Roxy’s Pub Foreclosure: NBL SPV IV’s $5.1M Case Against Von Esselborn Inc.

Case Summary — NBL SPV IV, LLC v. Von Esselborn, Inc., et al.

Beyond the headline numbers, the complaint itself fills in the detail the early news reports couldn’t. Here is what the filing actually says.

Court / case: 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, FL — Case No. 502026CA005474XXXAMB (Div. AJ). Verified Commercial Foreclosure Complaint, e-filed May 14, 2026 by Cohn & Dussi, LLC. The file is 153 pages: ~21 pages of complaint plus Exhibits A–O (the loan documents).

The deal. In October 2022, Von Esselborn, Inc. borrowed $4,866,000 from Newtek Business Lending for the remodel/construction of Roxy’s Pub, 309 & 313 Clematis St., West Palm Beach (Lots 17 & 18, Block 13). The loan was secured by a mortgage (recorded 11/18/2022, OR Book 33962), a UCC security interest in business assets, and unconditional guaranties from John P. Webb, RP Palm Beach, Small Time Restaurant Group, and Wallisville Corp. Maturity was extended twice (eventually to March 5, 2026), and the loan was assigned through several Newtek affiliates before reaching the plaintiff.

The default. Borrower missed the November 5, 2025 payment and the note fully matured March 5, 2026. Balance owed as of March 5, 2026: $5,102,807.45 — principal $4,820,136.89, interest $244,764.84, late fees $37,835.72, misc. $70 — accruing at $1,271.98/day.

What the plaintiff seeks (7 counts): (1) breach of note, (2) foreclosure of the commercial mortgage, (3–6) breach of guaranty against each guarantor, and (7) foreclosure of the UCC security interest in personal property.

Priority ladder findings

• The plaintiff’s mortgage (Book 33962, recorded 11/18/2022) carries a lower book number — earlier recording — than every other lien named, which is the backbone of its “first and paramount” claim.
• Junior and foreclosed-out if the plaintiff prevails (all recorded later): Southern Land & Buildings (mortgage), Prestige Gunite, Skyworks, Cemex, Hellbent, Tru-Steel (multiple liens), Perez-Valdivia (judgment liens), and the City of West Palm Beach (municipal liens).
• Personal-property/UCC claimants (junior, tied to Count VII, not the real estate): US/SBA, Thomas Wilkinson, and CT Corporation System.

Open issues that could move the ladder

• Construction-lien relation-back (Fla. Stat. §713.07). Tru-Steel, Prestige, Hellbent, Skyworks, and Cemex are construction/materials lienors. Their priority can relate back to when work began or a Notice of Commencement was recorded — not the claim’s recording date. Since this was a construction loan, any pre-11/18/2022 work could let those liens prime the mortgage. This is the most likely contested point.
• The “second mortgage” reference. Para. 25 calls Newtek’s mortgage a second mortgage and the loan agreement mentions “first or second mortgage loans,” yet the recorded mortgage secures the full $4.866M and no separate senior mortgagee is named — worth confirming.
• Municipal liens. Some City of West Palm Beach liens may carry statutory priority independent of recording order.

Disclaimer: This summary reflects only what appears in the single PDF reviewed (the complaint and its attached exhibits) as filed, read in part via OCR of scanned pages — figures, names, and book/page citations should be verified against the originals, and OCR can misread digits. It describes the allegations and positions asserted by the plaintiff, which are unproven and contested by definition at this stage; the defendants have not answered. Nothing here is legal advice or an opinion on the merits, priority, or likely outcome. For any decision or filing, consult a licensed Florida attorney and the certified court record.

Case Summary — Webb, et al. v. Newtek Bank, N.A., et al. (the other half of the fight)

The foreclosure is only one of the two cases over these loans, and it is not the first. Five months before NBL SPV IV filed to foreclose, the borrower sued the lender. That case is why the foreclosure docket has gone quiet [58].

Court / case: 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, FL — Case No. 502025CA012858XXXAMB, Division AG, General Track with jury trial demanded. Filed December 11, 2025; Judge Caryn Siperstein. 117 docket entries and 26 parties as of August 21, 2026. Status: open [58].

Who is suing whom. John P. Webb brought it himself, pro se, joined by Von Esselborn, Inc. and RP Palm Beach, LLC (both now represented by Ryan V. Kadyszewski; Webb still is not). An amended complaint in March 2026 expanded the defendants from two to fifteen — Newtek Bank N.A., Newtek Small Business Finance LLC, Small Business Lending LLC, NewtekOne Inc., Newtek Business Services Holdco 6, One Florida Bank, NBL SPV III and NBL SPV IV (the foreclosure plaintiff, a defendant here), plus six individuals including Newtek chief executive Barry Sloane, closing counsel Glenn T. Maguire, and Anthony Zara [58].

The loans, as the defendants describe them. On October 31, 2022 Von Esselborn closed two loans totalling $17.4 million: a $12,654,000 conventional first-mortgage “Senior Loan” and the $4,866,000 SBA interim construction “Junior Loan” — the latter being the loan the foreclosure concerns. Guaranties came from Webb, RP Palm Beach, Wallisville Corp and Small Time Restaurant Group. At closing the lender funded $10,597,683.17 on the senior loan and held back $1,674,205.33 (construction $971,645, contingency $134,700, soft costs $102,066.33, interest reserve $437,000, control and inspection fees $28,800); nothing was disbursed for project costs on the junior loan. The motion states that no payments have been made on either loan since October 2025 [59][60].

What Webb alleges (six counts). Fraud in the inducement; fraudulent concealment; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of FDUTPA; and declaratory judgment. The core theory is that the lender promised construction financing, then capped it at $1,000,000 — a cap Webb ties to a mortgage warehouse facility between NBL SPV III and One Florida Bank into which the loans were pledged — and used the resulting shortfall to manufacture a default [58][59].

What the defendants filed on August 12. A motion to dismiss all six counts under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(6), to dismiss Maguire for lack of personal jurisdiction under 1.140(b)(2), or alternatively for a more definite statement under 1.140(e) — filed by Holland & Knight, and supported by a 152-page affidavit from Anthony Zara annexing the complete loan file, the warehouse agreement and the signed post-closing amendment, and a 38-paragraph affidavit from Glenn T. Maguire [59][60][61].

The defendants’ main arguments

• The $1,000,000 was an accommodation, not a cap. Von Esselborn closed without a building permit, stamped final plans or a fixed-price construction contract, and signed post-closing agreements giving it first 90 and then 120 days to supply them. Exhibit A to the amended post-closing agreement states a “Construction line currently totaling $4,138,705,” and paragraph 83 of Webb’s own complaint concedes the lender “released funds beyond the $1,000,000 cap” [59].
• The warehouse facility is a “red herring.” The loan documents bar assignment by the borrower, not the lender, and refer throughout to “Lender and its successors and assigns.” One Florida Bank’s 80%/90% advance rate governs only what it lent to NBL SPV III, leaving SPV III free to fund the rest elsewhere. Von Esselborn was never in privity with One Florida Bank and was never bound by that agreement [59].
• The fraud counts duplicate the contract count. Under the independent tort doctrine, fraud interwoven with contractual performance is not a separate tort [59].
• FDUTPA does not reach a national bank designated “N.A.,” and the complaint pleads consequential and speculative losses rather than the market-value differential the statute allows as actual damages [59].
• Newtek Bank and NewtekOne were not there. NewtekOne did not acquire Newtek Bank until January 2023, so neither could have taken part in the 2022 closing conduct; no alter ego or veil-piercing facts are pleaded [59].
• Maguire is a New York defendant. His affidavit swears he is a New York citizen and resident who worked exclusively from his employer’s New York office, never travelled to Florida in connection with these loans, received no personal benefit, and acted only in a corporate capacity — which, under the corporate shield doctrine, defeats Florida long-arm jurisdiction over him personally [61].

Why this is the foreclosure’s clock

• Both sides filed notices of related cases in each other’s dockets within 48 hours in late July, and Holland & Knight took over the lender side of both cases in the same week [58].
• On July 31 the Webb entities moved to consolidate the foreclosure into this case, or else to stay or abate it — the last substantive event on the foreclosure docket.
• On August 17 an agreed order specially set the motion to dismiss for November 9, 2026 at 9:30 a.m., a 30-minute Zoom hearing. Motions directed to the pleadings close October 7, 2026; calendar call is set for September 10, 2027 [62].
• Which motion is decided first — NBL’s §702.10 show-cause request in the foreclosure, or this dismissal — determines whether Roxy’s is decided by a foreclosure judge or by the jury Webb demanded in the case he filed first.

An earlier round worth knowing about

On April 15, 2026 — while Cohn & Dussi, the firm that filed the foreclosure a month later, still had the file — Newtek moved on an emergency basis to strike twelve “unauthorized ex-parte filings,” invalidate service, bar the corporate plaintiffs from litigating without counsel, and impose sanctions. Its central allegation was that Webb obtained summonses from the clerk on a 53-page First Amended Complaint and then served a different, unfiled 133-page “Second Amended Complaint” — “an unauthorized amendment is a nullity … Plaintiffs are serving their unauthorized amendment under the color of law.” Judge Siperstein denied the emergency hearing the next day and, on May 13, entered an order striking, granted in part. The Second Amended Complaint was then properly filed on July 2, and it is that pleading the August motion attacks [63].

Disclaimer: This summary reflects the docket and the filings at DIN 71, 114, 115, 116 and 117 as retrieved from eCaseView on August 21, 2026; the two affidavits are scanned images read via OCR, and figures, names and paragraph numbers should be verified against the originals. Everything attributed to the motion or the affidavits consists of allegations and legal positions asserted by the defendants — they are contested, unproven, and no court has ruled on any of them. Webb’s own allegations are likewise unproven and are denied. Nothing here is legal advice or an opinion on the merits or likely outcome. For any decision or filing, consult a licensed Florida attorney and the certified court record.