Citimortgage Recruits Knuckles To Foreclosure On Retired Veteran
Citimortgage Pursues Foreclosure Against Veteran With The Zeal Of A Fat Guy At An All-You-Can-Eat Buffet
Citimortgage has pursued Tom and Sandy Lennon with the zeal of a fat guy at an All-You-Can-Eat Chinese buffet.
All Tom and Sandy Lennon wanted to do in 2008 was retire to Naples, Florida and play golf. The last thing they wanted was a decade-long legal battle with Citimortgage.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what they got thanks to the 2008 financial collapse. Overnight, they discovered their house in Warwick, New York had lost 75% of its value.
The Lennons soon found they couldn't sell their home. So they asked their lender, Citimortgage (Citi) for a short sale or a Cash-For-Keys deal.
Citi oddly enough refused. The decision was odd because it made no sense at the time. The federal government had just bailed out Citi and every other lender was cutting deals. One of the requirements to receive TARP money was that the recipients had to assist homeowners.
Negotiations between Citi and the Lennons soon deteriorated. As a result, Citi filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Tom and Sandy in 2010.
For nearly five years the case dragged out. Citi refused to give the Lennons a Cash-For-Keys deal or let them short sell the property. But why? Why is Citi pursuing a foreclosure with the zeal of a fat guy at an All-You-Can-Eat Chinese Buffet?
MFI-Miami Exposes The Dirty Little Secret Citimortgage Was Hiding
Citimortgage was hiding a secret. They no longer held the Lennon's mortgage but initiated a foreclosure anyway.
After nearly five years of litigation, MFI-Miami was brought in to review the file. An initial review of the litigation file indicated the Lennons might not have much of a chance.
I requested the loan file from Citimortgage. The Citi documents gave us a plethora of information.
JACKPOT! I found the missing piece that would blow this foreclosure case wide open. I soon discovered why Citi wasn't allowing the Lennons to do a short sale or a Cash-For-Keys deal.
The first thing it gave us was the MERS Identification Number for the loan. The MERS database indicated that Citi was not the note holder. The note holder was Hudson City Savings Bank.
In addition, MERS also stated that Citimortgage was only servicing the loan. Thus, Citi had no ownership interest and lacked standing to foreclose. They also had no legal authority to authorize any type of deal.
Comments
Post a Comment