Rich U.
Research current and past ownership is a must and question everything
Individuals are entitled to share their experiences and opinions. Since August 2, 2024 Charles Hearn owner of Bridge Transfers and Lorraine Coats, former General Counsel for Bridge Transfers are the only two individuals at Bridge Transfers that I’ve had any interaction with. I am unaware of just exactly who “the team” might even consist of. Based on only my personal experience with Bridge Transfer I deeply regret not researching this company first and I deeply regret not finding out more about Charles Hearns’ other timeshare exit Company that he owned, although always fails to mention the name of it. It is only my opinion to PORCEED WITH CAUTION and please do your RESEARCH first before making your decision. I absolutely cannot recommend this Company. With that being said, I swear that my experience is true and I share this without malice This review is a factual and sincere account of my personal experience with Bridge Transfers, provided in good faith and with the intent to inform not to defame or cause harm. Although the Owner references a distinguished business reputation and a history of favorable reviews, my observations pertain exclusively to my own interactions and do not concern previous ventures. The singular nature of my feedback does not undermine its veracity or legitimacy, and I affirm the accuracy of my statements. Notably, Bridge Transfers' response, which included threats of legal action against honest feedback, constitutes a violation of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. It is my opinion that such conduct should, in itself, serve as a significant warning to prospective clients. Thank you for your comprehensive response. I am surprised that an organization with a large number of positive reviews would respond so forcefully to a single client’s recommendation to “proceed with caution” and “conduct their own research.” I am especially concerned by Bridge Transfers’ decision to publicly disclose specific information pertaining to my financial history, bank investigations, and private communications. Such action appears to disregard the confidentiality provisions you included in your service agreement to safeguard consumer privacy. My review is and always has been intended solely to share my individual experience and encourage prudent research, a perspective I found echoed on other platforms. I stand by my account and will allow the public record of this exchange to speak for itself. Going forward, I will refer all further correspondence to the appropriate regulatory authorities. I find the tone and content of Bridge Transfers’ response highly unprofessional. The willingness to reveal private client information publicly is not only inappropriate but should serve as a serious red flag for anyone considering engagement with this organization. Such conduct raises legitimate concerns about their commitment to ethical standards and client trust.
Response from Bridge TransfersMay 14, 2025
Mr. Ullman, since you have updated your review for the fourth time over the course of almost a year now, we are updating our response to provide the full context. We have observed a pattern of you leaving negative reviews for multiple businesses via your Google and Trustpilot accounts; this appears to be regular behavior for you. In our specific case, you are a statistical anomaly: the sole outlier in our company's history. The only person to leave a bad review. While you attempt to paint a picture of a company violating rights, the documented facts—verified by third parties—paint a picture of a client who received exactly what he paid for, refused free legal services, and is now weaponizing review platforms. Here is the objective reality, supported by recordings, audits, and third-party investigations: 1. You are out of your Timeshare. We have written proof. In January 2025, the resort explicitly notified you that your membership was suspended and terminated. We fulfilled our "Completion of Service" exactly as contracted. 2. You created your own debt, then refused our help. You stopped paying fees before hiring us. Non-payment was your choice. Despite our contract stating we do not offer credit advice, Mr. Hearn offered to pay the full cost of legal representation for you to fight the collections agency and resolve the debt. You rejected this free legal assistance. Your reasoning was that the only reason the law firm wasn’t "illegal" was due to its location. This is factually incorrect; the firm is in Washington D.C., where this structure has been legal and common practice since 1991 (over 30 years). There are multiple states that permit this. You turned down a licensed partner’s help to clean up a mess you made. 3. Your "Fraud" claims were disproven by your Bank. You accused us of "altering documents" regarding contract timestamps. Your bank conducted an internal investigation and found the discrepancy was simply a Time Zone difference (UTC vs. EST). The bank proved your claim false, closed the investigation in our favor, and held you liable. 4. We have the receipts. We possess a 1-hour and 47-minute audio recording of our onboarding call where the owner went over the contract with you line-by-line. You are recorded understanding and agreeing to every term. 5. Defamation, not censorship. Your posts across countless platforms were removed or edited, not because they were "honest opinions," but because they were proven defamatory violations of Terms of Service. Our legal team is now adding your posts on JustAnswers.com and the BBB—which contain provably false statements (not opinions)—to the case we’ve been building against you. Our warning to you to stop this type of behavior is most certainly not a violation of any State or Federal law. This is yet another falsehood being used to act as if you're a victim. Conclusion: Mr. Ullman, you are attempting to manipulate potential clients by "revealing" past information about Mr. Hearn or his successful business that we openly advertise on our own website and in press releases. It is not a secret; it is a story that you are trying to twist. You agreed to handle all disputes in the courts of Colorado. If your claims were true, you would have already brought a legal case. Instead, you have chosen this deceitful smear campaign. If you wish to continue this, it must be done in the proper legal venue; we will not participate in further online dialogue, no matter how outlandish or untrue the next updated statements you make will be.