - pamela o’neil [protected]/[protected] ($18, 000 equity revolver - capital line)

Donald imperoli - “rst electrical”-new rochelle, new york -[protected] ($50, 000 working capital funding)

Arek kulcznski - “take 5 eats” [protected]-kitchton, ontario ($20, 000 working capital revolving credit line)

Michael k. ellis - - asset based loan - vessel - relentless sports fishing, river ridge, louisiana-[protected], ($225, 000 acquisition vessel)

Stargate properties, llc - tucson, arizona-[protected] ($10, 000 working capital line)

*after writing this libel and slander you write us begging for our help again*

M:
Art chauvin
To:
1twentyfoursevensubmissions@gmail.com
Date:
May 8, 2019, 2:16 pm

Kelly,
The deal structure has changed. seeing if you want to take a shot at it and make it right?
Art c. chauvin
123 ouiski bayou drive
Houma, la 70360
Artcchauvin@aol.com
[protected]
[protected] (fax)

W ehave contacted our counsel and we are ready for trial

REFERENCES:

Dimitrios M. Fousteris- Trevor Cole Commercial Corp- [protected] (Ext. [protected] Lexington
Avenue, New York New York

Raul Encarnacion- “Rymax Electronics”-[protected] or [protected]-Freeport, New York ($390, 000 Refinance Commercial Property/Lot)

Afsaneh kahien "LADY COUTURE OF NY, INC " [protected] OR [protected] ($70, 000 REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT)

Charles E. Willet *** "JAS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES " **Sugar Land, Texas [protected] office [protected] (WORKING CAPITAL FUNDING 2 ROUNDS total $40K)

Ana Guevea "Ana & Leo Inc" **Florida [protected] ( $20, 000 REVOLVING CREDIT LINE

Sonnie Cooper- Coopers Liquors and Deli Inc. Newark, New Jersey [protected] locations funded $110, 000 Working Capital Revolving Credit Line & Expansion)

Nancy Carlisle “Quality Care Sitters” [protected] or cell #[protected]-Beaumont, Texas ($339, 000 Refinance Retail Store *** Senor –Debt)

IRA A. Thorpe "IRA L. THORPE & SONS, LLC" [protected] OR [protected] ( $15, 000 REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT)

Ismael Ventura "Ventura tax Service" Bronx new York [protected] or cell# [protected] (REVOLVING CREDIT LINE $22, 500)

James Cammilleri “Cammilleri Holdings” * dba* Burger King Franchises 3 locations /Hamburg / Orchard Park, New York ($1, 100, 000 Commercial Funding and Working Capital) D. Fousteris [protected] Ext 2153 or James Cammilleri [protected]

Robin Carter "ART OF VAPING, LLC "[protected] OR [protected] ( ($25, 000 WORKING CAPITAL UNSECURED REVOLVER)

FELIX WINOWSKI "LEGENDARY PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, LLC [protected] (WORKING CAPITAL COMPONENTS UNSECURED)

Kevin Robertson- South Central Painting LLC Columbia, South Carolina -[protected] ($20, 000 Working Capital funding)

Jesse Blackwell- “Del Cielo Development”-Houston, Texas [protected] ($35, 000 Working Capital Advance)

Markos Panans- “Sweet Bake Inc. “, Alexandria, Virginia- [protected]-($75, 000 Credit Lines and Working Capital)

Will Lampton " STRAIGHT LINE CONTRACTING, LLC" [protected] OR [protected]
(WORKING CAPITAL AND ASSET BASED FUNDING)

Christoper and Ange Ramirez** "Ramirez hauling and Trucking" **Houston Texas [protected] or [protected] ($10K Working Capital Funding Unsecured)

Angela Libman, “Libman Realty”, RI-[protected] ($800k Acquisition)

John Houston- Houston Trucking & Transportation -[protected] ($10, 000 Working Capital Line)

Samih Shakir- “Scarborough Auto Care”- Scarborough, Ontario-[protected] ($150, 000 Working Capital Revolving Capital Line)

Dr. Harinderjit Singh [protected] ($13.5M Refinance) of Sheraton in Augusta, Georgia

Martin Sullivan –“Valero Maintenance Company”-710 spinner road, Desoto, Texas-[protected]
($25, OOO Working Capital 2nd position revolver)

Steve Wiseth- “Health Quest Chiropractic” Grand Forks, North Dakota [protected]($40, 000 Credit line and Working Capital)

Jim Howie-“2000 Design” Toronto, Ontario [protected] ($50, 000 Working Capital Revolving Credit Line)

Martin Bueno-“ Martin Bueno Insurance Agency” Santa Fe Springs, California -[protected]
( $75, 000 working capital Line)

Richard A. Dillard, Hartford, Alabama-[protected] ($110, 000 Hard Money Closing on Dairy & Poultry Farm)

“O’Neil’s Liquors”- Charleston, South Carolina- Pamela O’Neil [protected]/[protected] ($18, 000 Equity Revolver- Capital Line)

Donald Imperoli- “RST Electrical”-New Rochelle, New York -[protected] ($50, 000 Working Capital Funding)

Arek Kulcznski- “Take 5 Eats” [protected]-Kitchton, Ontario ($20, 000 Working Capital Revolving Credit Line)

Michael K. Ellis- -Asset Based Loan- Vessel -Relentless Sports Fishing, River Ridge, Louisiana-[protected], ($225, 000 Acquisition Vessel)

Stargate Properties, LLC- Tucson, Arizona-[protected] ($10, 000 Working Capital Line)