Commerce Property Solutions

I would definitely recommend them to anyone looking to rent in one of their buildings or anyone looking to have a rental building managed by a first class operation.

The staff is beyond passionate and very dedicated to their job. I work in the industry and I know it's stressful, the work never stops and it's all about being organised and professional.

Commerce Property Solutions staff was thorough, professional and beyond helpful. Never have I had an issue with my apartment, my superintendent is always on top of everything.

This company approved our rental application and said our application looked good. So at this point, we were just waiting to hear back from the landlord for approval.

Not long after this, the tide turned quickly. We were then told that the advertised price online for the rental was incorrect. It was actually one hundred dollars more than what the website indicated. At that time, we requested to speak with the landlord to get clarification about the reasoning. Long story short, we never heard from her even though the company said she would call us. Although we didn't like the fact that there was a misprint, we never said we still wanted the rental because we are planning on moving soon.

Less than 24 hours later, we were told our application was denied despite the fact that we have great credit, clean rental history, zero bankruptcy, and fantastic references. Nothing was able to be resolved so we are currently waiting to hear from a supervisor from the company. This has been a very frustrating experience, unlike anything we have ever seen happen. When we have applied other places, we have had things wrapped up in 48 hours, and we have never been denied anywhere else. Something doesn't seem right, and I question the integrity of the company as a result.

Between March of 2005 and December of 2014, Mr. A (principal broker of Armstrong Property Management) managed a commercial property located in Cedar City, UT for eight (8) separate Tenant-in-Common owners. On February 13th, 2015, Mr. A mailed a check to the property owners for the remaining owner's trust account balance. At that time, it was evident to the owners that the amount of the check could not have accounted for all the owner's monies held by Mr. A. On February 24, 2015, I sent a letter to Mr. A detailing several problems with his property accounting methods and requesting additional accounting information regarding the return of owner funds. After going back and forth several times via email, it became apparent that Mr. A had backdated accounting entries into prior accounting periods without sending out corrected year end owner statements. These backdated expenses were not disclosed to the owners even though they were paid from the owner's trust account. Mr. A eventually agreed that he had incorrectly paid another property's expenses from the wrong trust account. An additional check in the amount of $11,571.81 was mailed out to the owners to rectify this error.

Even though there were clearly additional reconciliation errors remaining to be investigated, Mr. A did not offer an explanation for these discrepancies and simply stonewalled by stating that his records were now correct and there were no other accounting issues that he could identify. The owners believe that another $5,700.00 should have been paid based on their records and knowledge of the property in question. Mr. A refused to provide requested accounting data which would have explained other discrepancies found in his books AND he also refused to look at the owner's separate accounting of the trust account in question.

The owners then filed a lawsuit against Mr. A in the Justice of the Peace Court in Cedar City (case # ***). Both parties appeared at the hearing on May 3, 2017. After reviewing the evidence presented, Judge *** ruled for the Plaintiff (Owners) in the amount of $5,852.20. Mr. A then filed an appeal to the Fifth District Court. Both parties were present for this hearing on October 2, 2017. Even though this was an appeal of a Small Claim's case, the District Judge required the parties to use Utah's Rules of Civil Procedure (case #*** ST). Mr. A had an attorney who objected to all evidence that I tried to enter into the court record. As a pro se litigator, I did not know the magical incantations required to admit evidence over the objection of the opposing party and so was unable to enter evidence for consideration by the court. In the end, the Judge still ruled in favor of the Plaintiff (Owners) but for a significantly reduced amount ($447.50). As part of the trial record, Mr. A agreed to pay the property owners $447.50 within 30 days. On December 5th, 2017 (more than 60 days after the trial), I sent a demand letter to Mr. A for payment of this judgment. To date, Mr. A has not paid any amount toward the satisfaction of this judgment. Under Utah law, there can be no further appeal of this matter.

Mr. A is a bully. He has ignored or refused to provide information requested by the owners regarding his owner trust accounting practices. He has threatened to sue me and the other owners on multiple occasions in order to stop us from pursuing this matter through the courts. He has threatened to sue me if I report his activities to the Utah Real Estate Commission. Two different judges have now ruled against Mr. A and yet he STILL refuses to refund the owner monies that he took. Given the circumstances, I don't see how Mr. A (or his company A Property Management) can possible get an A+ rating from the Revdex.com. Mr. A should pay his court judgment and stop being a bully.