Menasha Packaging company

Response to Consumer Complaint # [redacted] A contractual dispute [redacted] / [redacted] does exist concerning a valid purchase agreement on real estate The complaint submitted by *** [redacted] belongs in the domain of a Virginia court of law to determine its legitimacy not under the purview of Revdex.com I am surprised that Revdex.com would permit anyone to register a complaint against a business without providing supporting documentation of their claim and/or the specific federal or state regulation supposedly violated

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.MESSAGE FROM BUSINESS:
The complainant defaulted in the
purchase agreement when she did not close on the contract settlement date of
May 8, 2015. The only written reason given at the time was “ a
business-related emergency on our end” …as the reason to “put the *** ***
purchase on hold”
Complainant either misrepresented
the reason for refusing to close on May or now through the Revdex.com.
Who knows. Only laying out the facts in a courtroom could
determine the truth
The complainant has had a
settlement offer on her table prior to her registering this
complaint. If she is not willing to negotiate on a settlement, then
we are headed to the courtroom and only lawyers will benefit
REPLIES
FROM SMITH MOUNTAIN REALTY: The complainant defaulted in the
purchase agreement when she did not close on the contract settlement date of
May 8, 2015.
MY REPLY: The contract contained a contingency for
funding. The funding was not approved
Since the funding was not approved, the contract was voidI provided the
contract showing the funding contingency and the information from both CSC (the
company that held the funds and administered the retirement account in which
they were held) as well as the IRS rules also stating that the funds could not
be used
With other transactions (where Mr*** did not own the property
in question), if a contract settlement date passed, the protocol was to extend
the contract in writing, amend it in writing, or considered it expired and to
do a written release. It was my
understanding (and per verbal conversations with Mr***), the contract was
expired on May 8th,, meaning my obligation to buy the house had
expired due to both parties (both Mr*** as the property owner and I as the
potential buyer not going to settlement)Mr*** did the paperwork for the
transaction and did not send the proper written extension or contract amendment,
because he knew that he had agreed to the release, so that is what he
sent. (I’ve provided it to the Revdex.com.) I
believe to use one protocol with properties he does not own and a separate one
for those he does own is illegal as well as in violation of the realtor code of
ethics, DPOR regulations, etc
FROM SMITH MOUNTAIN REALTY: The only written reason given at the
time was “ a business-related emergency on our end” …as the reason to “put
the *** *** purchase on hold”
MY REPLY: When Mr
Scott originally tried to sell me the house, I told him that I was not ready commit
to buying the property, because I had to work out some things on my endThose
things included the me not being sure about the location for the move (it
depended on me moving for work, which was not set, and some other business
issues). Also, I was not sure if the
funds in question would be approved to be used for the sale. Mr*** said that all was fine and that if
I didn’t move or if anything changed that I didn’t have to buy the houseHe
also said that because we were friends etcthat we’d do everything
verbally. A bit after that he then sent
a written contract instead. It only
mentioned the funding contingency as a reason for release and not the other
reasons, to which Mr***, had agreed such as if I didn’t move to the area
for work. When I asked him about it, he
said that he would still let me out of the contract if I didn’t move and/or for
the pending business issues we had discussed
So, when the work move didn’t happen, I explained to Mr*** in
detail what had happened, and he had proof of the veracity of the factsI didn’t
just say that it was a business-related emergencyI explained the situation in
full, and Mr*** said he would send the releaseHe sent the release, I
signed it, and then later he said that he had changed his mind and that I had
to buy the houseWhen I mentioned what he had promised verbally he said that
he was no longer going to honor it (and it was clear from the language that he
used that he had set out to trick me in that regard from the beginning). My response was that our verbal agreement
aside that I was to be released from the contract based on the funding contingency
that Mr***, himself, had documented
FROM SMITH MOUNTAIN REALTY: Complainant
either misrepresented the reason for refusing to close on May or now through
the Revdex.com.
MY REPLY: I gave Mr*** two reasons: not moving to the area combined with a
related business issue (both of which we had verbally agreed) and the funding contingency which Mr***
wrote in the contract himself. I didn’t
provide the Revdex.com with proof that I didn’t move for work, because it was based on
a verbal agreement between Mr*** and I which he chose to ignore. But I can provide proof that I still live at
the same address and can provide the same info to the Revdex.com if necessary.
I did provide the Revdex.com (and Mr***) with the contract showing
the funding, the contingency, the release that Mr*** prepared, and the
information from both the fund and the IRS showing that the money could not be
used to buy his property
FROM SMITH MOUNTANIN REALTY: Who knows. Only
laying out the facts in a courtroom could determine the truth
REPLY: Mr*** knows that what I have said is
trueAll he has to do is look at the same information that I provided to the
Revdex.com showing that the funds could not be usedIt is obvious that he told me
that he would release me (since he prepared the release himself and sent it to
me) and then dishonestly decided to lie, deceive, and break his wordIt also
is obvious that Mr*** knew that, our verbal agreement aside, that I was to
be released from the contract due to the funding contingency since he wrote the
contract
As from laying out the facts in court, I thought we were supposed
to seek arbitration first, and I believe the National Realtors Association and
the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR) are generally
used before litigation as well. I tried
to discuss this with Mr***, but he ignored me in some instances and gave me
inaccurate information in others. So, if
that only leaves litigation, I am fine with that. Having consulted an attorney, it is my
understanding that Mr*** is in violation of our contract
FROM SMITH MOUNTAIN REALTY: The
complainant has had a settlement offer on her table prior to her registering
this complaint.
MY REPLY: Mr***’s settlement was that instead of
him releasing me from the contract as agreed and as required by the funding
contingency that he originally demanded 1) that I pay the full amount for the
house and, later and currently, 2) that I pay him $5,in exchange from him
releasing me from the contract
Please note that “demand” was Mr***’s word choice (not mine) and
he sent his demand to me in writing. I
can provide the copy of that letter from him to the Revdex.com if necessary. When he started asking for the $5,000, I let
him know that the way that he presented this seemed and sounded like extortion,
since he also said that he would tell (what he knows to be outright lies about
my business) if I did not pay the money so we could “move on” as he phrased it
I told Mr*** that asking for money to move on and not tell
lies about my business and to honor the funding contingency was extortion did
not stop Mr*** from persisting saying that I needed to pay him $5,in
order for him to “move on” to use his language (from a written correspondence
that he sent to me and from verbal conversations as well)
I am ready and willing to go to court if Mr*** wishes. In addition to his attempt to extort $5,
(in exchange for honoring the funding contingency in the contract and for not
knowing spreading lies about me), Mr*** has violated various articles of
the Realtors Code of Ethics, so I believe going to court would protect others
from his coercion, ethics violations, outright lies, extortion attempts, etc.
FROM SMITH MOUNTAIN REALITY: If she is not willing to negotiate on
a settlement, then we are headed to the courtroom and only lawyers will
benefit
MY REPLY: The public at large will benefit as well when
it becomes public record how Mr*** purposely mishandled this transaction
from beginning to end. I hope going to
court will also right other items, such as him conducting real estate transactions
in NC (when only licensed in VA) and other misdeeds will come to light and
serve as a warning to the public to not conduct business with him
Regards,
*** ***

The complainant defaulted in the purchase agreement when
she did not close on the contract settlement date of May 8, 2015. The only written reason given at the time
was “ a business-related emergency on our end” …as the reason to “put the
*** *** purchase on hold”
Complainant
either misrepresented the reason for refusing to close on May or now through the Revdex.com. Who knows. Only laying out the facts in a courtroom
could determine the truth
The
complainant has had a settlement offer on her table prior to her registering
this complaint. If she is not willing
to negotiate on a settlement, then we are headed to the courtroom and only
lawyers will benefit

Response to Consumer
Complaint #   [redacted]
 
          A contractual dispute [redacted] / [redacted]
[redacted] does exist concerning a valid purchase agreement on real estate.    The complaint submitted by [redacted]...

[redacted]
belongs in the domain of a Virginia court of law to determine its legitimacy
not under the purview of Revdex.com.
 I am surprised that Revdex.com would
permit anyone to register a complaint against a business without providing supporting documentation of their claim
and/or the specific federal or state regulation supposedly violated.

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
1. April 2015 Contract prepared by [redacted]- The attached contract states that sale (of the house that [redacted] owns and was attempting to sell to me) is was as follows:Sell subiect to buyer convertinq CSC Retirement account to a self-directed account which allows the purchase of real estate. Buyer has provided proof of funds from this account. Buyer would like quick settlement; date to be determined based on self-directed IRA's settlement of transferred funds. 2.  I contacted CSC, the company that holds the funds.  They told me the following (which I already had relayed to Mr. [redacted]):- Former employees are not allowed to borrow from the plan to purchase houses or for any other purpose.- The rep said they are not allowed to write letters for individuals, but anyone (and I explained the current situation) could call and ask general questions and that they would confirmed that I would have been told that when I called about using the money to purchase a home. - I was told that anyone who wanted to validate that could call ###-###-####. 3. Conversion to a self-directed account- I contacted various firms asking if I could set up a self-directed IRA and use the CSC funds to purchase a primary residence.  I was told that the most I could do was to take a loan for up to 50% of the funds in the account.  At the time I submitted the contract to Mr. [redacted] the account had a vested balance of $102,233.88. (Please see attached file with the contract document. It shows the CSC proof of funds that I submitted to Mr. [redacted] in April.) I was told that the max loan that I could take for use on a residence would be 1/2 the balance of the account (that would have been minus fees for setting up the self directed account and other fees on the CSC end for the rollover).  I was told that the max amount that I could take, under any circumstances, was $50K (but less than that would have been left after I paid fees). I also would have had to leave some money in the account for self-directed IRA account fees. CSC had advised me, that even if I were a current employee and eligible to take a loan, that I would have been subject to those same rules since they are set at the federal / IRS level and not by individual companies. 4. The price of Mr. [redacted]s house was $72,900. So, I was told that I could not, by law, take a loan to purchase the house, because IRS rules limited the total amount for a primary home purchase (regardless of how much was in my account) to $50K max.  Therefore, I was told even if I converted the account to a self-directed IRA, I would not legally be able to purchase Mr. [redacted]'s house as my primary home. So, I left the funds in my CSC account. They are still there (but the account has dropped 6%), so now the balance is lower that what is reflected on the attached document.  5.  When I called the CSC rep, I was told to download and attached the following two documents from their website:- CSC Map Loan Procedures (attached as CSC_MapLoanProcedures.pdf)- CSC Map Summary Plan Description and  Prospectus (attached as CSC_MAPProspectus.pdf) The rep said these two documents are their official (aside from being willing to answer general questions and verify the information if called) response to the request that they provide a written response about my case in particular.  Again, that number is ###-###-####. If called, the rep said CSC would verify that the policy is not write a letter or give specific information about any one individual and that they would verify that I would have been advised as I have relayed here in. And they  would relay the information (that I have shared herein as well as with Mr. [redacted]) about the IRS rules and why the funds could not be used for me to purchase his home as a primary residence. The attached CSC documents state that former employees cannot borrow from accounts.  The max amount limits etc. also are explained. The self-direct IRA companies that I contacted follow the same rules regarding the max amount to be used for a primary residence being set to 1/2 of the value to the account not to exceed $50K. Again, I was told that ALL companies do this, because this is a law set by the federal government / IRS and that there were no exceptions made to it. 6. IRS Website The IRS Website says the following:3. Under what circumstances can a loan be taken from a qualified plan?A qualified plan may, but is not required to provide for loans. If a plan provides for loans, the plan may limit the amount that can be taken as a loan. The maximum amount that the plan can permit as a loan is (1) the greater of $10,000 or 50% of your vested account balance, or (2) $50,000, whichever is less.   For example, if a participant has an account balance of $40,000, the maximum amount that he or she can borrow from the account is $20,000. 
Regards,
[redacted]