Surestay Franchise Cost & 2026 FDD Data
59/100
Second tier
59 this brand65 Lodging medianlikely 55–63 (high confidence)
Higher is better · an editorial assessment, not investment advice
#1,094 of 3,069 graded brands
Why a B: Helped by financial health. Held back by scale, legal record and transparency. See all six factors
- Total investment
- $881K – $2.9M
- Avg gross sales
- not disclosed
- SBA charge-off
- 4.5%
1 in 22 SBA 7(a) loans to Surestay owners charged off (1 of 22 resolved loans, approved since FY1991); Lodging median 3.2%. Loans approved FY2018–FY2022: 1 of 19 resolved loans charged off (5.3%); newer loans have not had time to default, so this is not a trend.
Data from the FDD filing + SBA 7(a) records. Analysis by FranchiseVerdict · Methodology · Website · Report an error · Franchisor? Claim this listing
FranchiseVerdict summary · 2026 FDD
Per the 2026 FDD, a Surestay franchise requires a total initial investment of $881K – $2.9M, including a $8K – $25K franchise fee. Once open, the ongoing royalty is 5.0%. This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the verdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. SBA 7(a) loans show a 4.5% charge-off rate on 22 resolved loans. Verdict grade: B (Second tier), an editorial assessment, not investment advice.
Sources: 2026 FDD · SBA 7(a) loan records (FOIA) · What one unit could make and lose →
Sources, dates and evidence
FDD issued: · Data extracted: · Last cited check: · Staleness risk: low (issued within the last 12 months)
Evidence for the headline figures: strong✓ Investment (Item 7)✓ Item 19 status✓ Units and owners (Item 20)✓ SBA loan coverage✓ Litigation (Item 3)✓ Financial statements (Item 21)✓ Franchisor identityhow this is scored3 of 4 headline figures on this page cite a page of the filing; the rest are marked “Not cited” beside the figure.
Overview
Quick verdict · vs Lodging median
Top edge: green = better than the Lodging median by more than 10%, red = worse by more than 10%, gray = within 10% or no benchmark. Source: FDD filings + SBA 7(a).
Data from public FDD filings and SBA records. Methodology
Bottom line
- RETURNSThe FDD makes no financial performance representation in Item 19, so it discloses no revenue or earnings figures; Item 19 is voluntary, and the Financial performance section explains what that does and does not mean.
- GROWTHIn the latest Item 20 year, the number of franchised outlets grew by 11 (12 opened, 1 closed).
- LEGAL27 litigation matters disclosed in Item 3, higher than typical. Of these, 2 name the franchisor or its predecessor, 25 its parent or affiliates. Pending claims are allegations, not findings.
AT STAKEOne unit at the Item 7 midpoint: $246K a year in payments on assumed SBA 7(a)-style terms.You put in about $380K of your own cash and personally guarantee a $1.5M loan. Assumptions are labeled in Sales; not investment advice.See what one unit could make and lose
Things to check before you sign (3)
- SBA 7(a) charge-off 4.5% on 22 resolved loans, loans approved since FY1991, above the Lodging median of 3.2% (29 brands).
- The franchisor keeps the right to compete inside your territory (Item 12, territory).
- The franchisor receives rebates or payments from suppliers you buy from (Item 8, required suppliers).
Checked and clear: no auditor doubt that the franchisor can keep operating, no net loss of franchised outlets in the latest Item 20 years, no pending lawsuit naming the franchisor, no rule that the owner must run it personally and the full filing on file. Not on file here, so ask: jury-trial waiver.
What to do next
Step 1: Read the FDD itself.
Free: the franchisor must give it to you at least 14 days before you sign or pay. Or look it up in a state registry (Wisconsin, Minnesota, California). What to read first.
Step 2: Talk to current and former owners.
Free: Item 20 of the FDD lists every current owner and those who left last year, most with a phone number. Questions to ask.
Shortcut: the Surestay owner list as a CSV, in the Contacts section.
Step 3: Talk to an SBA lender.
Free: the SBA's Lender Match, or the lenders already lending to this brand in the SBA section. Ask what you would personally guarantee and what the monthly payment would be. If you plan to use retirement savings, ask a CPA about the rules for that first.
Step 4: Have a franchise attorney review the FDD and agreement.
Free: your state bar's lawyer referral service can name franchise lawyers, and many offer a short first consultation. Bring the checks listed above.
Research steps, not investment or legal advice.
Can you afford it, and what does the money buy?
Entry cost (the Item 7 midpoint) is 78% below the Lodging median ($8.5M).
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 5–7 (fees and startup costs)
Do you qualify? The filing states no minimum net worth or liquid capital. Ask SureStay, Inc. (Item 1: 6201 N. 24th Parkway, Phoenix, AZ 85016) and your lender what they require, and keep living costs for the first year outside the deal.
Full Item 7 breakdown15 line items
Initial investment breakdown
| Line item | Low | High | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application Fee | $4K | $4K | |
| Affiliation Fee | $25K | $25K | |
| Impact Study Fee | $0 | $4K | |
| Renovation Work | $0 | $500K | |
| Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment | $0 | $1.3M | |
| Inventory and Operating Equipment | $75K | $150K | |
| Signage | $10K | $30K | |
| Distribution Photography Package Fee | $2.2K | $8K | |
| Computer System | $4.15K | $47.5K | |
| Insurance | $8.75K | $13.8K | |
| Organizational Expense | $1K | $2K | |
| Permits and Licenses | $0 | $5.75K | |
| Miscellaneous Project Management Expenses | $0 | $5K | |
| Green Key Global Certification | $675 | $675 | |
| Additional Funds (3 months) | $750K | $825K | |
| Total initial investment | $881K | $2.9M |
Line items extracted from FDD Item 7. Ranges reflect the franchisor's stated low and high per line. The total row is the total as printed in Item 7. Actual costs may fall outside this range depending on market and build-out scope.
Item 6 · what you pay once you are open
Ongoing fees
| Fee | Amount |
|---|---|
| Royalty | 5.0% of gross sales |
Technology feeThe filing's detailTwo-way reservations interface installation fee $1,500; PMS (AutoClerk Atlas) installation/implementation fee $1,500; IoT Hardware Fee $550; HMSS installation $2,100-$3,500; BestREV cost-recovery set-up fee plus $175/month | $3/month |
| Transfer fee | $10,000 |
What do units actually make?
This FDD makes no Item 19 financial performance representation - a voluntary item - so unit sales aren't disclosed.
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 19 (sales and earnings)
Items 6 (other fees), 7 (startup costs) and 19 (sales and earnings) · assumptions labeled
What you could make and lose: one unit
What one Surestay unit would ask of you, from the filing's Item 7 total and labeled assumptions.
How these figures are worked out
- Loan (assumption): 80% of the $1.9M Item 7 midpoint is a $1.5M loan, paid over 10 years at 10.5%: $246K a year. SBA 7(a)-style terms on a long-term rate; your lender sets yours. Surestay's past SBA 7(a) loans averaged 6.5% at approval; 7(a) rates move with the prime rate, so 10.5% is a current-rate assumption, not this brand's history.
What you put at risk
Your own cash in: about $380K Assumption (the part the loan does not cover of the $1.9M Item 7 midpoint), plus whatever anything Item 7 leaves out (its notes say what). The loan is $1.5M.
Personal guarantee. SBA 7(a) loans require a personal guarantee from anyone who owns 20% or more of the business. If the unit cannot pay, the lender can collect from you personally, which can include your savings and your home. The worst case is losing the cash you put in and still owing the rest of the loan.
Gross sales are not profit, and none of these figures is take-home pay until tax and every operating cost are paid. The assumptions are ours, not the filing's. Not investment advice.
Returns modelOne unit · several units · editable
Surestay makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no gross sales figures are disclosed. The return models need one gross sales figure to start from, plus the operating costs that turn gross sales into a profit. Enter your own and the calculator runs on your assumptions; nothing here is modelled until you do.
Returns model · one unit
What would one Surestay unit leave you each year after the loan payment?
Not disclosed in Item 19. Enter your own gross sales assumption
Gross sales, not profit: the costs below decide what is left.
No Item 19 figures are on file for this brand. Enter your own costs from a lease quote, a payroll plan and calls with current owners.
Illustrative category typicals, not sourced to any filing, survey or sample. Replace them with figures from franchisee validation calls before you rely on the output.
Item 7 midpoint of $881K to $2.9M
Item 7's $750K to $825K additional funds are already in the total
Left after the loan payment · per year
The unit's EBITDA minus the assumed loan payment. Before tax, depreciation and any cost your inputs leave out (insurance, accounting and legal, licenses, technology fees): not take-home pay.
Gross sales are not profit. Neither the filing nor a stated assumption on this page supplies annual revenue, ad fund rate, direct costs, labor, rent / occupancy and other operating costs. Enter your own (a lease quote, owner calls) and the model runs on it.
Loan of $1.5M at 10.5% over 10 years, an assumption, not a quote. Return and payback are before tax, depreciation and the costs above. The loan usually needs your personal guarantee.
These models are for research and scenario planning only. Not investment advice. Actual results depend on your specific location, management, and market conditions. Consult a franchise attorney and accountant before signing any franchise agreement.
Item 19 · Source: 2026 FDD · filed by SureStay, Inc.
Financial performance
No financial performance representation
This franchisor makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD. Item 19 is voluntary under the FTC Franchise Rule, and this filing states that it makes none, so no revenue or earnings figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the verdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that.
Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
vs Lodging medians
How Surestay compares
Category median of published Lodging brands that report the figure; the middle half spans the 25th to 75th percentile and n counts the brands behind it. Medians are used because a few very large systems pull an average far from the typical brand. Revenue is disclosed gross sales, not profit.
Who are you contracting with?
SureStay, Inc., owned by Best Western International, Inc.
Item 1 (the franchisor) · who you're contracting with
The franchisor
Corporate structure & franchisor financials
- Legal entity
- SureStay, Inc.
- Parent company
- Best Western International, Inc.
- FDD Item 1, page 7 of the 2026 FDD
- CEO title
- President
- Lawrence M. Cuculic
- Incorporated in
- Arizona
- HQ
- 6201 N. 24th Parkway, Phoenix, AZ 85016
- Auditor
- Ernst & Young LLP
- Audited financials
- Franchisor revenue
- $547.5M
- latest fiscal year in the 2026 FDD; $520.9M the year before
Overview
About
SureStay, Inc. licenses independent hotel owners to convert and operate existing hotels under the SureStay Collection by Best Western, SureStay, and SureStay Studio brand names. The company is a wholly-owned affiliate of Best Western International and offers a global collection of lower-midscale and upper-economy hotels.
- CEO
- Lawrence M. Cuculic
- Franchised outlets in
- 11 states and territories
- Item 20 Table 3, at year end
- States and territories listed
- 12
- registered or offered in, as the filing lists them (DC and territories included); not where units may open
Is the system healthy?
+16 franchised outlets between the first and last year-ends Item 20 prints (0 to 16).
Source: FDD 2026 · Item 20 (outlets opened, closed and transferred)
Item 20 (outlet counts) · unit dynamics
The growth chart
- Company-owned
- 0
- Corporate units in the system
- % franchised
- 100%
- vs corporate-owned
Last fiscal year · Item 20 rates and pipeline
- Reacquired
- 0
- Franchisor bought back
- Signed, not yet open
- 2
- 0.13 per open outlet · Item 20 Table 5
- Projected new
- 4
- Franchisor's next-year forecast
Item 20 · franchised units at year end
Franchised units rose from 0 in 2023 to 16 in 2025
Axis does not start at zero.
Source and method
Item 20 (outlet counts) Table 3 · franchised outlets at year end
Where current outlets are
Franchised outlets at year end by state, as the filing's Item 20 Table 3 counts them. Not a list of where the franchisor may sell new units.
Current outlets (count on the tile) · 11 statesNo current outlet
16 franchised outlets at year end in 11 states (Item 20 Table 3).
Government records
SBA loan data
Lenders charged off 4.5% of 22 resolved SBA 7(a) loans, above the 3.2% category median. 7(a) is the SBA's main small-business loan; a resolved loan was paid in full or charged off.
- Loans on file
- 58
- SBA 7(a) loans matched to this brand, incl. those still being repaid
- Loan volume
- $158.2M
- Average loan
- $2.7M
- loan volume divided by loans
- Charge-off rate
- 4.5%
- 1 of 22 resolved loans
- Paid in full
- 95.5%
- of resolved loans
- Charge-off, loans approved FY2018–FY2022
- 5.3%
- 1 of 19 resolved loans; newer loans have not had time to default, so this is not a trend
- Lenders
- 26
- Average interest rate
- 6.5%
- Jobs reported
- 589
- Lender concentration
- 16%
- top lender's share
Cumulative: every 7(a) loan matched to this brand in the SBA’s FOIA files, approved FY1991 onward. Historical lending data, not predictive of future performance. How SBA charge-off rates are calculated
Benchmark: the median Lodging brand charges off 3.2% (29 brands with a published rate, same cumulative window and source). This brand is 1.3 points above it.
Borrower mix: of 58 loans with a business-age entry, 53 recorded an age: 12 (23%) went to startups or businesses under two years old and 41 (77%) to established businesses or ownership changes; 5 were marked unanswered.
The approval-year breakdown covers 19 of the 22 resolved loans and 1 of the 1 charge-offs (FY2018 to FY2022).
SBA 7(a) · charge-off rate by approval year
Surestay charge-off rate by loan approval year
None of these 4 approval years has 10 or more resolved loans, too few to draw a trend. Each year’s numbers are in the table below.
Show the numbers by year
| Year | Resolved | Charged off | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 6 | 0 | Too few |
| 2019 | 6 | 1 | Too few |
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | Too early |
| 2022 | 3 | 0 | Too early |
Source and method
Explore lender portfolios on Bank Reports or regional data on State Reports.
Full SBA lending reportlenders · charge-off rate · trend
Lender network · SBA 7(a)
SBA Lending Report
Lender, state and yearly detail for Surestay from SBA 7(a) FOIA loan records.
- Average SBA guarantee
- 78%
- Average interest rate
- 6.5%
- Lender concentration
- 16%
- Jobs reported
- 589
Top 10 SBA lenders by loan count
| Loans | Volume | Charge-off |
|---|---|---|
| GBank | ||
| 9 | $28.6M | Not on file |
| Pinnacle Bank | ||
| 7 | $15.9M | Not on file |
| Peoples Bank | ||
| 4 | $10.9M | Not on file |
| Millennium Bank | ||
| 4 | $9.2M | Not on file |
| US Metro Bank | ||
| 4 | $12.7M | Not on file |
A lender’s rate counts only its resolved loans, the loans that have finished (paid in full or charged off); a 0.0% often means few of its loans have finished. Under 10 resolved loans, the rate reads “Too few”.
Charge-off rate by state (top 10 by loans)
| State | Loans | Charged off | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA California | 14 | 0 | Too few5 resolved |
| TX Texas | 13 | 0 | Too few4 resolved |
| NC North Carolina | 8 | 0 | Too few4 resolved |
| IN Indiana | 5 | 0 | Too few3 resolved |
| IL Illinois | 3 | 0 | Too few1 resolved |
| AR Arkansas | 1 | 1 | Too few1 resolved |
| AZ Arizona | 1 | 0 | Too few1 resolved |
| CO Colorado | 1 | 0 | Too few1 resolved |
| FL Florida | 1 | 0 | Too few0 resolved |
| KS Kansas | 1 | 0 | Too few0 resolved |
Rate: charged-off loans over resolved loans (paid in full plus charged off), shown from 10 resolved loans. "Too few": under 10 resolved. The Loans column counts every approval in the window, including loans still being repaid.
SBA 7(a) loans approved per year
Borrower profile
The SBA's own business-age labels (5)
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA loan-level data, matched to the brand by FranchiseVerdict.
What are the risks?
Main risk in the grade: legal, then scale and transparency. The reasons are below.
Source: SBA 7(a) FOIA · FDD Items 3, 21
Verdict grade + FDD Items 3 (litigation), 4 (bankruptcy), 8 (required suppliers), 16 (what you may sell), 21 (audited financials)
Risk and legal
Grade B: Second tier, 59/100 (category median 65); the full grade is at the top of the page.
How the grade is built
Why a B, factor by factor
- Financial health HelpsAudited financials; no going-concern doubt; statements are the parent's, so this stays near neutral
- Unit economics NeutralNo Item 19 sales figure to set against the investment, so neutral
- Unit growth Neutral+16 franchised outlets between the first and last year-ends Item 20 prints (0 to 16); growth is not graded below a 10-outlet starting base; turnover 6.3%
- Scale Weighs on it16 franchised units; franchising since 2016
- Legal Weighs on it, weakest dimension2 matters naming the franchisor among the Item 3 matters we list (12.5 per 100 outlets)
- Transparency Weighs on itItem 19 declines to disclose financial performance; audited financials
- Adjustments after the six dimensions (+5 points)SBA loan record: the SBA charge-off rate (4.5% on 22 resolved loans) is between 2% and 5%, a range the score counts in a brand's favour, so it added 5 points.
From the six scored dimensions, an editorial assessment, not investment advice. How the score is built
Litigation (Item 3)
Subject: the franchisor is a named party (defendant).
Item 3 discloses 2 concluded cases involving SureStay directly (franchisee suits for wrongful termination, settled for $125,000 and $165,000) and numerous cases involving parent Best Western International, including franchisee/member counterclaims for wrongful termination and breach of contract, several state regulatory consent orders/settlements for unregistered franchise/membership offerings (California $500,000, Maryland $297,000 penalty, Virginia, Washington), and multiple 2025 fee-collection suits BWI initiated against terminated members.
Largest disclosed settlement in the franchisor's own cases: $165,000
Bankruptcy (Item 4)
None disclosed
Audited financials (Item 21)
Yes · Ernst & Young LLP
Franchisor revenue (Item 21)
The revenue figures are in the Franchisor tab, under The franchisor.
Franchisor entity revenue (not unit-level)
ⓘ These are the parent company's consolidated financials (the parent guarantees the franchisor), not this brand's standalone results; the figure reflects the whole corporate group, not this brand alone.
Supplier relationship · Items 8 & 16
Ask what the franchisor earns on the supplies it sells you or the rebates it takes (Item 8).
- Franchisor sells you products: Yes
- Franchisor takes supplier rebates: Yes
- Must buy proprietary products: Yes
- Restricted to system-approved products: No
- Can negotiate own supplier terms: Yes
Litigation case detail27 matters · Item 3
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (2)
Ma-Krupa v. SureStay, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2020-12-11 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV 2020- 016356
“… Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2020- 016356 (Filed December 11, 2020). On December 12, 2017, Ma-Krupa executed a Franchise Agreement for a SureStay location in Kansas City.”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that SureStay would pay Ma-Krupa $165,000, plus forgive Ma-Krupa’s past due account balance of approximately $38,500.”
Royal Hospitality Group, Inc. v. SureStay, Inc.
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2019-06-14 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV 2019-009981
“… Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2019-009981 (Filed June 14, 2019).”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the parties agreed to settle the case, with the parties agreeing that we would pay Royal $125,000.”
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (17)
Best Western International, Inc. v. 1025 Beach LLC, Joga Sing Hayre, et al.
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2022-10-05 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:22-cv-01696-CDB
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-01696-CDB (Filed October 5, 2022;”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Far Rockaway Former Member would pay Best Western International $160,000 in installment payments over 18 months.”
Best Western International, Inc. v. 1Nonly Phi Mar, LLC, Philip Levine, et al.
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2022-03-21 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:22-cv-00440-MTL
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-00440-MTL (Filed March 21, 2022;”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Dallas Former Member would pay Best Western International $223,000 in installment payments over 13 months.”
Best Western International, Inc. v. Brookfield Ventures, LLC, et al.
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2022-01-10 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:22-cv-00037-JAT
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-JAT (Filed January 10, 2022;”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Milwaukee-Brookfield Former Member would pay Best Western International $25,000. Best Western International, Inc. v. 1Nonly Phi Mar, LLC, Philip Levine, et al., Arizona District Court Case No. 2:22-cv-00440-MTL (Filed March 21, 2022;” (page 14)
Best Western International, Inc. v. 764 4th Avenue Associates, LLC
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2020-09-08 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:20-cv-01760
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:20-cv-01760 (Filed September 8, 2020;”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Hotel would pay Best Western International $250,000 in installment payments over 24 months. Best Western International, Inc. v. Twin City Lodging, LLC, et al., Arizona District Court Case No. 18-cv-03374-SPL (Filed October 19, 2018).”
In the Matter of Best Western International, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2020-02-24 · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2019-00060
“… Virginia Corporation Commission’s Division of Securities and Retail Franchising, Case No. SEC-2019-00060 (Effective February 24, 2020).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of Best Western International, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2019-04-09 · California Department of Business Oversight · FIL ORG ID.: 102063
“… Department of Business Oversight of the State of California, FIL ORG ID.: 102063 (Effective April 9, 2019).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of Best Western International, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2019-02-07 · Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division · S-18-2510-19-CO01
“… Securities Division of Department of Financial Institutions of Washington, Order No. S-18-2510-19-CO01 (Effective February 7, 2019).”Page 19 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. Twin City Lodging, LLC, et al.
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2018-10-19 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 18-cv-03374-SPL
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 18-cv-03374-SPL (Filed October 19, 2018).”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Mankato Former Hotel would pay Best Western International $66,250. Best Western International, Inc. v. Oakland Park, Inc., et al., Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2015-000279 (Filed December 12, 2016, Appellate Ruling December 6, 2018).” (page 15)
In the Matter of Best Western International, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2018-08-24 · Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland · 2018-0237
“… Securities Division of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Case No. 2018-0237 (Effective August 24, 2018).”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. American Hospitality Solution, LLC and Deborah Speziale
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2016-10-06 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:16-cv-03405
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:16-cv-03405 (Filed October 6, 2016).”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Crossroads Former Hotel would pay Best Western International $35,000. Quist v. Best Western International, Inc., Supreme Court of North Dakota, Civ.”
Best Western International, Inc. v. Oakland Park, Inc., et al.
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2016-12-12 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV 2015-000279
“… Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2015-000279 (Filed December 12, 2016, Appellate Ruling December 6, 2018).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Fort Lauderdale Former Hotel would pay Best Western International $225,000. Bright LLC v. Best Western International, Inc., Arizona District Court Case No. 17-cv-00463- PHX-ROS (Filed July 8, 2016).”
Best Western International, Inc. v. Upstate Host, LLC and Tarrunumn Murad
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2016-03-31 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:16-cv-00885 (PGR)
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:16-cv-00885 (PGR) (Filed March 31, 2016).”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Syracuse Former Hotel would pay Best Western International $78,000 in 24 equal monthly payments of $3,250.”
Bright LLC v. Best Western International, Inc.
settledBest Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2016-07-08 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 17-cv-00463- PHX-ROS
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 17-cv-00463- PHX-ROS (Filed July 8, 2016).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Former Applicant would pay Best Western International $114,000. State Bank of Texas, SBT I-10 Service Rd., Ft.” (page 16)
Best Western International, Inc. v. SDV Hospitality and Resources Corporation and Deepak Kant Vyas
settledBrought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2015-10-27 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:15-cv-02159
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:15-cv-02159 (Filed October 27, 2015).”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On July 26, 2017, the parties settled the case with mutual releases of all claims per a confidential settlement agreement, the disclosure of which is only allowed if required by applicable law or court order.”
State Bank of Texas, SBT I-10 Service Rd., Ft. Worth Hotel South, LLC v. Best Western International, Inc.
settledGovernment or regulatory action · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2015-11-20 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV 2015-008670
“… Arizona State Court (Maricopa County) Case No. CV 2015-008670 (Filed November 20, 2015).”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties agreed that the Fort Worth Former Hotel would pay Best Western International $25,000. Best Western International, Inc. v. SDV Hospitality and Resources Corporation and Deepak Kant Vyas, Arizona District Court Case No. 2:15-cv-02159 (Filed October 27, 2015).”
Commissioner of Corporations v. Best Western International, Inc.
judgmentGovernment or regulatory action · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 1988-07-29 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · 0693928
“… Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. 0693928 (Filed July 29, 1988).”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Quist v. Best Western International, Inc.
concludedGovernment or regulatory action · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 1984-07-18 · Supreme Court of North Dakota · Civ. Case No. 10571
“… Supreme Court of North Dakota, Civ. Case No. 10571 (Filed July 18, 1984). On March 3, 1983, the North Dakota Securities Commissioner held that (i) the agreements between Best Western International and its Members were “franchises” as defined in the North Dakota Franchise Investment Law (“FIL”);”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Status not stated in the filing (8)
Best Western International, Inc. v. Anderson Hospitality, LLC Ankit Panchal, and Nikita Panchal
Brought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2025-08-22 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:25-cv-03077-MTM
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:25-cv-03077-MTM (Filed August 22, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. GVR Holding LTD, Gurkamal Kullar, and Jane Doe Kullar
Brought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2025-08-22 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-030257
“… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-030257 (Filed August 22, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. Hari Krupa, LLC, Pranav Halvawala, and Jane Doe Halvawala
Brought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2025-11-10 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-061393
“… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-061393 (Filed November 10, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. Hriday Hospitality, LLC, Jigar Desai, and Tanvi Desai
Brought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2025-11-12 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-062934
“… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-062934 (Filed November 12, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. Satguru Nanak Ji, LLC, Taranjit Singh, and Jane Doe Singh
Brought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2025-08-25 · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:25-CV-03086-DGC
“… Arizona District Court Case No. 2:25-CV-03086-DGC (Filed August 25, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. Supreme International Hotels, Inc., Shakeel Syed, and Sama Amrin
Brought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2025-02-12 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-005555
“… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-005555 (Filed February 12, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. VD Patel Family Company, LLC, Ashik Patel, and Trisha Patel
Brought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2025-04-02 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-011764
“… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County Case No. CV2025-011764 (Filed April 2, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Best Western International, Inc. v. VED Enterprises Inc. Aksha Amin, and Jane Doe Amin
Brought by the franchisor · Best Western International, Inc. (our parent) · filed 2025-08-22 · Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County · CV2025-030228
“… Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, Case No. CV2025-030228 (Filed August 22, 2025).”Page 20 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
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.
What are you signing up for?
Source: FDD 2026 · Items 11, 12, 17
FDD Items 12 (territory), 15 (owner participation) and 17 (renewal, termination and disputes)
Contract and territory detail
| Protected territory | No |
|---|---|
| Exclusive territory | No |
| Franchisor can compete | Yes |
| Who runs it (Item 15) | A manager may run it |
| Right of first refusal | No |
| Transfer requires consent | Yes |
| Termination notice | 365 days |
| Mandatory arbitration | No |
| Governing law | Arizona |
Items 10 (financing), 11 (training and support)
Training and operations
- Ongoing training
- Optional
- Time to open
- 2 mo
- From signing to launch
- Site selection
- franchisee (existing hotel conversion; franchisor does not select site)
- Franchisor financing
- Not offered
- Item 10
- POS system
- AutoClerk Atlas PMS
- Operating tech stack
Items 5 (initial fees) & 11 (training and support)
Franchisor support
Item 20 (outlet counts) · call current owners
Franchisee contacts
Who can you call before you sign?
16 current owners to call
Each record has the franchisee (company or owner name as the filing prints it), phone number, city and state. 16 records. From the filing's Item 20 (the outlet list); the FDD itself is the free source.
For your own due-diligence calls only. Not for telemarketing, marketing lists, or automated or prerecorded calls or texts.
One-time · CSV download · full refund within 7 days if the data does not match the FDD. Some numbers, especially for former owners, may be outdated.
Frequently asked questions
How much does it cost to open a Surestay franchise?
Per the 2026 FDD, the total investment to open a Surestay franchise ranges from $881K to $2.9M, with an initial franchise fee of $8K – $25K. This is the Item 7 total in the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD): the startup costs the franchisor lists, such as build-out, equipment, inventory and working capital. It usually leaves out buying land or a building; Item 7's notes say what is excluded.
What do Surestay franchise owners earn?
Surestay makes no financial performance representation in Item 19 of its FDD - a voluntary item under the FTC Franchise Rule - so no gross sales figures are disclosed. Declining to publish one is lawful and is not evidence of how the outlets perform. It does mean that less about this brand can be verified from its filing, and the verdict grade - an editorial assessment, not investment advice - reflects that. Item 20 of the FDD lists current and former franchisees; asking them directly is the standard way to fill this gap.
Who owns Surestay?
Surestay is franchised by SureStay, Inc. Its parent company is Best Western International, Inc.. Source: FDD Item 1, 2026 filing.
What is Item 19 in the Surestay FDD?
The FDD section where a franchisor may disclose financial performance of its outlets. Disclosure is optional and formats vary; figures are typically gross sales, which is revenue before expenses, not profit. The Surestay FDD does not make an Item 19 financial performance representation, so this page shows no earnings figure.
What is Surestay's franchise failure rate?
There is no published franchise failure rate. What is measurable is Surestay's SBA charge-off rate: 4.5% on 22 resolved loans. Put plainly: 1 in 22 SBA 7(a) loans to Surestay owners charged off (1 of 22 resolved loans, approved since FY1991); loans approved FY2018–FY2022: 1 of 19 resolved loans charged off (5.3%); newer loans have not had time to default, so this is not a trend. The SBA charge-off rate is the share of a brand's resolved SBA 7(a) loans to its franchisees that the SBA wrote off, including purchased guarantees. Resolved means paid in full or charged off; active loans are excluded because their outcome is not yet known. It is a lending outcome, not a count of closed businesses. A franchisee can repay and close, or default and keep trading.
How many Surestay franchise locations are there?
Per the 2026 FDD, Surestay has 16 franchised units and 0 company-owned (16 in all). In the latest year, the number of franchised outlets grew by 11 (12 opened, 1 closed).
Is Surestay a good franchise to buy?
FranchiseVerdict gives Surestay a B Verdict grade (Second tier) with a verdict score of 59 out of 100 (higher is better), an editorial assessment, not investment advice. Helped by financial health (audited financials). Held back by scale (16 franchised units), legal record (2 matters naming the franchisor among the Item 3 matters we list: 12.5 per 100 outlets) and transparency (Item 19 declines to disclose financial performance). The “Why a B” section on this page lists all six dimensions and any adjustment. Speak with current franchisees before making any investment decision.
Other Lodging franchises
Similar investment first, then by grade
This information is provided for research purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or investment advice. Verify all figures with the franchisor's current Franchise Disclosure Document before making any investment decision.