Deal at a Glance
| Loan Amount | $12,500,000 |
| Property | 158-unit apartment complex |
| Location | Fort Worth, Texas |
| Borrower Structure | Three LLCs holding title as tenants in common (TIC) |
| Lender Type | Regional bank |
| Rate | Floating, 1-month term SOFR + 2.25%, floor at initial rate minus 2% |
| Term / Amortization | 5 years / 30-year amortization |
| Sizing | Lesser of 70% of stabilized value or 1.20x DSCR |
| Prepayment | Declining 5-3-1 over 3 years, 20% annual prepayment allowed, waived on refinance with same bank |
| Fee | 0.5% |
| Closed | Q2 2026 |
The Deal That Walked in the Door
We are Commercial Lending Solutions, a commercial mortgage brokerage based in Los Angeles, and this was the second large Texas (TX) multifamily deal we closed for the same Utah-based investor syndicate in a single quarter. The asset: a 158-unit apartment complex on Fort Worth's south side, in one of the most active workforce-housing submarkets in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. Ownership sat across three separate Delaware LLCs holding title as tenants in common, a structure that preserves each investor group's position but makes a lot of lenders reach for the decline stamp before they finish reading the org chart.
Commercial Lending Solutions specializes in multifamily bank financing and complex multi-entity capital structures for investors across Texas and nationwide, which is exactly what this Fort Worth assignment called for.
The group needed $12.5 million of institutional-quality debt on the asset, at pricing that made the investment math work. A 158-unit community in that submarket attracts real lender attention, so the question was never whether the deal would get financed. It was which execution, a regional bank or a CMBS conduit, and on whose terms.
What Made It Hard
- The TIC structure. Three borrower entities on one loan means three sets of organizational documents, three ownership chains, and a guarantor group spanning multiple principals. Plenty of lenders quote these deals and then choke on them in closing.
- Bank versus CMBS trade-offs. A conduit quoted the deal non-recourse, which is attractive on paper, but with defeasance prepayment and servicing rigidity for the life of the loan. The bank options required recourse and a deposit relationship but offered flexibility.
- Floating rate risk. With the loan priced over SOFR, the structure of the floor mattered as much as the spread. A floor set at the starting rate means the borrower gets no benefit if rates fall.
How We Ran the Process
Trevor Damyan, a California-licensed real estate broker (DRE #02244836), ran this deal from Los Angeles and generated three competing executions: two regional banks, both California-headquartered institutions with active Texas commercial real estate desks, and a bulge-bracket New York CMBS conduit. The conduit's pitch was the classic one, non-recourse and proceeds. One bank issued a full term sheet in January; the other came over the top two weeks later with a sharper spread and a bigger number, and signed up the deal on a letter of intent within five days of issuing it. The winning structure:
- $12,500,000 at 1-month term SOFR + 2.25%, a spread normally reserved for institutional sponsors, on a 5-year term with a 30-year amortization and a 0.5% loan fee
- A borrower-friendly rate floor set at the initial rate minus 2%, so if SOFR falls, the borrowers actually capture most of the savings
- Sized to the lesser of 70% of stabilized value or 1.20x debt service coverage, with a re-margin provision if coverage falls to 1.10x and a 90-day cure window
- Declining 5-3-1 prepayment over the first three years, with 20% of principal prepayable each year without penalty, and the entire penalty waived if the property refinances with the same bank
- All three TIC entities underwritten as co-borrowers, with full recourse guaranties from the individual principals behind the group
The loan closed in May 2026, secured by a first deed of trust recorded in Tarrant County.
"A three-entity TIC structure scares off a lot of lenders before they even get to the property. We packaged the org chart, the guarantor financials, and the formation documents into one coherent story up front, and that is what turned a complicated deal into an approvable one."
Why We Won This One
Two lessons stand out. First, TIC deals close when the broker packages the entity structure up front. Three Delaware title-holding LLCs, multiple Utah investor entities behind them, individual guarantors, and family trusts: we delivered the full org chart, formation documents, and guarantor financials as a single coherent package before underwriting started, so the structure read as organized rather than complicated. The difference between those two impressions is often the difference between a 2.25% spread and a 3% spread, which on $12.5 million is nearly $94,000 a year.
Second, the CMBS versus bank decision is about the exit, not the entry. The conduit's non-recourse execution was tempting, but this ownership group wanted the option to sell or refinance opportunistically inside five years. Defeasance would have made that expensive. The bank's 5-3-1 prepayment schedule, the 20% annual free prepayment, and the refinance waiver preserved every exit path for a fraction of the cost.
Is This Structure Right for Your Deal?
If you own or are acquiring a 100+ unit apartment community, especially with a TIC or multi-entity structure other lenders have balked at, we can run the bank and CMBS markets side by side and let the executions compete. We arrange permanent loans, CMBS loans, and agency loans from a network of more than 1,000 capital sources.
Apply for multifamily financing or call us at 310.708.0690 to talk through your property.
Trevor Damyan is a commercial mortgage broker at Commercial Lending Solutions with a background in structured finance at CBRE and Marcus and Millichap Capital Corporation. He specializes in bridge loans, construction financing, SBA programs, DSCR loans, and complex capital structures for investors and developers across all 50 states.
View full profile →