Jared Ekdahl | Business Funding NW | National Capital Partners Inc Jared Ekdahl Business Funding NW, Lender Fraud, Loan Scam, Jared Ekdahl Thief, Predatory Lender, National Capital Partners Seattle, Jared Ekdahl will steal your assets beware! Fraud, scam, Seattle Washington

On behalf of our company, we would like to respond to Mr. Travis Moegling's complaint, supply critical details and key supporting documentation which will discredit his false complaint against our company, as well as, Mr. Moegling and Partner Fund LLC.

First, consider the credibility of Mr. Moegling and his business, Partner Fund LLC who have several complaints filed by investors, legal actions taken against them including; a recent lawsuit, investigation, cease and desist order, violations and imposed fines by the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions and Division of Securities. (see links herein for supporting details or search the DFI website under 'enforcement actions,' 2015). 

http://www.dfi.wa.gov/securities-enforcement-actions/securities2015

http://www.dfi.wa.gov/documents/securities-orders/S-15-1619-15-SC01.pdf

http://www.dfi.wa.gov/documents/securities-orders/S-15-1619-15-FO01.pdf

Our company has been in business since 2009 and had no complaints or actions taken by our investors, DFI or Division of Securities.  

Re: Personal / household purpose concern

Mr. Moegling requested a loan on behalf of his company Partner Fund LLC and stated it was solely for business purpose, not for any household or personal purposes. He signed and notarized a business purpose affidavit which “represents and warrants the loan is strictly for business purpose and the borrower further represents and warrants the funds are not, and will not be used for any personal, family and household purpose.” Furthermore, Mr. Moegling hand wrote in his words on the same document that the use of funds were specifically for “business expenses on a real estate project ongoing with Partner Fund LLC specifically legal fees associated with a private placement memorandum.” (see link herein or attached for business purpose affidavit and other supporting documents) 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s1o7tsf526ywiv1/AABn05Xr01bjrLRe-rfeeKHAa?dl=0

Our company made the loan note contract to Partner Fund LLC, not to Mr. Moegling personally, therefore also considered "business purpose."

If Mr. Moegling had represented his loan for any purpose other than business we would not have made the loan. Our company does not ever, under any circumstances, make loans for "consumer, household or personal" purpose as we are not licensed to do so. We strictly make “commercial loans” for “business and or investment purpose.”  This is why our loans are also exempt from the Washington State Usury Law in accordance with RCW 19.52.080. Therefore, the rate and fees the borrower, Mr. Moegling, agreed to were legal, and his complaint is again without merit. We even provided Mr. Moegling the Department of Financial Institutions contact information so he could verify these lending laws himself.(see link above for supporting documents)

This previous concern seems to be the root of Mr. Moegling’s entire complaint which is why we wanted to address it firsthand, as it is untruthful, invalid, and therefore without merit.

Re: Transferring truck to LLC concern

Mr. Moegling is correct, we do have certain conditional loan requirements to qualify for a loan per our investor guidelines, as well as, the Washington State Lending Laws as stated above.  Another one of these requirements is that the collateral must be owned by the business or LLC since it is the entity the loan is being made to therefore, must match. Business owned collateral is also required in order for us to protect our assets from borrowers filing personal bankruptcy. Mr. Moegling was free to file business bankruptcy if he felt it was beneficial.  In this scenario Mr. Moegling came to us for a business loan, the collateral he offered to pledge in order to secure the loan was his work truck. He would not have received a loan had he not offered this collateral. He was never forced to take this loan, accept our terms, transfer the truck to his business. These were all choices made by Mr. Moegling.

Re: Payoff request and balance due concern

Mr. Moegling did request his payoff on 1/21/15 which we provided on 1/23/15.  He then requested a breakdown of the payoff on 1/24/15 and we provided on 1/28/15. Mr. Moegling did not have any issues until he found out the payoff was greater than his original principal, which was due to some of the original interest and late fees he did not factor in. We then tried exhaustively to work with him by offering to extend and or modify his loan. We were not obligated to do so, since his loan note was due in full and he was in default. However, we explained to him in order to grant an extension and or loan modification we would need him to pay down the balance because the loan was exceeding our maximum loan to value ratio requirement. Instead he chose to not work with us and use threats of filing bankruptcy and complaints such as this one as a tactical strategy to get out of his debt obligation. We responded back to Mr. Moegling's payoff request and all emails within the same week, not several weeks as he states. (see link above for supporting documents)

Re: Business methods and loan costs concern

Mr. Moegling is partially correct regarding our business methods and model however, grossly misrepresenting the details to fit his complaint. Our lending guidelines allow us to lend up to 65% of the collateral value (Loan to Value) which is because we are a “collateral based lender.” Because we underwrite loans based mostly on collateral opposed to credit, we must loan at a lower loan to value ratio to assure us the loan will be paid back.  The lower the loan to value, the greater likelihood the borrower will pay the loan back without default, this is our preference as a company, not to collect collateral.  However, in some unfortunate situations when the borrower defaults without the ability to pay off their loan in full, when we have exhausted all attempts to work with them, such as what happened with Mr. Moegling, we have no choice but to recover the collateral.  

In this loan scenario we followed the ascribed guideline detailed above, lending approx. 65% loan to value based on an estimated collateral value of $13,000. The vehicle had a “rebuilt title”, not a clean title, (a detail Mr. Moegling did not disclose) which greatly decreases value from $20,000 as Mr. Moegling stated his vehicle was worth.  Furthermore, when we took possession of the truck it was in non-running condition therefore decreasing the As-Is value even further to approx. $6,000 to $8,500.  

Lastly, Mr. Moegling failed to mention the additional fees our company incurred totalling over $3,500 in repossession, storage and legal fees mostly due to his own actions, this is not including our countless hours and several weeks spent dealing with this borrower.  Mr. Moegling was also correct about the original payoff being $7,200. However, he left out extension and late fees that bring the balance to $7,684, not $9,000 then $8,500 as he stated. Therefore, we did not charge this borrower “10% per day” as he also stated. With all that being said, in reality our company will either take a loss on this loan, or break even, at best.  

In Summary

Partner Fund LLC knowingly and willingly borrowed money from our company after reading and understanding the legal contract and terms. Mr. Moegling clearly represented and borrowed the funds for his business as he stated, signed and notarized. Mr. Moegling stopped making payments going 60+ days past due, stated he was unwilling to payoff his debt or work with us and proceeded to making threats and complaints as tactical strategy to get out of his debt. We exhausted all efforts to work with him. In the end, he chose not to work with us leaving us no choice but to recover our collateral in order to regain our loaned funds, fees and expenses. It would appear this complaint is nothing more than retaliation for Mr. Moegling's own failure to fulfill his debt obligation and the subsequent loss of his collateral.

We apologize for not responding sooner. We were waiting for any ATG response and or legal action threatened by Mr. Moegling before doing so. At this point, no such action has been forthcoming.

If you would like more information regarding this complaint, our response or the supporting documentation feel free to contact us directly.