Consumer complaint: CITIMORTGAGE IS STEALING MY HOME It 's Gone XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Sale Confirmed XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) Confirmed Sale while working on a loan Mod In-scope borrower, Independent Foreclosure Review, wants the second part of the Agreement enforced to stay in home of 17 years. Payout was {$3700.00} and CitiMortgage has caused significant financial harm. 
1. First, the Complaint of the Foreclosure is filed and based upon the wrong loan document. More specifically, the Complaint is predicated on a Loan Modification Agreement entered into in XXXX XXXX. ( attachment ) The foregoing Loan Modification Agreement, however, was the wrong loan document upon which CitiMortgage filed this action. That is, there was a subsequent Home Affordable Modification Agreement entered into by the parties in XXXX XXXX. ( attachment ) CitiMortgage never sued upon the operative, controlling XXXX XXXX Home Affordable Modification Agreement. 
For this reason alone, the Judgment Order must be vacated. 
2. Second, the public record reveals that CitiMortgage did not have the requisite standing at the time it filed its Complaint. The XXXX County Recorder of Deeds website reveals an Assignment of Mortgage from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CitiMortgage , Inc . The Assignment of Mortgage is dated and effective as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( attachment ) However, the foreclosure action was filed by CitiMortgage, Inc. in XXXX XXXX, some 5 months prior to CitiMortgage acquiring any interest in the subject Note or Mortgage under the Assignment of Mortgage. ( attachment ) Remarkably, the Assignment of Mortgage was never appended to the Complaint as an exhibit. 
3. Third, the Judgment Motion was supported in part by the Affidavit of Amounts Due and Owing of CitiMortgage 's XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " Affidavit '' ), which in turn had appended to it partial payments history from XXXX XXXX, XXXX through XXXX XXXX, XXXX which is inaccurate. ( attachment ) However a plain review of the XXXX discloses that it is insufficient as a matter of law because ( i ) the payment history appended thereto is incomplete and omits over 8 years of payment history, and ( ii ) the Affidavit itself fails to establish that the documents appended thereto, allegedly establishing the amounts due under the loan, are exempt from hearsay rule as a business records. 
4. Finally, the CitiMortgage 's loss mitigation affidavit, dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and submitted in support of the Judgment Motion was in violation of Rule XXXX. In the loss mitigation affidavit, the CitiMortgage represented, under oath, that Defendants were " eligible '' for " HAMP Modification '' and " Traditional, Standard, or In-House Modification Options ''. The foregoing statement, however, was simply not true. In a correspondence dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX from CitiMortgage, the CitiMortgage unequivocally stated that it could not modify the subject loan because the " Loan must be Citi held ''. The foregoing letter clearly contradicts the loss mitigation affidavit, which states that Defendants are eligible for modification. Perhaps more fundamentally, the foregoing letter also corroborates the argument that CitiMortgage was not the holder or owner of the subject loan documents. 

Company response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response