Consumer complaint received 2023-03-29
Company: Peer Advisors, LLC
State: IL
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Reverse mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
Dear CFPB : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, and have been continuously litigating the fraudulent foreclosure by OneWest/ CIT Bank , N.A . of my fathers reverse mortgage on our family house in XXXX XXXX since my fathers death in XXXX. 

I was illegally evicted by CIT Bank, N.A. from the house in early XXXX. ( I lived there with my father and the ownership of the house passed to me through an Illinois land trust after his death. ) I then filed a 2-1401 ( f ) Petition to vacate the ( completed ) fraudulent foreclosure judgments and orders as void ab initio because none of the foreclosing plaintiffs were ever proper party-plaintiffs/ real parties in interest, and therefore never had any legal, statutory standing under the requirements of the residential Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law statute to serve as foreclosure plaintiffs in this case. 

I appealed the trial courts denial of my 2-1401 ( f ) Petition to vacate the foreclosure, and the Illinois XXXX XXXX denied my appeal in XX/XX/XXXX, Illinois XXXX XXXX No XXXX XXXX, and the Illinois Supreme Court denied my Petition for Leave to Appeal, today, XX/XX/XXXX ( Illinois Supreme Court No. XXXX, Pino v. CIT Bank, N.A. ). 

The main issue in this case is that none of the three complaints filed by the plaintiff, nor the plaintiffs affidavits submitted with its summary judgment motions, contain any fact allegations or evidence as to how the named plaintiffs claimed ownership of the legal title to the promissory note at issue or became the authorized agent of a true owner of the note at issue. 

I discovered that the foreclosing plaintiff submitted with their second amended complaint filed in XX/XX/XXXX over two years after the original complaint was filed in the fall of XXXX, a forged signature on a blank indorsement that suddenly appeared on the reverse mortgage promissory note underneath my fathers signature which he signed in XXXX. I obtained a fraudulent document/ handwriting experts report concluding that it does not match the known signatures of the person whose name they used ( whom I found using internet searches ). 

But the trial court judge denied an extension of time prior to the summary judgment hearing, and denied my motion for leave to amend my answer to add the affirmative defense of lack of standing. The experts report was completed shortly after the trial judge entered summary judgment in favor of the foreclosing plaintiff. Then I filed a timely motion for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence ( of the forged signature ) but the court denied it with the legally incorrect reason that I was not diligent in uncovering the new evidence. The trial court was also governed by a line of Illinois XXXX XXXX cases incorrectly holding that lack of standing under the foreclosure statute is an affirmative defense which must be plead in the answer or be permanently waived, and I had not pled lack of standing in my answer to the second amended complaint because I uncovered the forgery after I filed the answer. 

I cited from XXXX in my appeal briefs : Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919, 938 ( S. Ct. Cal. 2016 ) ( [ t ] he borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security. ) Many people in Illinois, including myself, were most likely severely prejudiced by the Illinois courts depriving families of their fundamental, procedural due process right to the defense of raising challenges to the standing of the foreclosing plaintiff banks at any point after the answer to the original complaint is filed, by applying the spurious, incorrect rule that lack of standing is an affirmative defense which is permanently waived if not raised by the foreclosure defendant in the original answer to the complaint. See e.g., Deutsche Bank Natl Trust v. Iordanov, 2016 IL App ( 1st ) 152656 34 ( foreclosure defendant must assert the affirmative defense of lack of standing in answer or it is waived ). 

In addition to the first reason why the state judgment of foreclosure and eviction of me from my house is void ab initio and must be vacated -- that the Illinois courts and foreclosing bank ( s ) deprived me of my fundamental, constitutional procedural due process right to raise the essential defense of lack of statutory standing of the foreclosure plaintiffs, the second reason why the state foreclosure judgment and eviction is void ab initio and must be vacated is that the foreclosing plaintiffs claimed statutory " standing '' to sue in Illinois under the Illinois Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Law as XXXX " holders '' of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reverse mortgage Note, but the Note at issue, as a matter of undisputed fact and therefore as a matter of law, is not negotiable for reasons including, but not limited to : the Note at issue is for a line of credit, not a fixed sum, and references an outside Loan Agreement containing numerous conditions not stated in the Note. 

Please see my attached court-filed briefs in this state court fraudulent foreclosure litigation. 

Thank you very much for your time and assistance with this matter. 

Sincerely yours, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation