WECOSIGN INC. FRANK & TARA JAKUBAITIS Better Business Bureau Posts Property Manager Complaint From Arnel Management and Gives Wecosign an F for Being Un-trustworthy & For Their Unwillingness to Resolve Complaints Internet, California

Well friends, here you have it. Arnel Management sent Wecosign 30+ customers to cosign for and now they are running out on their guarantee. SEE BBB COMPLAINT BELOW. For those of you who may not know, Arnel Development & Management is a very respected company here in Orange County. Im sure that Frank and Tara were licking their chops when Arnel signed up with them to cosign. Little did Arnel know that Frank and Taras favorite song is, Come onnn take the money and run whoo whoo whoo, come onnn take the money and run whoo whoo  whoo  Since this posting will populate throughout EVERY search engine, all the other property management companies across the U.S. will have an opportunity to call Arnel Management and have a private conversation with them about Wecosign Inc. to obtain details about their experience. This will expose Frank and Tara Jakubaitis for the fakes, the phonies and the frauds that they are. Jakubaitis cant cry, False posting! or Disgruntled former employees! or What a bunch of sour grapes! or If you want to know the real truth, fax me! Hes really hilarious! He should have been an actor because unless you know this guy, hes believable! Sorry Frank, everyone can see this as THE REAL TRUTH THAT IT IS! You can con some of the people some of the time but you cant con all of us all of the time! Were on to you! 
 
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. VISIT THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU WEBSITE TO VIEW THESE COMPLAINTS FOR YOURSELF.

Home > Business or Charity Reviews > Other Real Estate Services > Wecosign, Inc.
BBB Business Review
overview
complaints
directions
What is a BBB Business Review?
THIS BUSINESS IS NOT BBB ACCREDITED
Wecosign, Inc.
(714) 556-6800 3400 West MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1, Santa Ana, CA 92704 http://www.wecosign.com 
   {F} HEY! LOOK AT THAT! AN F FOR FRANKSTER
On a scale of A+ to F
Reason for Rating
BBB Ratings System Overview
 
Description
 
Complaint: 11/18/2009: Our company Arnel Management used WECOSIGN with the agreement specifically set for our residents called the Cash for Keys program (letter confirming the program was sent to us by email from the Vice President Maryann Cerami quoteHere is your Cash for Keys Program). We currently have 30+ residents under this program. After further review and numerous problems with their underwriting procedures, it was clear their qualification and underwriting procedures did not match ours resulting in our decision to stop referring to WECOSIGN. After an attempt to collect monies owed from WECOSIGN, we received an email from the CEO stating they will no longer honor the Cash for Keys Program and pay us monies owed because we are no longer customers. Again, we CURRENTLY have 30+ residents signed up under the WECOSIGN program, just not referring NEW clients to WECOSIGN which still makes Arnel Management a current customer. We expect WECOSIGN to honor their agreement with all of our current residents and honor our statement requesting payment under the Cash for Keys Program.
 
Another complaint was filed on the BBB website, this time from an investor:
 
Complaint: 05/19/2011: In 4/23/09, I invested $7000.00 in Wecosign. In 12/27/10, Wecosign offered to buy back my shares and give back the amount I invested. It is 5/18/11 and I have received nothing. Per their request, I submitted my buyback request 1/19/11. I have called every month since January and have been told by the director, Frank Jukabaitis, the same thing which is "you'll get it." Wecosign has been able to use my $7000 for over 2 years. When I receive my investment back, I will have not gained one penny! I have waited more than a reasonable amount of time.
 
This investor above is typical of dozens of other Wecosign investors that Ive spoken with. Unfortunately, this investor will never receive their investment back thanks to Frank and Tara Jakubaitis. 
 
THE LAWSUIT BELOW IS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF THE KINDS OF THINGS FRANK & TARA JAKUBAITIS HAVE BEEN DOING FOR MANY YEARS 

Jakubaitis v. Fischer (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1601 [40 Cal.Rptr.2d 39]
Jakubaitis v. Fischer (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1601 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 39
[No. G016219. Fourth Dist., Div. Three. Apr 12, 1995.]
FRANK JAKUBAITIS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. THEODORE FISCHER et al., Defendants and Appellants.
(Superior Court of Orange County, No. 731793, Robert E. Thomas, Judge.)
(Opinion by Sonenshine, J., with Sills, P. J., and Crosby, J., concurring.)
COUNSEL
Wallace, Grantham & Schwartz, Steve R. Schwartz and Leah Grantham for Defendants and Appellants.
Walt D. Mahaffa for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
OPINION
SONENSHINE, J.
In this case of first impression, we consider whether Civil Code section 3051 or 3080 et seq. fn. 1 governs a dispute involving a veterinary lien for services rendered to a horse.
I
The facts are not in dispute. We therefore summarily discuss them as background for the underlying issue. In February 1994, a blood-bay horse, owned by Frank and Tara Jakubaitis, was admitted to Chino Valley Equine Hospital for emergency medical care. The horse, which was hospitalized through early March, was treated by Theodore Fischer, D.V.M., the hospital's owner and primary veterinarian. [33 Cal.App.4th 1603]
A letter sent at the time of discharge notified the Jukabaitises the horse would not be released until the outstanding bill of $9,751 was paid. Moreover, the letter informed them that failure to make payment within 10 days would result in the sale of the horse. (?? 3051, 3052.) fn. 2
Timely payment was not made, but the hospital's attempt to sell the horse was unsuccessful. The bill remained unpaid and the horse stayed in Fischer's possession. Finally, the Jakubaitises sued the hospital and Fischer, seeking injunctive relief and alleging conversion, claim and delivery and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress. (?? 3080, 3080.01, 3080.02.) fn. 3 The Jakubaitises' motion for substitution of undertaking and release of livestock [33 Cal.App.4th 1604] was granted (?? 3080.09, 3080.11), fn. 4 and Fischer was ordered to return the horse to them upon their posting a $500 bond.
Fischer appeals the court's orders (1) granting the section 3080.09 motion, and (2) returning the horse to the Jakubaitises. fn. 5
In the lawsuit above, we have Frank and Tara owning a horse which they obviously couldnt afford. Do you see the pattern thats been going on as far back as 1994? Living above their means and when the horse s**t hits the fan, they run to court and cry foul play. This Vet rendered the veterinary services and probably saved the horses life and since Frank and Tara couldnt afford it, they simply expected the Vet to just release the horse and take payments. When the Vet demanded payment in full, they sued him for stealing their horse (conversion) when in fact Frank and Tara were trying to steal his time and expertise! This case bears upon the character of Frank and Tara Jakubaitis. What they have been doing lately with Wecosign doesnt appear to be anything new. Theyve simply found new suckers to con money out of and new people to sue.
Since all Wecosign Shareholders will receive notification re: this posting, please forward to your family, friends and co-workers as you deem appropriate. We are emailing this to all major property managers in New York, Florida, Texas, Arizona, California and Nevada.