Terry Suitt DBA Business Solutions LLC review: Will not refund upfront fee 1

This warning advisory is directed to those who are about to conduct a business agreement with Business Solutions LLC or front company of Terry Suitt, 5212 Ortega Oaks Lane, Jacksonville, FL 32210. A money broker, this outfit has an outstanding complaint with the NE Florida Better Business Bureau that has not been resolved and disputed. If you are contemplating on doing business with this individual or his front company, be forewarned, do not give in to any upfront fees and watch all the daisy chain of brokers introduced into your funding prospects.

Here is the summary of my complaint with the BBB:

The response from Terry Suitt of Business Solutions, LLC is not even half the story of chronological events that led to this complaint. Here are some facts to consider:

The only reason why I retained the services of Terry Suitt/Business Solutions LLC is his implied closing date of March 10, 2009. The payment of $2, 500 was based on this original document that was executed on Feb. 3, 2009 (attached #1). This was verified with several telephone and email communications between the primary intermediary representing me – -----------and equity partner-------, General Manager of ------------Land Dev. Corp. who owns the property we are to purchase. After several attempts to communicate with Terry Suitt by March 10 and no closing/settlement of the loan, there is the feeling of a deceptive tactic employed by Terry Suitt to entice our participation by an over-hype closing date of March 10 that did not occur. The email sent as of April 2, 2009 indicated a hint that the rules are about to change and deviate from the initial term sheet without a confirmed settlement date.

I sent out an email to Terry dated April 13, 2009 requesting that we do not deviate from the original terms and stay with the fundamentals indicated from his email of April 2, 2009. A draft list was sent to us with all the conditions. With the two conditions met and proof of funds provided by a third party and private investor –-----------, I asked Terry Suitt to explore collaboration with ------------- to supplement a flexible compliance to replace the third condition.

Needless to say a conditional commitment was presented to us with several conditions from Crown state Financial. I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and made the best team effort to comply with all the three main conditions, but due to unforeseen obstacles in obtaining the proof of funds from a Foreign Trust hindered the compliance of the third condition. Since they deviated from the initial terms of the agreement and simply change the rules and conditions “mid-game”, I asked Terry Suitt to renegotiate the waiver of the third condition or supplement a change of requirement that would be flexible to obtain domestically from a third party headed by -----------. Weeks past and we did not receive any reasonable response to our initiative to supplement the compliance of the third condition.

By June 1, 2009, Terry Suitt asked me to sign the attached new agreement asking for 2% of the total funding amount upon completion of the new initiative with Florida Bond and Bairnsdale International LLC. This agreement indicated a waived upfront retainer of $0. At this point, we have assumed that since we have not received a clear and reasonable response from the first initiative with Crown State, this new agreement supersedes the first agreement. Thus, it is a reasonable assumption that the $2, 500 deposit from the initial agreement should be refundable because there was no response for our alternative compliance effort available through -------. The copy of the Florida Bond Agreement sent to you by Terry Suitt is dated June 10, 2009 and is under the new agreement that would entitle Terry Suitt the 2% of the amount funded and $0 retainer fee.

Through the course of several weeks, --------------------- Land Dev. Corp. and their general counsel –----------- have reviewed the term sheets of Florida Bond, Bairnsdale, US Assets and Sun City Mortgage and concluded that all of the term sheets are deemed unacceptable. Both Mr. -------- and Mr.----------- have cited that all the term sheets require substantial upfront fees without the benefit of a settlement guarantee. These companies have stipulated claims to earn their upfront fees whether the loan is settled or not. Any client has the reasonable right to reject the terms and conditions given the bad pretenses from the initial funding groups.

As of August 15, 2009, a consensus decision was made between ----------, --------- and myself to terminate the agreement with Terry Suitt/DBA Business Solutions LLC effective immediately citing the following adverse performance:

1. Deceptive claim of a March 10, 2009 closing that failed to execute.

2. No reasonable response to ---------- initiative as an alternative compliance of the third condition from Crown State.

3. Chronic lack of communication and timely response that have wasted vital resources and time that delayed several developments and updates causing adverse conditions for the project and its principals.

4. No viable funding options with equitable terms, conditions and bad pretenses.

Thank you for taking the time to mediate this matter and listening to both sides. Your kind direction is very much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Antonio DaSilva

If you are another party disputing your agreement with this entity or person, feel free to contribute your story here. I am only advocating a fair and equitable agreement with strong business ethics. This person will not respond to any communication and will not refund the $2, 500 upfront fee, under false and deceptive pretenses of an implied closing. Additional complaint has been filed with the Florida State attorney office and awaiting further review.