Inside the Merchant Cash Advance Behind My Wells Fargo Legal Order

Behind the Wells Fargo “legal order debit” that emptied my Texas business account is a merchant cash advance (MCA) contract between BroncBuster LLC and Monday Funding LLC. Understanding how that MCA worked—and how it turned into a New York judgment—helps explain why so many small‑business owners are getting blindsided by bank account freezes and legal orders.​

How the Monday Funding Merchant Cash Advance Worked
When traditional banks wouldn’t lend to a business coming out of Chapter 11, BroncBuster turned to a merchant cash advance offered online by Monday Funding. On paper, the deal was described as a “Standard Merchant Cash Advance Agreement,” not a loan.​

Key features of the contract:

“Sale of future receivables” language.
The agreement says BroncBuster is “selling” a fixed dollar amount of future receivables (credit card sales, bank deposits, etc.) to Monday Funding in exchange for an upfront lump sum. In reality, the payments look and feel like a loan with extremely high cost.​
Daily pulls from a bank account.
Monday Funding is authorized to take a set amount from a designated bank account every business day by ACH, starting almost immediately after funding. If a payment bounces, there are non‑sufficient funds fees and default fees stacked on top.​
Aggressive fee schedule.
The agreement builds in multiple fees: origination fees, “compliance” charges, wire fees, NSF fees, blocked/stop‑payment fees, default fees, and even fees for changing the account. When you stack those on top of the purchased receivables amount, the real cost is far beyond a normal small‑business loan.​
On top of all that, the MCA contract includes personal guarantees and provisions that make it very easy for the provider to move quickly to judgment if they say you are in default.​

How an MCA at BroncBuster Became a New York Judgment
The important point for my case is that the merchant cash advance was between Monday Funding and BroncBuster LLC, not A&R Construction LLC. A&R never received the advance, and the funds from the MCA did not go into the Wells Fargo debtor‑in‑possession account for A&R.​

When cash flow tightened and daily MCA payments could not be sustained, Monday Funding and its collection arm, Empire Recovery, moved fast:

They filed suit in New York on the MCA contract, even though BroncBuster operates in Texas.​
They attempted service by certified mail instead of personal service.​
The certified‑mail tracking attached to their affidavit shows the mailing was never delivered and was returned to sender as unclaimed.​
Despite that failed service, a New York default judgment was entered against BroncBuster, A&R Construction, and other parties because no answer ever appeared in the case. From there, that New York MCA judgment was used to generate the legal order that Wells Fargo applied directly to a Texas debtor‑in‑possession account.​

In other words, a high‑cost merchant cash advance taken for BroncBuster ended up draining a Wells Fargo business account for a different company, A&R Construction, based on a judgment obtained without real notice in another state.​

Why Texas Passed HB 700 on Merchant Cash Advances
In 2025, the Texas Legislature enacted House Bill 700, a law aimed squarely at “commercial sales‑based financing,” which includes merchant cash advances like the Monday Funding deal. HB 700 says providers must:​

Give clear written disclosures of the total amount of financing, the disbursement amount, the finance charge, the total repayment amount, and how payments will be calculated.​
Disclose other fees, prepayment charges, collateral or security interests, and any compensation paid to brokers.​
Register with the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner before doing business as an MCA provider or broker in this state.​
Avoid contract terms like confessions of judgment, which are declared void and unenforceable.​
Texas didn’t pass HB 700 in a vacuum. Lawmakers saw exactly the type of problems merchant cash advances were causing for small‑business owners—opaque costs, fast‑tracked lawsuits in distant courts, and heavy‑handed collection tactics.

In my situation, the Monday Funding MCA and the New York judgment that followed fit squarely into the concerns HB 700 is designed to address, especially when the end result is a Wells Fargo legal order debit against a Texas business account that did not receive the MCA funds.​

What This Means for Other Small‑Business Owners
If you are considering or already have a merchant cash advance, especially with a provider that files lawsuits in New York or other far‑away states, here are questions to think about:

Do you clearly understand the total amount you will repay, including all fees and charges, not just the initial “purchase price”?​
Is the MCA provider registered and compliant with your state’s commercial sales‑based financing rules (if your state has them, as Texas now does under HB 700)?​
What does the contract say about jurisdiction, venue, and service of process—could you be sued in another state without meaningful notice?​
Which bank accounts are tied to the MCA, and could a default lead to legal orders that hit accounts for other businesses you own or manage?
In my case, the combination of a high‑cost MCA, a distant New York lawsuit, defective service, and a national bank willing to honor an out‑of‑state judgment without local domestication turned into a perfect storm. If you want to see how that played out in real time, you can read

“What Happened in My Case” https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/--what-happened-in-my-case?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=

and

“Dealing With Wells Fargo After a Legal Order" Debit”]https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/-see-emails-and-calls?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc= 

If you’ve had a merchant cash advance lead to a bank account freeze, legal order debit, or out‑of‑state judgment being used against a local account, consider sharing your story. The more examples come to light, the clearer the picture becomes for regulators, courts, and lawmakers who are trying to decide how far MCA providers and banks should be allowed to go.