Blog

Corporate gaslighting is what happens when a powerful institution tells you your lived experience and documents are wrong, while quietly relying on those same documents behind the scenes. It is not just about hurt feelings; it is about power, control, and the slow erosion of a person’s confidence in their own evidence and judgment.<h3>&nbsp; From Bank Story To Legal Reality </h3><figure id="figure-azbril4m2mj3qy5ci"><img id="azbril4m2mj3qy5ci" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2336nIi4E10iHtGRJVsjNws6CkEgle6oySz1aOskBQhi6qLRB2dOHvHYGx6mt9R7.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/2336nIi4E10iHtGRJVsjNws6CkEgle6oySz1aOskBQhi6qLRB2dOHvHYGx6mt9R7.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Every dispute starts with a story. The bank or large company has a polished “narrative” about what happened, why they are right, and why you should simply accept their version. In the soft glow of that narrative, the paperwork can look fuzzy and harmless.But the moment you shine a legal flashlight on the same stack of documents—contracts, account statements, letters, emails—the story can shift dramatically. What looked like a harmless “policy decision” can become an unauthorized account seizure, an undomesticated judgment, or a clear violation of state law. The institution’s goal is to keep you staring at the lamp, not the beam of law-focused light cutting through the paperwork.<h3>&nbsp; “You’re Misunderstanding” – The Boardroom Gaslight </h3><figure id="figure-kxlcqf77gjmj3r0jq8"><img id="kxlcqf77gjmj3r0jq8" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3b4kuppfw4boaIFxff551EzPG9srr8FWpXgMZz3od8c8kKvNuz8SP6rjSPgAbDPS.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/3b4kuppfw4boaIFxff551EzPG9srr8FWpXgMZz3od8c8kKvNuz8SP6rjSPgAbDPS.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Corporate gaslighting often begins in conference rooms and email chains, long before anyone steps into a courtroom. A lone customer or small business owner sits surrounded by well-dressed professionals who confidently deliver phrases like:“You’re misunderstanding.” “There is no Texas issue here.” “You’re overreacting.” The person in the middle holds actual evidence—contracts, state-law citations, timelines—but the room responds as if the documents do not exist. The message is subtle but brutal: Your evidence is invisible because we say so. Over time, repeated dismissal can make even a careful, detail‑driven person question their own reading of plain language on the page.<h3>&nbsp; How The Strings Get Pulled In Court </h3><figure id="figure-y87pjh5oemj3r1q90"><img id="y87pjh5oemj3r1q90" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/36R8HhIezMQkWBAMCKCoHiR6mW55PPriK52QPJyxrQCU9OVJqwRoO4VI2INJPHKu.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/36R8HhIezMQkWBAMCKCoHiR6mW55PPriK52QPJyxrQCU9OVJqwRoO4VI2INJPHKu.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>The most dangerous gaslighting happens when narratives walk through the courthouse doors. A corporate lawyer can frame the dispute so narrowly that the judge never sees the full context. Instead of “unauthorized seizure under state law,” the issue becomes “routine judgment enforcement” or a “misunderstanding about procedure.”In the image, the attorney is literally pulling strings tied to the judge’s gavel, while folders labeled “Texas Law,” “Evidence,” and “Account Seizure” sit on the bench. That is the power dynamic: if the story is framed correctly for the court, key issues can be kept out of reach. For a self‑represented litigant, the challenge is forcing the judge to pick up the right folder—the one where the paper trail lives.<h3>&nbsp; Words In The Air vs. Documents On The Table </h3><figure id="figure-ax2l97c65mj3r7sfw"><img id="ax2l97c65mj3r7sfw" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/33aPfCCOGOKX0dVuybHqcJUhSPolhgSEOrpLFzyM2fLV2gdmAZ7pRKACg7TUDkme.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/33aPfCCOGOKX0dVuybHqcJUhSPolhgSEOrpLFzyM2fLV2gdmAZ7pRKACg7TUDkme.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Corporate gaslighting lives in the gap between spoken assurances and written reality. On one side are the comforting phrases:“No jurisdiction.” “We did nothing wrong.” “You’re misunderstanding.” Those sentences float like smoke: easy to say, hard to pin down. On the other side are the bound volumes of documents—state statutes, court rules, account records, and internal policies. They may show an undomesticated out‑of‑state judgment being enforced anyway, a debtor‑in‑possession (DIP) account treated like ordinary collateral, or funds taken beyond what any judgment could justify.When you live through this, you learn a hard rule: never chase the smoke; stay with the paper. Ask, “Where is that in writing?” and “Show me the authority.” If the words in the air do not match the documents on the table, believe the documents.<h3>&nbsp; Turning On The Lights: Record, Emails, Filings, Complaints </h3><figure id="figure-ox91vqf1ijmj3r4gmv"><img id="ox91vqf1ijmj3r4gmv" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/56aXxnEdDVTfFtE5wVFO9brzmNUNrgdjvqAzTe3oyXIIFSFutW7exjsaA88Pxutz.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/56aXxnEdDVTfFtE5wVFO9brzmNUNrgdjvqAzTe3oyXIIFSFutW7exjsaA88Pxutz.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>The antidote to gaslighting is organized, verifiable documentation. Clarity is not a feeling; it is a system you build. Think of each switch in this image as a category you control:Record – Keep your own complete record of events, from the first problem to the latest filing. Emails – Save and organize every email; treat them as sworn testimony that has not been sworn in yet. Filings – Track each court filing, response, and order, and map what arguments are actually before the judge. Regulator Complaints – Document your reports to banking regulators, consumer agencies, and oversight bodies. When all of these are “lit,” the corporate narrative has fewer dark corners to hide in. You are not relying on memory; you are relying on timestamps, file names, and PDFs.<h3>&nbsp; The Distorted Mirror: How Gaslighting Shapes Self‑Perception </h3><figure id="figure-9d5e3i6g6mmj3r5fpt"><img id="9d5e3i6g6mmj3r5fpt" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/324VRKOByKDuOfPYW3dCgLP1iBZdoUZXJDBK3MXX0ACqfFm1Oi88s1ZC6YqyE6Jy.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/324VRKOByKDuOfPYW3dCgLP1iBZdoUZXJDBK3MXX0ACqfFm1Oi88s1ZC6YqyE6Jy.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>Corporate gaslighting is not only external; it seeps into how you see yourself. You can walk into an office carrying a thick folder of evidence and still feel like the reflection in the mirror: confused, frivolous, and without a real case. The longer an institution denies obvious facts, the more it tries to turn “You have a strong claim” into “You are overreacting.”The distorted mirror tells you your injuries are minor, your questions are naive, and your insistence on clear answers is a personal flaw. The real turning point comes when you realize the distortion is not in you—it is in the way the institution wants you to see yourself. The documents in your hands are reality; the labels on the mirror are strategy.<h3>&nbsp; Email Storms And The Power Of A Timeline </h3><figure id="figure-o8cy7oq4q8mj3r6804"><img id="o8cy7oq4q8mj3r6804" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/22YNfToWVjAozVtX3cyCRY0cSzJW8TVCB1cXSFyizwEoXQLBNZdsPACViTNHF2kJ.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/22YNfToWVjAozVtX3cyCRY0cSzJW8TVCB1cXSFyizwEoXQLBNZdsPACViTNHF2kJ.jpg" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;"></figure>When a dispute heats up, one classic tactic is to bury you in an email storm. On the left side of the image, a person sits surrounded by messages: “File in NY,” “No Texas matter here,” “You’re violating the rules,” “Urgent response required.” Each email demands fast reaction, keeping you too busy to step back and see the big picture.On the right side is the antidote: a simple, factual timeline. For example:Judgment entered. No domestication in the enforcing state. Account seizure in 2019. Key confirming email in 2022. Once you map the story as a sequence of dated events, contradictions become obvious. Suddenly, the gaslighting phrases do not match the history they themselves created. Courts and regulators respond far better to a one‑page timeline with citations than to a thousand emotional emails.<h3>&nbsp; The Courtroom Illusion: When Gaslighting Becomes A Glass Wall </h3><figure id="figure-la2dujhzqfmj3ra6a6"><img id="la2dujhzqfmj3ra6a6" src="https://cdn.durable.co/blocks/23CHWYPpowzrAPPpkUPZeLoygbqz2BO2akA659qYy0i73b9LLENu0bvo1KI8Pg4W.jpg" alt="" title="" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 rounded-lg md:rounded-xl lg:rounded-2xl" style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: center center;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionX="undefined" data-positionY="undefined" data-fullWidth="false"/></figure>The final stage of corporate gaslighting is the courtroom illusion. On one side of the courtroom, a team sits calmly with laptops and binders. On the other side, a self‑represented person or small‑firm lawyer tries to speak through an invisible barrier. Every time they raise notice, evidence, or law, it feels like their words bend and vanish inside a glass bubble.This is where clarity, timelines, and documentation matter most. Courts can be misled by smooth narratives, but they are ultimately bound by the record. The key is getting the right facts and statutes into that record in a form the court must address: sworn declarations, authenticated exhibits, precise references to state law, and focused motions. The more you can pierce the illusion with organized evidence, the harder it is for anyone—bank or judge—to pretend the issues do not exist.&nbsp; Surviving Corporate Gaslighting If you are living through a similar battle, a few principles help keep you grounded:Believe documents over verbal assurances. Build your own record; never rely on the institution’s files alone. Turn chaos into a timeline to expose contradictions. Separate how they describe you from what the evidence actually shows. Measure progress not by how understood you feel, but by what is now in the official record. Corporate gaslighting thrives in confusion, delay, and shame. The moment you replace confusion with clarity, delay with documented timelines, and shame with grounded confidence in your own evidence, the game changes. You may still face resistance, but you are no longer arguing about your sanity—you are arguing about the facts.

Corporate Gaslighting: When Institutions Rewrite Reality

American flag with black people raise their hands to protest in the United States for racism and racial inequality.

Our names are on the account and the pleadings, but the issues at stake belong to every small business owner.Most states—including Texas—have laws that say foreign judgments must be domesticated before local enforcement tools like garnishment or levy are used. Many have detailed exemption and notice rules designed to keep owners from being wiped out without a chance to be heard. New York has passed reforms aimed at curbing abusive use of confessions of judgment and protecting out‑of‑state businesses from being dragged into its courts and drained without a fair shot.​​But laws on paper do nothing if:Banks choose to honor out‑of‑state orders without checking domestication or local protections. Collectors know they can get a default judgment in a distant court and count on national banks to enforce it mechanically. Owners don’t know what questions to ask, what documents to demand, or where to turn when their accounts are emptied overnight. Amy and I are convinced that what happened to us is not unique. It is simply one of the first times all of the pieces—bank letters, court documents, emails with bank counsel, regulator complaints—are being dragged into the light in one place.​A Cry for Help—from and for Small Businesses This post is a cry for help, but not just for our family.It is for the owner who wakes up to a frozen payroll account the week before Christmas. It is for the contractor who never saw the lawsuit papers, but suddenly can’t buy materials. It is for the independent shop whose local branch manager shrugs and says, “We had a court order, there’s nothing we can do,” even when the judgment was never domesticated and the law says otherwise. We need:Owners to share their stories—letters, screenshots, timelines—so patterns can’t be dismissed as “one‑offs.” Lawyers to look harder at domestication, jurisdiction, and bank‑policy angles in these cases, not just the underlying debt. Regulators and state officials to treat out‑of‑state judgment enforcement and bank garnishment practices as a systemic issue, not a paperwork glitch.​ Amy and I are doing everything we can: litigating in Texas, challenging the New York judgment, documenting every step, and pushing information to the CFPB, OCC, FDIC, and state leaders. But we cannot turn this tide alone.​How You Can Stand With Us If this resonates with you—as an owner, a lawyer, a policymaker, or just someone who believes in basic fairness—here’s what you can do:Share this post with other small business owners and trade groups. Tell your own story through our contact form so we can connect dots across states. Support our case and documentation work if you’re able, so we can keep fighting and keep publishing what we learn. Ask your own bank and your own representatives hard questions about how out‑of‑state judgments and “legal order debits” are being handled. This fight started with our family, but it cannot end there. Every time a small business account is wiped out by a judgment the owner never saw, confidence in the system erodes a little more. Together, we can insist on something better: laws that are enforced, banks that respect those laws, and owners who are no longer blindsided in the dark. If you are intrested in helping to support this cause please click this link or share with others. <a href="https://gofund.me/a57d7fb84" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-mce-href="https://gofund.me/a57d7fb84">Help Keep The Cause going </a>

Why This Fight Is Not Just About Us

Golden scales of justice, judge's gavel, open book and piggy bank

States are tightening the rules around merchant cash advances, foreign judgments, and bank levies because these tools can quietly wreck a small business if no one checks how they’re used. Texas’s new HB 700 and reforms in New York both grew out of years of MCA abuses and aggressive judgment enforcement that hit out‑of‑state businesses and bank accounts.Why Merchant Cash Advances Drew New LawsMerchant cash advances are marketed as “sales‑based financing” that buy a slice of future receivables instead of making a loan, which helped many providers dodge traditional lending rules and usury caps. In practice, regulators and courts saw MCA contracts with sky‑high effective costs, dense fee schedules, daily ACH pulls, and confessions of judgment that let funders get fast default judgments in New York against businesses scattered across the country.HB 700 in Texas responds to exactly that pattern. It amends the Texas Finance Code to cover “commercial sales‑based financing,” including MCAs under $1 million to Texas recipients, and forces providers and brokers to register with the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner and deliver clear written disclosures before closing a deal. Those disclosures must spell out the total financing amount, disbursement amount, finance charge, total repayment amount, how payments are calculated, other fees, and any collateral or security interests, so an owner can see the real cost and risks up front instead of discovering them when cash‑flow collapses or a lawsuit hits.What Texas HB 700 Actually DoesHB 700 creates a structured framework for MCAs rather than banning them outright, but it narrows key tactics that made them dangerous. The statute requires:Registration of providers and brokers with the state, with civil penalties (often up to $10,000 per violation) for non‑compliance, which gives regulators a way to police bad actors. Standardized disclosures for eligible transactions, signed by the recipient, covering core cost and repayment terms, plus any security interests or double‑dipping of fees in renewal deals. Limits on contract provisions such as confessions of judgment and certain waivers that regulators consider abusive, making those terms void or unenforceable under Texas law. Industry sources note that HB 700 faced substantial pushback because it restricts automatic debits and requires transparency that undercuts some MCA business models, but it ultimately passed and becomes effective September 1, 2025. For a Texas business that once signed MCA papers in a rush, HB 700 is important because future contracts must be clearer, and unregistered or non‑compliant providers put themselves on the wrong side of state enforcement.Why States Require Domestication of Foreign JudgmentsA New York judgment is not supposed to reach directly into a Texas bank account by itself. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, states must respect each other’s final judgments, but they are allowed to require a domestic “check‑in” process before local enforcement. That process is usually governed by the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), which 48 states have adopted in some form.Domestication serves several purposes:It verifies that the out‑of‑state judgment is final, authentic, and within the issuing court’s jurisdiction, instead of being the product of bad service or a defective process. It gives the local court and the debtor a chance to apply home‑state protections—such as exemptions, notice rules, or bankruptcy‑related limits—before bank accounts, wages, or equipment are seized. It keeps enforcement orderly. A creditor must file the judgment in the state where assets are located, open a local cause number, and use local writs and levies, rather than bypassing the state’s own procedures. For small‑business owners, that domestication step is not just a formality; it’s often the only real notice they get before a distant judgment is used to hit their local operating account.New York’s Own Limits to Protect Out‑of‑State DebtorsNew York became ground zero for MCA litigation because many contracts choose New York law, New York courts, and, historically, New York confessions of judgment. After investigative reporting showed thousands of small businesses around the country losing funds to confessed judgments filed in New York, the legislature amended CPLR 3218 in 2019 to stop creditors from filing confessions of judgment against non‑residents who had no business in the state.The updated statute now allows confessions of judgment only where the debtor resides or has a place of business in New York, closing the door on the practice of using a New York confession to leap directly to bank levies against out‑of‑state owners. At the same time, New York’s rules on restraining notices under CPLR 5222 and the “separate entity rule” limit how far a restraining notice served on a New York branch of a bank can reach, especially for accounts in other states or foreign branches. Those decisions prevent a creditor from exploiting a bank’s New York presence to freeze every account that customer holds nationwide or overseas with no regard for other states’ laws.For a Texas owner dealing with a New York MCA judgment, these New York reforms matter because they show that even New York courts recognize the risk of overreach against out‑of‑state debtors and bank accounts.Why All of This Protection Matters in Real CasesPut together, HB 700, domestication rules, and New York’s own reforms are all attempts to balance two realities: creditors should be able to collect legitimate debts, but judgment enforcement should not be a backdoor for predatory MCA contracts or defective lawsuits to jump state lines and silently drain business accounts. When a bank honors an out‑of‑state judgment that has never been domesticated, or an MCA provider relies on opaque “sale of receivables” language and old confession‑of‑judgment tactics, all of those protections are bypassed, and the small‑business owner pays the price first.Understanding these laws gives you concrete questions to raise: Was the MCA provider registered and properly disclosing terms under HB 700? Has the foreign judgment been domesticated in your state under UEFJA? Do New York’s post‑2019 limits on confessions of judgment and restraining notices apply to your case? Those are the pressure points that often decide whether a legal order debit is a lawful collection step—or a wrongful seizure dressed up in paperwork.

“How Texas HB 700 and New York’s Judgment Reforms Protect Small Businesses from Predatory Merchant Cash Advances”

This is the story of how one “legal order debit” on a Wells Fargo business account in Texas turned into a full‑blown court case, regulatory complaints, and a practical playbook other small‑business owners can use when their bank account is suddenly frozen or emptied. It starts with a merchant cash advance, runs through a defective New York judgment, and ends with Wells Fargo seizing funds from a confirmed Chapter 11 debtor‑in‑possession account and triggering a chain reaction that put an entire reorganization plan at risk.​How the Wells Fargo Seizure Actually Happened AR Construction LLC had a confirmed Subchapter V Chapter 11 plan in 2025, and the Wells Fargo account ending in 8262 was the designated debtor‑in‑possession (DIP) account for plan payments, insurance, and operating expenses. In October 2025, Monday Funding LLC obtained a default judgment in New York for about 30,898 dollars, based on a merchant cash advance agreement originally made with BroncBuster LLC, not with AR Construction LLC.​Service in that New York case was never actually completed: certified mail was refused, went unclaimed, and was returned, even though the affidavit of service claimed it had been delivered and accepted. The New York judgment was never domesticated in any Texas court under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act before Wells Fargo acted on it.​On November 4–5, 2025, Wells Fargo froze the Texas DIP account and removed about 32,379 dollars through “legal order debits,” exceeding the face amount of the New York judgment and immediately driving the account balance to zero. That seizure wiped out funds earmarked for a December 10 plan payment of roughly 6,146 dollars and set off a cascade of plan defaults, insurance lapses, and repossession and foreclosure risks.​What the Lawsuit Against Wells Fargo Says In December 2025, a lawsuit was filed in the 466th District Court in Comal County, Texas, laying out why the seizure is alleged to be unlawful and what relief is being requested. The petition claims, among other things, that:​The New York judgment is void from the start because there was no valid service and therefore no personal jurisdiction.​ Even if it were valid, it was never domesticated in Texas, so it could not support a Texas‑based garnishment or bank levy against a Texas account.​ Wells Fargo violated Texas Finance Code 59.201 by seizing funds without mandatory advance written notice to the account holder.​ The creditor had no perfected security interest under the UCC because there was no UCC‑1 filing or deposit account control agreement in Texas.​ The seizure interfered with a confirmed Chapter 11 plan and a protected DIP account, contrary to 11 U.S.C. 1141 and the bankruptcy court’s confirmation order.​ The petition also alleges unfair and deceptive practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of the deposit account agreement, negligence and gross negligence, and asks for return of the funds, statutory penalties, consequential damages, and exemplary damages based on a claimed pattern of willful disregard for state and federal law.​What Wells Fargo’s Own Papers and Policies Show Parallel to the lawsuit, regulatory complaints were filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), attaching the Wells Fargo Business Deposit Account Agreement and the bank’s written responses. Those documents highlight several key points:​The account agreement says Wells Fargo “may accept and act on any legal process we believe to be valid regardless of how and where it is served,” while also saying all terms are subject to, and void to the extent they conflict with, applicable law in the state where the account is located.​ In a November 24, 2025 email, outside counsel for Wells Fargo stated the bank “takes no stance” on the propriety of the judgment or garnishment and simply complies with the New York restraint, even as it controls a Texas DIP account.​ In a November 26, 2025 letter, Wells Fargo acknowledged the account and customer were in Texas, but said it had reviewed exemptions under New York law and might withdraw money again in response to the same legal order.​ The CFPB complaint packages that together into a systemic policy argument—that Wells Fargo’s “any legal process we believe to be valid” language, its no‑notice approach, and its “no stance” admission create a structure where the bank has an incentive to act aggressively on out‑of‑state legal orders while doing little to verify domestication, notice, or bankruptcy protections.​How the Monday Funding MCA Fits In At the root of the New York judgment is a July 2025 Standard Merchant Cash Advance Agreement between Monday Funding LLC and BroncBuster LLC. The document is framed as a “sale of future receivables,” with Monday Funding purchasing a 30,000 dollar “Receivables Purchased Amount” for a 20,000 dollar purchase price, netting 18,000 dollars in funds delivered to the merchant after fees.​The contract includes:Daily ACH debits based on an “Estimated Payment” of 500 dollars tied to an estimated 21.5 percent of future receipts.​ A dense fee stack, including origination, compliance, NSF, blocked/stop‑payment, default, and UCC filing fees, plus a 5,000 dollar default fee or 25 percent of the outstanding purchased amount if there is a default.​ A broad security interest in all accounts and receivables and strong default protections, including the right to debit any merchant account and proceed to litigation or arbitration.​ In practice, that MCA—made to BroncBuster—became the basis for a New York case that named multiple parties, including AR Construction, and resulted in a default judgment that was later used to hit AR’s Texas DIP account at Wells Fargo. The “sale of receivables” label on the MCA and the “any legal process we believe to be valid” clause in the Wells Fargo agreement ended up intersecting in a way that put a reorganized Texas debtor’s core operating account in the crosshairs of a distant court order.​Why Tell This Story Publicly This story is not just about one account freeze; it is about showing other owners what can happen when high‑cost merchant cash advances, out‑of‑state default judgments, and national bank policies collide with local law and active bankruptcy protections. By publishing the timeline, filings, and regulatory complaints, the goal is to create a concrete example others can point to when they ask hard questions about domestication, notice, DIP accounts, and a bank’s duty to verify legal process before draining a small‑business account.​If any part of your situation sounds familiar—MCA contracts out of New York, surprise legal order debits on a local account, or a bank saying it “takes no stance” on the legality of a judgment—you can use this case as a reference point when you talk with your own lawyer or regulators.​ &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Turning One Legal Order Debit Into a Playbook for Other Owners

Swiss franc money stack finance bank loan banking

When my Texas Wells Fargo business account was emptied by a “legal order debit” based on a New York default judgment, one of my first questions was simple: Can a judgment from another state really reach into a Texas bank account like that? The short answer is that out‑of‑state judgments do not automatically become local judgments, and there are supposed to be steps—called “domestication”—before they can be used to freeze or drain a local bank account.​What Is an Out‑of‑State (Foreign) Judgment? If a court in one state, like New York, enters a judgment against you, that judgment is considered a foreign judgment or out‑of‑state judgment in every other state. The U.S. Constitution requires states to give “full faith and credit” to each other’s judgments, but that doesn’t mean a New York creditor can walk into a Texas bank and take money without involving a Texas court.Most states, including Texas, have adopted the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA). Under that law:​The creditor must file the out‑of‑state judgment with a court in your state (for example, a Texas district court). The foreign judgment is then treated like a local judgment, subject to local procedures and defenses.​ Only after that filing and required notices can the creditor use normal enforcement tools—like garnishing a bank account in that state. In my case, the New York merchant cash advance judgment against BroncBuster and others was never filed and domesticated in Texas before Wells Fargo drained a Texas debtor‑in‑possession account belonging to A&amp;R Construction. No Texas judge ever reviewed the judgment or signed an order allowing the money to be taken.​What Is a Bank Levy or “Legal Order Debit”? A bank levy, garnishment, or legal order debit is when a creditor uses court paperwork to reach money in a bank account. The exact names and procedures vary by state, but the basic pattern is:​​Creditor gets a judgment. Creditor obtains a writ, levy, or similar order from a court where enforcement is allowed. That order is served on the bank where the account is held. The bank freezes the funds and then turns them over if the order checks out.​​ Banks obey these orders because ignoring them can expose the bank to contempt or other penalties. But banks also operate “subject to applicable law,” and in many states, that includes:​Respecting local exemptions and minimum protected balances.​​ Recognizing that out‑of‑state judgments need to be domesticated before they can be enforced like local judgments.​ In my situation, Wells Fargo used the New York judgment to issue a legal order debit against a Texas account without any domestication and even took more than the face amount of the judgment once fees were added.​Why Domestication and Notice Matter Domestication rules exist for a reason:They give local courts a chance to confirm that the out‑of‑state judgment is real and final. They give the person or business another clear notice that a judgment is being brought home and may be enforced against local property or bank accounts.​ They make sure local exemptions and protections are applied before money is taken.​​ In my case:The New York lawsuit was never properly served—USPS tracking in the court file showed the certified mail was returned, not delivered.​ No Texas domestication ever happened.​ Wells Fargo still processed a New York legal order against a Texas debtor‑in‑possession account and emptied it with a legal order debit.​ From a small‑business owner’s point of view, that feels like the entire domestication system and notice purpose were bypassed.What You Can Check If Your Account Is Hit If you wake up to a frozen or emptied Wells Fargo account because of a legal order or bank levy tied to another state, here are basic checks to discuss with your own lawyer:Confirm where the judgment came from. Which state’s court issued it, and what case number?​ Obtain the service records. Pull the full court file, including affidavits of service and tracking numbers, to see how and whether you were actually notified.​ Ask whether the judgment was domesticated locally. Contact your local court clerk or search online for any filing that brings that foreign judgment into your state under the UEFJA.​ Review what the bank agreement says about legal orders. Many agreements, including Wells Fargo’s, say the bank may honor legal process it “believes to be valid” but also say accounts are subject to applicable law. This post is not legal advice, but it reflects what I wish I had known before a New York judgment I never really got notice of was used to trigger a Wells Fargo legal order debit against a Texas business account.​If you want to see how this played out step by step, you can read “What Happened in My Case” <a href="https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/--what-happened-in-my-case?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=" data-mce-href="https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/--what-happened-in-my-case?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=">https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/--what-happened-in-my-case?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=</a>and “Dealing With Wells Fargo After a Legal Order Debit”<a href="https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/legal-options-after-a-wells-fargo-legal-order-debit-on-a-business-account-once-a-wells-fargo--legal-order-debit--has-already-emptied-your-business-bank-account?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=" data-mce-href="https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/legal-options-after-a-wells-fargo-legal-order-debit-on-a-business-account-once-a-wells-fargo--legal-order-debit--has-already-emptied-your-business-bank-account?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=">https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/legal-options-after-a-wells-fargo-legal-order-debit-on-a-business-account-once-a-wells-fargo--legal-order-debit--has-already-emptied-your-business-bank-account?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=</a> , and if your situation sounds similar, consider sharing your story so patterns can be documented.

Can a New York Judgment Grab Your Texas Bank Account?

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&amp;R Construction LLC. A&amp;R never received the advance, and the funds from the MCA did not go into the Wells Fargo debtor‑in‑possession account for A&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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” <a href="https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/--what-happened-in-my-case?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=" data-mce-href="https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/--what-happened-in-my-case?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=">https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/--what-happened-in-my-case?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=</a> and “Dealing With Wells Fargo After a Legal Order" Debit”]<a href="https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/-see-emails-and-calls?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=" data-mce-href="https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/-see-emails-and-calls?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=">https://blogpostonwellsfargolegalorder.durablesites.com/blog/-see-emails-and-calls?pt=NjkzYTMyN2JmMTE2MzQwNzAzNzA2MWQxOjE3NjU0MzI5ODkuNjgzOnByZXZpZXc=</a>&nbsp;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.

Inside the Merchant Cash Advance Behind My Wells Fargo Legal Order

Wells Fargo Legal Order Watch

My website is an independent blog and information hub documenting how Wells Fargo “legal order debits” and out‑of‑state judgments can freeze small‑business bank accounts. It shares my personal case (New York judgment used against a Texas debtor‑in‑possession account), explains legal issues like domestication and notice, and helps connect other small‑business owners and consumers who have experienced similar Wells Fargo account freezes or legal orders.


Wells Fargo Legal Order Watch

Blog

Corporate Gaslighting: When Institutions Rewrite Reality

Why This Fight Is Not Just About Us

“How Texas HB 700 and New York’s Judgment Reforms Protect...

Turning One Legal Order Debit Into a Playbook for Other O...

Can a New York Judgment Grab Your Texas Bank Account?

Inside the Merchant Cash Advance Behind My Wells Fargo Le...