Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1263576

Complaint Review: GWF Investments - Roseville California

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Jessica — cape coral Florida USA
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • GWF Investments 1420 Roseville Pkwy Roseville, California USA

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

I was looking for a lender for acommercial property acquisition in Flirda. I had my profile on an investors website and Tony Bryan from GWF Investments contacted me and said they could help with my lending. Then the owner, Greg Marshall contacted me and said I could get the funding from him and he would send over three options for me to choose from. I chose to purchase financial guarantee surety bonds in order to secure financing through his investors. We signed the contracts and I wired $11,550 to his bank in Ny. he then told me we would be closing the end of May 2015. By the end of May we were not closed and the business that was on the property closed. Greg Marshall called me and said I would need to purchase an additional surety bond for extra capital for start up costs since the business had closed. i agreed and we signed an ammeded contract which stated I would pay an additional $3475.50 for a second surety bond. I wired the money to the same account as the first time. After that I could very raraly get a hold of anyone at GWF Investments. I have had no contact with them since the end of August 2015. I have called, text, written emails, left messages, and no one has responded to me. I thinkt his company is nothing but a scam and they steal from hard working entranpanuers that are trying to get a head. If you have any dealing with this company or its affiliates, stay clear! 

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/25/2015 04:30 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/gwf-investments/roseville-california-95661/gwf-investments-greg-marshall-tony-bryan-investor-fraudscam-artists-roseville-californi-1263576. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
1Author
3Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#4 Consumer Comment

GWF , Greg Marshal, Alexis Levi are Scammers

AUTHOR: Tony - (USA)

POSTED: Monday, November 02, 2015

 GWF, Greg Marshall and Alexis Levi have been reported to the FBI amongst other agencies. It is just a matter of time before they come to justice. They have ripped me off as well with a similar scam with the so called surety bond format. Both Jessica and myself are taking the proper steps to bring these scam artist to justice. Greg Marshal has never produced a surety bond document to either one of us. He continues to blame us for not providing documents which are a total lie. At least two of the people he has listed on the website are fictitious and mysteriously have been removed from LinkedIn. Beware he is a con man , very slick and sophisticated in his approach. Interestingly mine and Jessica's story are extremely similar. Please feel free to contact either one of us if you feel you have been scammed as well.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report

What A joke! GWF Investments

AUTHOR: - ()

POSTED: Sunday, November 01, 2015

Let me start by saying that this is how GWF Investments and Greg marshall do business. They definatley know how to make it look like its everyone elses fault, when in fact the fault is all theirs. First off, I never once was told that my business plan and projections were " elementary" or "incomplete". In fact Greg mentioned on more than one occasion about how thourough all my documentation was. Never once have they asked me for additional information on anything. Hell, I cant even get them to email me or call me back! Our contrat states very clearly, that we would be closing the end of May, In fact the 22nd. I jumped through every hoop these fools asked me to go through. I made sure they had every peice of information they needed whenever they asked for it. In fact, before I even signed a contract with them, I let them know, there are NO FINANCIALS on this property! That is why I had to look for outside fiancning on it.  Never have you asked for any finanical information on this property becasue I told you in the beggining there was none!

Secondly, they stated that it was my "lack of professional experience in the industry" that gave me limited options for funding. No Greg, again, not true. I have been in the industry for over twenty years. How much experience does one actually need? I was having trouble with funding due to lack of a suffient down payment for most traditional banks.

Thirdly, We NEVER had any call about us putting an offer in ! My realtor, called me and said the sellers realtor let him know they had another offer and we needed to tell them when we were going to have an offer in to them or put in an offer so we didnt loose the property. I called, text and emailed Greg and GWF a hundred times that morning, along with my realtor doing the same, WITH NO RESPONSE! We had to put an offer in in order to not loose the property! TThe sellers realtor new we didnt have the funding in place, but was hoping by the end of the week, Greg would have his s**t together.The offer could be canceld at any time and in no way hindered GWF or Greg Marshall from getting the funding completed. In fact I didnt hear from Greg until a few days later, after I had already canceled the contract. 

 Now lets get to the rest of this bs in this rebuttal. You said the seller was in no hurry to sell, that must be why he has dropped the price by $350,000 in the last 8 months! Or why he is still asking me if I can get the funding for this so he can get on with his life! he wants out and has wanted out of this proeprty since day one. This is just another excuses from Grega Marshall. There was a call to both realtors that I did not attend, becasue NO one told me about it and I was working! If I wouldve known, I wouldve been on it, I have NEVER missed a call from greg Marshall or GWF. I actually gave them all a special ring tone so i know when they are calling. My boss also knew what was going on and didnt mind if i took calls during work if needed. So no excuses for Greg to not be able to reach me. As far as him asking the sellers realtor for conditions on realeasing information on the proeprty, she said there wasnt. And there isnt.

What does this have to do with anything? I told you from the get go, there are no fiancials on this property, the seller will give , no tax statements and no p&l statements. What else would  you like me to clarify! The other issue with the closing on the offer in three days just rediculious! Like i stated before, it could be canceled at any time and there was a 7 day clsoing date, not three, and the seller agreed to amend that and make it for a month, if GWF would prove funding would happen, which of course they couldnt do becasue they are scammers!.  We never "went over my contract to clarify things". Im not an idiot, I understand everything in that contract, including all the mispellings and poor grammer from your company. As far as the Due Dilligence check list they wanted me to fill out. I had a ten page due dilligence checklist finished and sent back to them in 48 hrs of recieveing it.

I did recieve an email back from them in regards to the checklist stating that some of the answers where not filled out and to fill them out and return it to them. I did this and returned it to them within 24 hrs. I also asked Greg about some of the questions on the due dilligence, becasue I did not have answers to them. For instance all the financial information about the busniness. Once again, there wasnt a business and there are no financials! So how would you like me to answer those? OF course I did not recieve and answer from him on how to proceed, so I did my best and answered as accuratley as I could. Never once was there a "second or "third" attempt to have me forward anything to them. As soon as they asked for something, I had it to them within 24 to 48 hrs, no questions asked. No one has EVER notified me as to my file being "deactivated" and my expenses being forfieted. Like I said, I cant get ahold of anyone at this place, ever.

The sellers agent agrees with me, that GWF Investments and Greg Marshall are just  scammers, who never had any intention of funding my project, or anyone elses propably. In fact, if you go on there website and search their portfolio, half the companies on it have no idea who GWF Investments is! So , really what this all boils down to is, they will take your money and tell you they will give you the world, but in the end, nothing good will happen for you if you use this company. That whole rebuttal that is above is a lie! You must have my account confused with another person you stole from becasue none of the above is true or even accurate. You dont even have the proper dates or timeline! 

For anyone out there looking for funding, do yourself a favor, DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY! You will not get funding from them, no matter what they tell you. I did everything right in this situation, and I will prove it. I have all my documents , emails, texts, and calls, and an appointment with my attorney next week. So we will see who gets the last laugh, Greg Marshall and GWF. By the way, I got the funding through a reputable bank. guess my "lack of professional experience" and "elementary business plan" was good enough for them to get the $2.1M I needed!

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 UPDATE Employee

Rules were not made to be broken........

AUTHOR: GWF Executive Office - (USA)

POSTED: Sunday, November 01, 2015

 This is a situation where the client is providing just enough information to make it appear that they have been wronged…..but not enough to shed light on their actions which have been the singular root cause of her issue.

Let’s start at the beginning of this story. This individual Ms. Jessica Kerr forwarded her project package over to us for review and consideration in early part of this year. Upon review of her project summary we advised her (verbally & in writing) that;

 (i) Based on the type of project she wanted to involve herself with and her lack of professional experience in the industry she had chosen there would be limited options for her as it pertained to financing.

(ii)In addition our initial consultation we also advised her that to take her project on and herself as a client, certain conditions must be unilaterally met and adhered to throughout the process of underwriting her project and any deviation from those conditions would cause a stoppage of work on her file until they were rectified or at worse a complete cessation of our relationship with no recourse on her part.

(iii) We also advised her that her business plan was in serious need of revisions and amendment due to it not providing adequate supporting financial, operational and marketing data and this data was absolutely necessary to any financial source making a sound positive decision to fund her project. She agreed with our assessment of her project and the need for our services to conditionally provide the changes and augmentations.

(iiii) The presumed closing date on the property she wanted to purchase would only be set by GWF and then only upon satisfactory receipt of collateral, due diligence material from her, proper and complete underwriting and subsequent release of funds specific to her  proposed transaction.

In our consultations with her prior to executing a consultancy contract with (as well as within the actual executed contract with GWF) she was also made well aware (in writing) of our non negotiable protocols and process in arranging financing for an individual in her situation to which she agreed. These data requests included her providing all usual and customary requests for acceptable personal & corporate information in a timely manner as well as following our underwriting guidelines and internal protocols for client behavior. She was made well aware that failure to do so would as in any case of underwriting a project for funding, have an immediate negative impact on the continued processing of her funding request and that she would forfeit any retainer, fees and or project expenses without recourse.

Ms Kerr entered into contract with us to arrange financing on one of the options presented to her and she forwarded the project expenses to us as agreed. The contract among other things expressly stated that she would 'completely indemnify and hold harmless GWF, its associates and any party involved with underwriting or funding' of her project. It also expressly states that "GWF would not be held at any fault or negligence from any act arising from the execution and actions arising from the implementation of the contract." Conditional to entering into contract, she was presented with a list of items necessary to completing her underwriting file (i.e. confirmation of her CIS materials as well as current audited financial statements from the property she wanted to purchase as well as personal financial statements and tax returns). These were conditional as well as a LOI to purchase from the selling party which was evidentiary of an actual proposed transaction with a property seller. These items among others she assured us would be forthcoming as soon as possible. We continued processing the request to the best of our ability with the information at hand.

We sent several requests for additional information to Ms. Kerr over the next few weeks and each time the information she returned to us was incomplete or at best elementary in its presentation, quality and or content. Each time we discussed this with her the reply was that she was in the process of providing what she could get her hands on and would we just accept what was sent. We on each occasion advised her that the information sent was absolutely not acceptable or it needed amending in order to be in a presentable manner to underwriting.

 Upon approximately the 3rd week of our contractual relationship with Ms Kerr, we had an introductory conference call with herself and her buying broker to discuss the project status (at her request) and to determine how best to move forward under the then present circumstances. Those circumstances involved properly and expeditiously retaining specific information on the subject property as it related to the tenure of its current clients through the purchasing transition process, the title, deferred maintenance and comprehensive ownership status in addition to a more accurate current / projected financials & expense report on the property. She and her broker advised us that the information requested would be forthcoming however the seller wanted to have a more specific timeline for closing prior to releasing that information. They were both advised on that conference call that we needed that information prior to providing what they stated the seller wanted. Up until that conversation we believed that Ms. Kerr was providing accurate information to the best of her understanding but was either willfully withholding something or was being advised by someone else as to the true nature of the seller, his intent to sell as well as the precise selling price of the property.

 

During that call, her buying broker asked if they could put an offer on the property that weekend due to:

 1) the seller wanting to take the property off the market; and or 2) he had other cash offers at a much better price than what Ms Ker wanted to purchase at.

Both he and Ms. Kerr were advised emphatically that that was not an acceptable course of action due to the fact that the project was still in the underwriting phase and to do so would incur severe negative reaction directed towards Ms. Kerr and the project from us as well as our financial partners. This negative reaction was in addition to her continued lack of providing accurate and or acceptable information during the course of the present underwriting process. We were assured that they understood the proper protocol of a funding event such as this (her buying broker plainly stated that he was advising her and that he was well versed in real estate transactions and that to put in an offer prior to retaining actual funding would present major problems) he stated he would in fact not put in an offer until we had advised them that the underwriting process was complete and funding was absolutely confirmed.

On the following week, we made an effort to corroborate the information from Ms. Kerr and her broker advisor of the nature of the request of the seller for timelines prior to release of our requested information/ We did in fact speak with the selling broker who was very transparent with us and in course of the conversation stated that the seller was not asking for the information Ms. Kerr and her broker advised us that was absolutely necessary. She also mentioned that the seller was in no real hurry to sell the property but was willing to entertain an offer from Ms. Kerr only after she had secured actual funding. All of this was in direct contradiction to what we were being advised by Ms. Kerr and her buying broker.

We at that point decided to schedule a conference call with all three parties on the phone at the same time…..Ms. Kerr, her broker and the selling broker to clear up this matter because it appeared there was collusion to force actions on our part contrary to the contract we had engaged in with Ms. Kerr. Those contractual actions were to arrange funding based upon client provided accurate, timely and acceptable data necessary to funding as well as the client not misrepresenting or failing to provide material information. The call was scheduled however Ms Kerr did not attend but both brokers did attend. They were both advised of the nature of our funding process, protocols and were asked to confirm that they lined up with the fundamental and legal protocols of their state. They both answered to the positive.

The selling broker was asked by us if there were a (3 day) drop dead date from the seller to sell and she again stated that there was not. She was also asked if there were any conditions to releasing information on the subject property….and responded that there were not; but that Ms. Kerr nor her broker had recently requested this information. Her primary responses were that the buying agent kept asking her for a ‘quick close with limited conditions’. The buying broker when confronted with this information became extremely defensive and began to attempt to justify his thoughts on misrepresenting  to us his requests for a quick close and  that there was a 3 day drop dead date from the seller.

So quite frankly GWF never gave a specific date for closing to Ms; Kerr, her broker or the selling broker. What we did advise them was that we would arrange the funding upon proper and acceptable information * which is customary in any funding arrangement) and we could give them a set time to close upon receipt of our requested data and the fulfillment of underwriting and subsequent funding. This might take 3 months or less…..all deepening on the actions of Ms. Kerr in providing us what we absolutely needed. The selling agent agreed with this and confirmed it to the buying agent who was to relay this as well as Ms. Kerr. 

Two days after this call in finally being able to reach her, we spoke at length with Ms. Kerr and advised her of the content of the call as well as that fact that she was violating the conditions of her contract with us in her failure to provide our underwriting data, it lacked of content. She was also advised again not to put in an offer to the seller until we had advised her to do so…to which she agreed. Her statements were that her broker wanted to do this and she was simply following his suggestions. We advised her that her contract was with us and that she  might do well if she were to abide by the contract we had moving forward which  referenced her being responsible for the actions not only herself but for any agent, broker, representative, employee or advisor associated with this transaction that she was dealing with.  

We also advised her on the current status of her project and that it was still in underwriting but moving at a limited pace due to lack of proper information she was to have provided. We also advised her that the potential funding entity was aware of this turn of events and was extremely unhappy with her and the presumed outcome of this transaction.  Their concerns were that Ms. Kerr was a bit of a ‘loose cannon’ and questioned her ability to handle a transaction or business venture of this magnitude. We in our desire to effectively maintain our fiduciary responsibility to Ms. Kerr intervened on her behalf and halted their intention to terminate the transaction then and there by giving them a measure of confidence that we were assured that this would not happen again…and that Ms. Kerr would expeditiously comply with our underwriting requests.

 Within a week we received a call from Ms. Kerr’s broker stating to our surprise and absolute chagrin that Ms. Kerr and he had placed a signed offer with wire transfer funds deposit on the property in question that had a non negotiable 3 day closing date. He wanted to know how soon funds would be sent to Ms. Kerr since the property was contractually mandated to close in three calendar days. We strongly advised him of this ill advised course of action and asked him who had initiated it. He responded that he had taken this action in direct response to a request by Ms. Kerr.  Ms. Kerr was immediately called with no response until the next day. When we did get in touch with her she stated that yes in fact she had put in an offer in knowing that it was in direct violation of proper protocol and our agreement…but that she wanted to make sure that she did not lose the property. She was again on that call advised that her actions were in direct violation to or verbal and written agreements in addition to proper protocol in her state when dealing with acquiring real estate. She was also reminded of that fact that the seller thru his broker did not have a 3 day drop dead date as she and her buyers had misrepresented to us a few days earlier. They were in fact willing to wait until she had retained funding by completing the underwriting process. We again reminded her that the seller agent stated to her emphatically that they would only accept an offer from her when her financing ‘came through’.

 We at this point a few days later had a follow up conference call with Ms. Kerr and went over her contract to further clarify with her the responsibilities of GWF as well as herself. We also advised her that any further neglect on her part of providing what was necessary to underwriting her file would either stop us working on her file or cause us to cancel her funding request with a forfeit of her project expenses. To this she apologetically agreed and stated that she would be on her best behavior.

Ms. Kerr states that ‘at the end of May “we were not closed and the business that was on the property close”’. This is not the case as in our subsequent conversations with the selling broker and the buying broker stated that the property was still on the market with qualified offers with cash evidenced were being entertained by the seller. We still had Ms. Kerr’s project in an ‘open status’ however pending until she was able to provide the information we requested which was also clearly stated to her and her broker on subsequent calls. We at that point sent to Ms. Kerr a full ‘due diligence checklist’ sheet which itemized in detail the items that were necessary for moving forward with her file and taking it off the ‘pending’ status list. We gave her a time line for completing the checklist with the understanding that failure to provide the data in an acceptable form would cause us to close her file and with cause retain project expenses.

Ms. Kerr sent back to us again…extremely elementary one word responses to the detailed and comprehensive questionnaire. We advised her again that we absolutely required comprehensive responses and could not accept her one word responses or partially completed underwriting data requests. After this second and third attempt to have her forward to us what was requested and having no positive response from her after three weeks, the file was deactivated and Ms. Kerr was appropriately notified of that fact in addition to her project expenses being forfeited as per the contract.

This is not a matter of any case, sense or type of GWF wrongdoing…it is a matter of Ms. Kerr acting quite inappropriately on numerous occasions (prevarication and negligence to adequately provide complete underwriting material among others). WE thought taht this might have been out of ignorance at first however after our continued attempts over many conversations and written correspondence to educate and assist her, it became evident that this was a matter of intentional non compliance with our requests. Ms. Kerr was advised by not only this firm on numerous occasions but the sellers agent to keep her actions in line not only with the contract she signed with GWF but also with the intentions of the seller and his authorized representative the sellers agent.

Ms. Kerr was and is currently well aware of what was being asked of her, what was necessary to move forward with her file and well aware of what her actions were doing to hinder the continued underwriting of this file. She never disagreed outright with the data requests or said that they were not acceptable; she simply did not provide what was necessary time and time again over the course of our relationship with her. Ms. Kerr never disagreed outright with our explanation (or the sellers agent explanation) to her about not putting in an offer without completed funding; and how it would negatively impact her file…she simply decided to go ahead and do so anyway presumably believing that she could force the issue with GWF moving forward on her file without timely adequate financial, operational and or personal underwriting material. The buyer’s agent on our initial conversations did not disagree with the standard protocol of how and when to place an offer on the table for the property, however his actions to the contrary under the direct orders of Ms. Kerr gave GWF and the seller agent the understanding that there was ethical misguidance and or collusion even if based out of ignorance on both Ms. Kerr’s part and possibly on the part of her broker.

GWF has functioned under the confines, letter and spirit of the contractual agreements with Ms. Kerr as outlined in this response. Even in our legal cessation of working on her file and our actions relating to her repeated demands for our attention after the fact have been done in professionalism and courtesy to not only her person but also to the situation. Ms. Kerr evidently does not believe that the rules and guidelines apply to her and that she can expect results without providing al that is required to get positive results. Ms Ker knew full well that she was admonished on numerous occasions by not only GWF but also the sellers broker that her continued actions will without question jeopardize the project’s successful completion. She was often throughout the whole process strongly advised that she should simply adhere to her contract and follow the rules so we could both proceed. So her position to now cry ‘foul’ and take no personal responsibility for her actions which predicated closing of her file….. is in our estimation quite self serving and irresponsible as it relates to the complete facts and truth of this matter

Anyone of us who has atempted or has actually purchased a home or real property understands the written and unwritten rules for retaining a loan or funding. We all have been required to in a  timely manner provide certain usual and customary information that is absolutely required by a lender, broker , investor or bank to properly underwrite and then hopefully ger our loan funded. We also understand that to attempt to subtly represent one’s inappropriate actions as ignorance or imply that requests not responded to are soon forgotten is arrogance and disrespect for the process in its simplest form and will not be met with any funds being released and our application denied. Without these documents being presented in an acceptable, timely format…there is no underwriting and consequently there is no loan.

This is the case with Ms. Kerr and her funding request. We have no ill will or thoughts toward Ms. Kerr. We wish her well and simply hope taht moving forwaed she can abide by common protocols and guidelines expected of all of us as she continues to navigate and reach her goals in the business arena.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 Consumer Comment

GWF investments scam

AUTHOR: Tony - (USA)

POSTED: Tuesday, October 27, 2015

 Jessica please contact me as the same thing happened to me. tonyborruso@yahoo.com

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now