FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Real Property Management litigation history

What Real Property Management disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.

Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 6; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $75K; As stated in Item 3

Bankruptcy (Item 4): Disclosed; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

Two pending/recent franchisee disputes (Solano Properties - pending; Rego - settled for $175,000 paid to Franchisor) allege Franchisor's post-termination restrictive covenants violate California UCL, met with Franchisor counterclaims for breach of contract. Three older, resolved cases (Gitlin 2016-2017, Garcia 2014-2018, Bechard 2014-2017) involved Predecessor, mostly tenant/franchisee disputes settled for modest amounts ($13,000-$75,000) or franchise buybacks.

Item 3 (litigation) · 6 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Pending (1)

Solano Properties Inc., Nicholas Munsee, Estate of Michael Munsee, by and through its Personal Representative, Dixie Munsee, and Lundi Munsee v. Property Management Business Solutions LLC and Real Property Management SPV LLC
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-09-29 · Superior Court of Sacramento County, California · 25CV023083
“… in the Superior Court of Sacramento County, of the State of California , Case No. 25CV023083.”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (4)

Abraham Rego, Monica Rego, Rego Investments Central Valley, Inc. v. Real Property Management SPV LLC
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-02-21 · Superior Court for the State of California, Stanislaus County · CV-25-001811
“… in the Superior Court for the State of California, Stanislaus County Case No. CV- 25-001811.”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 12, 2025, the parties settled the dispute without any admission of liability by either party, plaintiffs making payment to us of $175,000, defendants allowing plaintiffs to continue servicing its pre-existing customers, a mutual release of claims and agreement to dismiss with prejudice the lawsuit, which dismissal was requested September 15, 2025.”
John Gitlin, Marika Barber, and Surf and Sea Properties, Inc. v. Property Management Business Solutions, LLC
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Property Management Business Solutions, LLC (Predecessor) · filed 2016-07-11 · Superior Court of San Diego County, California; American Arbitration Association · 37-2016-0000023515
“… in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California, Case No. 37-2016-0000023515.”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The dispute was settled on April 3, 2017. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to terminate the two franchises owned by plaintiffs in San Diego County, California, and Predecessor agreed to forgive all amounts owed by plaintiffs to Predecessor under the franchise agreements for such franchises.”
Jose Garcia v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Flagstar Bank, OI P. Huang, Consolidated Property Management, Corelogic, Inc., La Maison Properties, Hernandez Building & Preservation, Property Management Business Solutions, LLC, and Does 9-30
settled
Brought by a third party · Property Management Business Solutions, LLC (Predecessor) · filed 2014-01-09 · Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County · RG14709418
“… Case No. RG14709418 in the Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On September 29, 2017, the parties settled this dispute with Predecessor agreeing to pay Garcia $13,000. The action was fully dismissed, with prejudice, on January 29, 2018.”
Nya Bechard v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Inc., Real Property Management Experts, S &I Ventures, Inc., and Does 1-30 / Federal National Mortgage Association v. Property Management Business Solutions, Inc., aka Real Property Management and Does 1-50
settled
Brought by a third party · Property Management Business Solutions, LLC (Predecessor) · filed 2014-12-05 · Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County · RG14750411
“… Case No. RG14750411 in the Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On October 17, 2017, Fannie Mae and Predecessor settled the cross-complaint with Predecessor agreeing to pay Fannie Mae $75,000, and the cross complaint was dismissed, with prejudice, on November 20, 2017.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (1)

The Commissioner of Business Oversight of the State of California v. FOR Franchising LLC d/b/a Window Genie and Richard Nonelle
concluded
Government or regulatory action · FOR Franchising LLC (a predecessor to our affiliate Window Genie) · filed 2017-11-14 · California Department of Business Oversight
“The Commissioner of Business Oversight of the State of California v. FOR Franchising LLC d/b/a Window Genie and Richard Nonelle.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “FOR would pay an administrative penalty in the total amount of $5,000 (which amount FOR paid) and (c) within”

Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.

Disclosed in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 4: bankruptcy

No bankruptcy involving the Franchisor itself; disclosed bankruptcies are of KKR portfolio companies (Marelli Holdings, The Collected Group, Envision Healthcare, Genesis Care, IPI Legacy Liquidation, Cafe Coffee Day) unrelated to Franchisor operations.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Bankruptcies are unrelated KKR portfolio cos, not franchisor

The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.

Before you weigh a lawsuit

How to read Item 3

A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.

Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:

Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?

Back to the Real Property Management verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls