1. Investing in 460-462 Bryant Street, San Francisco
On March 6, 2006, Garlock sold a TIC interest in 460-462 Bryant Street (two adjacent office buildings
in San Francisco's SOMA (South-of-Market) district that occupy approximately 22,000 square feet of
land, or about half an acre) to Richard Harrington for $2,200,000. Harrington was to receive 12%
annual interest and another 8% p.a. when the principal was repaid as agreed.
Garlock paid until July of 2008. He never paid any more, despite repeated demands for interest and
principal. On March 1, 2011, Harrington and Garlock received a Notice of Default, and on June 22,
2011, a Notice of Trustee Sale. It soon went to Foreclosure Heaven like so many other Garlock
properties.
Handwritten Letter from Bill Garlock – His Modus Operandi in His Own Words
The most remarkable aspect of the Bryant fiasco story is a 6-page handwritten letter that Garlock sent to
his investor and son on August 3, 2010. Richard is a retired attorney, and his son Jeff is a banker. Here
Garlock reveals how he plans to finagle new loans in order to repay his prior investor.
Dear Dick & Jeff ,
Here is the state of the property:
– The existing note now exceeds $9 million with penalties and default interest
– IMH, the lender tried to sell the note for $5 million and had no offers
– The “as is” appraisal was under $5 million. It was $11 million in 2008.
Here is the solution:
– We negotiated a new tenant for 460 Bryant. It is one of the top 5 leases in San Francisco in 2010.
– A copy is enclosed. [But in fact no copy was enclosed.]
– We negotiated a new loans [sic] for 460 and 462 Bryant. These loans will be in the top 25 loans in
San Francisco this year.
−I am meeting with buyers to fund the tenant improvement dollars for 460 Bryant ($2.5 million) and
462 Bryant ($1.75 million). I loaded the new loan on 460 Bryant, giving us room to take part of the
cash flow on 462 Bryant. I am in the midst of putting the sale of 462 together. Per the new loan
agreement we cannot own the new entity, so I am attempting to cut us in on the cash flow. From this
I will pay you $20,000 per month.
In other words, Garlock appears to propose to continue to manage the property, collect the rents that
new investor-buyers are funding, and disperse part of the rents to the earlier investor, thus defrauding
the new ones.
I will continue to do this until the new lease ends or the property is sold. That's the plan in my
negotiations. I cannot be more specific because the transaction is still in motion. I will have more
information in September.
−I want to roll all your investments into the $20,000 and continue payments until you are paid back.
Under those conditions the Harringtons would have to be very patient, since Garlock owed
Richard $55,000 per month in interest alone on $5.5 million worth of investments. Even to repay the
principal at $20,000 per month at no interest, his apparent goal, Garlock is proposing to stretch it out
into 275 payments over 26 years. Of course the Harringtons did not go along with this proposal.

2. At the end of the letter, Garlock pleads with Richard Harrington to sign an enclosed loan approval. He
also apologizes for not having sent any year-end tax statements, and asks for a list of the properties
Harrington had invested in. (There were seven, so many he'd forgotten them all.) His excuse is that he
has only part-time accounting help.
Richard L. Harrington vs. William F. Garlock, San Francisco Superior Court case CGC-11-510297