CITIMORTGAGE NOT FOLLOWING LAW THEY CITE

~Citimortgage denying facts and pretending to ignore facts!

Citimortgage denying the truth to steal property from homeowners in the U.S.

The best defense for homeowners is the truth. But CITIMORTGAGE and their attorneys do everything possible to avoid the truth. The purpose of this information is to inform and enlighten the public of CITIMORTGAGE’s illegal, deceitful, fraudulent paperwork. Look at your documents carefully – a reminder for any situation, of course.  Maybe – just maybe – it can help you with your own case. In this particular case with CITIMORTGAGE, Citi has the paperwork in front of them, as well as their attorney and co-counsel have all the paperwork in front of them.   
The documents clearly show the fraud, negligent misrepresentation etc. put on homeowners and anyone involved in the labyrinth of deception created by Citimortgage.
Who are the players that we will be talking about? The first, of course, is Citimortgage Inc., and their foreclosure mill law firm of Laurito & Laurito, attorney Colette Carr of Dayton, Ohio and Co-counsel of Graydon Head & Ritchey, LLP of Cincinnati Ohio. The fraud runs so deep that Citimortgage had to bring in co-counsel.
In 2008, Citimortgage had the attorney of their choice create a quit claim deed for a property. Citi did not have the grantor sign.  Citimortgage did not have documents which told who the authorized signor could be for the grantor which was a company.  Citi did not have an acknowledged deed by the grantor.  No matter how you spin it – Citi did not have the Grantor sign the deed.  A very essential elementary requirement to deeds in Ohio- the Grantor must sign – the deed must be executed.  CITI had two people sign on that specific deed but they were grantees.  The grantor was a company who owned the property, an incorporated business.  After that deed, CITI proceeded to create two other quit claim deeds by their attorney of choice, Ryan Kay.  The same attorney who created the first fraudulent deed.  Citi fraudulently pretended that a grantee on these two latter deeds had an interest in the property. Citi proceeded and gave a grantee (that they placed on a quit claim deed) a loan which purports by Citi to be secured by a mortgage which Citi created for this property which in reality belongs to someone else.  It gets even worse. 
But, Citi being the mastermind behind this pushes a complaint for foreclosure through the trial court level. Papers were submitted in opposition. So, you have to wonder – what is the judge thinking to uphold this kind of injustice? Is he allegedly paid off, is he asleep, pissed off – what? What kind of a judge rubberstamps a summary judgment for a bank without a trial for the defendants when excessive paperwork has been submitted to show Citimortgage’s fraud? You be the judge.
Citi’s summary judgment by law firm Graydon, Head & Ritchey, LLP states the following – “this is a foreclosure case” – they proceed to say “Smart executed a mortgage in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. “MERS” as nominee for Citimortgage, Inc.” The term executed  – Smart had nothing to execute, let alone, give an interest in a mortgage she never had.  ORC 5301.01 – grantor must sign deed – trial court level runs over this and jumps to Citimortgage’s rescue – the case is now in appeals.
Why does Citimortgage fight so hard to conceal Fannie Mae? After Citi files a complaint in Citimortgage’s name – Fannie Mae sends a letter that state’s, “we own your loan” – AFTER that – Citimortgage answers the following interrogatories:
 ”Interrogatory 10. – Was the note and mortgage transferred or sold to Fannie Mae on  October 1, 2008 from Citimortgage?
SPECIFIC OBJECTION: Citimortgage objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
ANSWER:  Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections, Citi mortgage states that it is the holder of the note and the mortgagee of record at the time this case was filed, and at no time was the note or mortgage transferred to Fannie Mae”.
RECAP- 1. CITI gives a loan to a person based upon fraudulent paperwork created by Citi and their attorneys- CITI secured property – placed a mortgage on property without a legal right. The real titleholders, the actual authorized signers did not execute anything. Ohio law. But CITI arrogantly procedes. Remember, this is CITI’s attorneys and CITI’s business to know better.
RECAP-2. CITI vehemently denies Fannie Mae.  It is public record regarding Fannie Mae but they pretend they know nothing about any Fannie Mae and claim it is a separate entity in their answers to interrogatories.  They claim the same about MERS, it is a separate entity – so Citi’s response was- to ask them.
RECAP- 3. People are quite aware of the MERS debacle for the country. How could you create an assignment when you never legally had a mortgage executed, secured in the first place?
ONWARD -  CITI’s  summary judgment states “Citimortgage met the conditions precedent and exercised its right to acceleration…” – How could they meet conditions precedent when they didn’t have an executed deed, and executed mortgage?
CITI states, “as a result of the default under the note, Citimortgage is entitled to foreclose its mortgage on the property” – so, Citimortgage is foreclosing on someone else’s property – the person they allegedly gave a loan to- didn’t own any interest in the property. Citimortgage has actually been escrowing taxes for another property address but even after evidence submitted, Citi runs over that also. Citimortgage’s summary judgment goes on to state they are not seeking any personal judgment against these other people- that they are seeking a monetary judgment against person (the person which never legally had an any interest in the property) – remember, this was paperwork done by Citimortgage and their attorneys from the beginning – but, the summary judgment does say “… And seeks to foreclose on the property”.
 CITIMORTGAGE NOT LETTING TRUE TITLEHOLDERS KNOW THIS OR INVOLVING THEM IN THE CASE – Citi coming through the back door again.
On page 21 of Citi’s summary judgment – in their own words, CITIMORTGAGE states the following:
“As a general rule, a holder of rights or an interest in property is a necessary party to a foreclosure action. If a party with an interest in the property is not named in the foreclosure action, then the parties interest in the property is not divested by the resulting judgment decree of foreclosure. Therefore, as stated by the Ohio Supreme Court it is the duty of a mortgagee to make all persons who appear of record to have a lien upon or interest in the mortgaged premises parties to his action of foreclosure, and if he does not, their lien or interest remains unaffected thereby; and any such encumbrances, whether prior or subsequent to the mortgage, who has not been made a party, may maintain an action to enforce his lien, and have a resale of the property for that purpose.”
Citimortgage actually list and precisely quotes Ohio cases that all parties must be made a defendant to the case but they knowingly did not list the true title owners in the complaint.
All of this was stated by Citimortgage and they decided the case is which supported this. Citi mortgage goes on to claim all this was in their preliminary judicial report “PJR”. Guess who was responsible for that report? One of their foreclosure mill attorneys who is also a title agent. See the intertwined mess – of course you do. Citi goes on- to another subject – unclean hands – before – yes, that’s before the initial complaint was filed by CITI – CITI hired a company to trespass on the property to cut locks, change locks, steal items, winterizing anything and everything, place  stickers on doors, windows, appliances etc. Citi co-counsel on the case, Graydon, Head & Ritchey claims in summary judgment that there is no evidence – actually the exact quote is “…do not – and cannot produce any evidence that Citimortgage’s collection efforts were abusive”.  They knew this all along and in addition were reminded by court papers submitted in opposition to the summary judgment. They had knowledge of this before they filed a complaint and they had knowledge after. What is the point? Citimortgage was one of the top servicers who claimed they would cut out abuses on the public – DID they – no Citimortgage has actually created fraudulent paperwork, by their own attorneys they hired, to steal Americans homes. This is an excellent example of what has been happening around the country. Are they are attorneys out there who are sharp enough to get the big picture? We’ll see – what are the judges going to do? Will see – what is the reputation, legacy going to be for judges who do nothing or look the other way? It’s up to homeowners to make this public. The attorneys involved in this case for Citi mortgage are the retail interregional of Dayton Ohio – Colette Carr, the law firm of Graydon, Head & Ritchey LLP of Cincinnati Ohio – Jeffrey Hanneken – Jeffrey Hendricks – all these attorneys to cover up Citimortgage’s mess, fraud against these little people. Legal question – how can something be enforced by Citimortgage when they have no secured mortgage by their own acts? Citimortgage claims a mortgage was executed, by Ohio law, it was not.

The contributor is not an attorney – the article is not intended to give advice