Product: Mortgage

My name is XXXX XXXX I was the Plaintiff in the divorce proceedings that led to the controversial property disputes, I have been a member of the Credit Union since XXXX, about 11 years ago while I was in the United States XXXX XXXX   XXXX  in XXXX XXXX XXXX. I got married in XXXX and I took my wife to join Navy Federal Credit Union through my access number and she became a member. We got a conventional loan in my ex-wife 's name for XXXX at about 5.5 % and both TITLE AND DEED in both of pour names as joint owners of the property. Shortly after that by XX/XX/XXXX we got a divorce and the court initially ordered that we sell the marital home and divide the proceeds into two then subsequently we entered into an agreement in a consent order that I should remain in the house and refinance the house by taking my ex-wife names out of the loan with a buy out option with Navy Federal. 

By XX/XX/XXXX, I advised the Defendant that per the court 's order, The house needs to be put in the market for sale and that she needs to move out of the property so that we can sell it immediately. The Defendant refused and threatened if I come to the property she would call the police. I made my way to the property and started getting it ready for sale. In the process, about four policemen came to me and asked what I was doing at the house and I responded that the property belonged to me and they asked if I have any proof then I presented the deed and title of ownership. The police apologized to me that they had received a false alarm from the Defendant of breaking and entry. The police advised her that a homeowner can not break into his own home by law and there is no law against stealing or destroying what belongs to you. 

Just as I was getting the home ready for sale, in XX/XX/XXXX, the frigid weather caused the pipes in the house to burst and the house became flooded. It took me several months to put the house together with the help of XXXX XXXX insurance company. At that time the Defendant did not bother to seek a trustee sale of the property as she was not living in there and never participated in the months of repairs, I did on the house. I spent months repairing the house alone all by myself with no helps from no one including the defendant. Later in XXXX, we put the house back on the market for sale after I have fixed it, then again in early XX/XX/XXXX the house got damaged again with an ICE RAIN clogged on the roof and penetrated the dry walls then I had to do the same thing again to fix the house alone with the help of the insurance company. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, while I was living in the house and repairing the house from the damaged by flooding, I was getting ready for work as a XXXX XXXX XXXX for the XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the early hours of XX/XX/XXXX I got hit by a drunk driver ( photo of the accident attached ) and I officially became a XXXX Veteran of the United States XXXX while still struggling to sell my house in order to move on from the heavily contested divorce with XXXX minor children. The subsequent order that gave Plaintiff the right to refinance the home and buy out the Defendant became the only feasible alternative considering Plaintiff 's XXXX STATUS and ONLY ONE WHO KEPT THE HOME AND REPAIRED WHEN DAMAGED since it would be harder for him to get a new loan but better keep what he already owned by simple FHA refinance with a buy out of the Defendant which solved the whole disputes and problems. 

I applied for FHA loan in XXXX and XXXX XXXX, Navy Federal Credit Union Staff with NMLS # XXXX was applied as Mortgage Processor and my application was denied stating that I did not have/meet the required minimum credit score of XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX again I applied for the same FHA refinance loan with a buy out option, Navy Federal Credit Union denied the refinance again despite a new credit score of above 650 because I had paid credit repair services and have help removed derogatory accounts and paid off balances to make my credit score qualify for FHA refinance. Because Navy Federal had taken advantage of the dispute between the parties and in favor of the earlier court order that says the house should be sold instead of the second order that says the Plaintiff should refinance and removed the Defendant 's name from the loan with a buy out option. 

Navy Federal Denied Plaintiff 's FHA loan and opted for trustee sales of the house which led to the Plaintiff being a forced out of the house with all his personal belongings out on the streets and driveway and were all stolen by the neighbors. Navy Federal 's egregious and greedy conduct because of their financial gains rendered XXXX XXXX  VET Plaintiff homeless with his XXXX children as we speak with all his personal belongings stolen and destroyed. Navy Federal has a copy of the court orders first and second and copies of the deed of recording and title of ownership. Navy Federal Credit Union was aware of Plaintiff 's fixing the house exclusively without any bits of help or cooperation from the Defendant. Navy Federal was aware of Plaintiff making mortgage payments on the loans despite his name not on the loan. Yet this ruthless credit union wilfully and maliciously sold his home and rendered him homeless while disable. 

The controversial consent order is currently being clarified by the circuit court in XXXX  XXXX and it clarifications will show that Navy Federal acted with malice and in complete disregards of Plaintiff 's  constitutional rights including the right to ownership of the property and to be safe in his home with his properties. The clarification will also show that the trustee committed fraud, an extrinsic fraud that legally guarantees the CANCELATION of the sales and voids the ratifications of the contract, a type of fraud that is above common irregularities or mistakes. In any event, Plaintiff maintains the trustee 's conduct and Navy Federal 's conduct led to Plaintiff becoming homeless as he has no way of controlling what happened to him or the reasons why he became XXXX while his properties sold without him being given not even a single penny from the proceeds and his personal belongings were vandalized and stolen completely. The order was acted upon to the contrast and also was misinterpreted completely to suit their own financial profits and rendered an innocent man homeless with his children.