IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

YORLI HUFF, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. )

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff brings this action to secure redress from unlawful credit and

collection practices engaged in by defendants.

2. Plaintiff alleges violation of the Cranston Gonzales Amendment to the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §2605, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS

505/2, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. (“FCRA”). Plaintiff also alleges

common law claims. 

3. The Cranston Gonzales Amendment requires mortgage servicers to

respond to written inquiries from borrowers.

4. The ICFA prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and practices in connection

with consumer transactions.

5. The FCRA regulates the furnishing of credit information by CitiMortgage, 

Inc. to credit bureaus (“consumer reporting agencies”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction under 12 U.S.C.§ 2605 (RESPA), 15 U.S.C. 

§1681p (FCRA), and 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1337 and 1367.

7. Venue and personal jurisdiction in this District are proper because:

a. Defendant’s collection communications were received by plaintiff

1

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
within this District; and

b. Defendant does or transacts business within this District.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Yorli Huff resides in a home that she owns in Naperville, Illinois.

9. Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. is a corporation chartered under New York

law with its principal place of business in Missouri. It does business in Illinois. Its registered agent

and office is CT Corporation System, 208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 814, Chicago, IL 60604. 

10. Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. is engaged in the business of originating and 

servicing residential mortgage loans. It originates millions of dollars of loans each year and services

millions of loans.

FACTS

11. Prior to February 18, 2010, plaintiff had a residential mortgage loan that

was serviced by CitiMortgage, Inc.

12. Plaintiff applied for and, on February 18, 2010, received, a loan modification

from CitiMortgage, Inc. A copy of the loan modification agreement is attached as Exhibit A. 

13. Plaintiff was current on her mortgage at the time she applied for the loan 

modification.

14. On or about April 12, 2010, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a statement 

reflecting that the terms of the loan modification had been implemented. See Exhibit B.

15. Plaintiff continued making her modified mortgage payments as agreed.

16. CitiMortgage, Inc. continued to send plaintiff statements reflecting the 

modified terms through November 5, 2010. See Exhibit C.

17. Exhibit C states that, as of November 5, 2010, the payment due for 

December 1, 2010 was $1,368.51, which reflects a normal monthly payment under the loan

modification.

18. On November 9, 2010, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a letter (Exhibit D) 

2

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
stating that the loan was in default. It claimed that plaintiff owed $22,503.66 by December 10,

2010, including $991.56 in late charges and $27.00 in “delinquency related expenses.”

19. Between November 9, 2010 and November 27, 2010, plaintiff spoke

to dozens of representatives from CitiMortgage, Inc.’s collections department and pieced together

from those phone calls that the loan modification had been notarized and closed in April 2010, but

had then been “unbooked” because CitiMortgage, Inc. had erred on the deferral amount. One

collections representative stated that plaintiff would have to apply for a new loan modification.

20. On November 27, 2010, plaintiff sent a letter to CitiMortgage, Inc. 

(Exhibit E) explaining that Exhibit D and “unbooking the loan” were “in violation of the terms and

the original agreement that we mutually agreed to in April 2010.” Plaintiff included a list of her

payments since May 2010 and the dates that CitiMortgage, Inc. had accepted them.

21. Plaintiff simultaneously filed complaints through the Illinois Attorney 

General Consumer Fraud Bureau and the Better Business Bureau.

22. On February 23, 2011, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a purported response 

(Exhibit F) stating, “We are unable to recognize funds that are less than the scheduled amount due

as a payment for your mortgage loan.”

23. On March 2, 2011, plaintiff sent a letter to Equifax Credit Information 

Services, Inc. (Exhibit G) requesting correction of the “tradeline” relating to plaintiff’s mortgage. 

24. On March 3, 2011, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a letter (Exhibit H) 

purportedly responding to plaintiff’s complaints through the Illinois Attorney General Consumer

Fraud Bureau and the Better Business Bureau.

25. Exhibit H acknowledges, “According to our records, you were originally 

approved for a loan modification effective February 15, 2010,” and then claims, “It was determined

in June 2010 that the loan modification was completed incorrectly, as the amount of the principal

balance to be deferred exceeded the allowable limit according to the investor... As of November

2010, the modification was rescinded and the mortage loan reverted back to the original terms... 

3

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
Please also be advised, when the loan modification was rescinded, any payments applied under the

modified rate were reversed from the mortgage loan and reapplied based on the actual contractual

mortgage payment due prior to the loan modification.”

26. On March 7, 2011, plaintiff sent a letter to CitiMortgage, Inc. Chief 

Executive Office Vikram Pandit (Exhibit I) detailing CitiMortgage, Inc.’s purported rejection of the

loan modification agreement that had already been closed and notarized and requesting that

CitiMortgage, Inc. review and honor the loan modification agreement of April 2010.

27. On March 8, 2011, plaintiff sent a letter to Experian (Exhibit J) requesting 

correction of the “tradeline” relating to plaintiff’s mortgage. 

28. Prior to March 15, 2011, plaintiff also sent a letter to TransUnion requesting 

correction of the “tradeline” relating to plaintiff’s mortgage. 

29. On information and belief, based on statements by the credit bureaus, the 

bureaus requested that CitiMortgage, Inc. investigate the dispute.

30. By letter of March 15, 2011, Equifax responded to plaintiff’s March 2, 2011 

correspondence, reporting that CitiMortgage, Inc. had verified that the loan was past due. A copy

is attached as Exhibit K. This statement was false.

31. By letter of March 17, 2011, TransUnion responded to plaintiff’s dispute, 

reporting that CitiMortgage, Inc. had verified that the loan was past due. A copy is attached as

Exhibit L. This statement was false.

32. Exhibit L claims that plaintiff was paying as agreed from August through 

October 2010, but that she was 120 days past due as of November 2010.

33. On information and belief, CitiMortgage also verified that the loan was past 

due to Experian.

34. On April 27, 2011, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a letter (Exhibit M) 

purportedly responding to plaintiff’s letter of March 7, 2011.

35. Exhibit M acknowledges again: “Our records indicate you were approved for 

4

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
a loan modification in February 2010... The original modification was to reduce your interest rate

from 6.125% to 3.00% with a 313 month term deferring $72,000.00.”

36. Exhibit M also states, “In June 2010, we discovered an issue with the 

modification changes that took place to your account. The principal balance deferral was over the

allowable limits for a Fannie Mae loan modification. With this being said, the modification was unbooked and re-worked... We are in a position to extend new terms to you. These terms are for a

3.00% interest rate for 480 months with no deferral.”

37. On May 10, 2011, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a new loan modification 

agreement (Exhibit N).

38. Whereas the unpaid principal balance prior to the loan modification 

agreement of February 2010 is $259,651.61, the unpaid principal balance under the loan

modification agreement of February 2010 was $194,496.85. However, the unpaid principal balance

under the loan modification agreement of May 2011 is $272,360.95 – $12,709.34 higher than before

plaintiff ever had her loan modified.

39. Whereas the monthly principal and interest payment under the loan 

modification agreement of February 2010 is $896.64, the monthly principal and interest payment

under the loan modification agreement of May 2011 is $975.01.

40. Further, whereas the maturity date under the loan modification of February 

2010 is April 1, 2036, the maturity date under the loan modification of May 2011 is May 1, 2051. 

The loan modification of May 2011 would require plaintiff to make mortgage payments for more

than fifteen years beyond the period to which she had agreed in February 2010.

41. Under the loan modification of February 2010, plaintiff would have paid a 

total of $352,648.32. Under the loan modification of May 2011, plaintiff would have paid a total

of $468,004.80. This constitutes an increase of $115,356.48.

42. Neither the loan modification agreement of May 2011 nor the cover letter 

dated May 10, 2011 included a breakdown of the fees assessed.

5

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
43. On May 12, 2011, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a payoff statement 

(Exhibit O) showing $9,120.30 for interest from 11/1/10 to 6/1/11, $7,766.42 escrow overdraft,

$495.78 late charge, and a $40.00 recording fee.

44. On May 17, 2011, plaintiff, through counsel William A. Miceli, sent a letter 

to CitiMortgage, Inc. (Exhibit P) disputing the inclusion of $17,098.28 “interest, costs, and

expenses” in the offered loan modification of May 2011.

45. On May 25, 2011, plaintiff through counsel William A. Miceli, sent a letter 

to CitiMortgage, Inc. Chief Executive Office Vikram Pandit (Exhibit Q) disputing the $9,120.30

“finance charges” that appeared on the payoff letter of May 12, 2011.

46. On June 8, 2011, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a new loan modification 

agreement (Exhibit R).

47. Whereas the unpaid principal balance under the loan modification agreement 

of February 2010 is $259,651.61 and the unpaid principal balance under the loan modification

agreement of February 2010 is $194,496.85, the unpaid principal balance under the loan

modification agreement of June 2011 is $270,671.21 – $11,019.60 higher than before plaintiff ever

had her loan modified.

48. Whereas the monthly principal and interest payment under the loan 

modification agreement of February 2010 is $896.64, the monthly principal and interest payment

under the loan modification agreement of June 2011 is $968.96.

49. Under the loan modification of February 2010, plaintiff would have paid a 

total of $352,648.32. Under the loan modification of June 2011, plaintiff would have paid a total

of $465,100.80. This constitutes an increase of $112,452.48.

50. Further, whereas the maturity date under the loan modification of February 

2010 is April 1, 2036, the maturity date under the loan modification of June 2011 is June 1, 2051. 

The loan modification of June 2011 would require plaintiff to make mortgage payments for more

than fifteen years beyond the period to which she had agreed in February 2010.

6

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
51. On June 17, 2011, CitiMortgage, Inc. sent plaintiff a letter (Exhibit S) 

purportedly responding to plaintiff’s letters of May 17, 2011 and May 25, 2011, stating, “It has been

explained to you that the original modification completed on February 15, 2010 can no longer be

extended to you.”

52. On June 14, 2011, plaintiff was rejected for credit by Planites Credit Union, 

citing, “Delinquent past or present accounts.” See Exhibit T.

53. On September 30, 2011, plaintiff was rejected for credit by Chase Bank

USA,

N.A., citing, “Delinquent past/present credit obligations.” See Exhibit U.

54. On December 6, 2011, plaintiff obtained a credit report from TransUnion 

(Exhibit V) showing that her only adverse account is the mortgage with CitiMortgage, Inc.

55. Plaintiff has suffered substantial damage from defendant’s conduct, 

including:

a. Emotional distress and stress;

b. Public humiliation and embarrassment;

c. Expenditure of money and time to rectify defendant’s conduct;

d. Injury to her credit, directly resulting in two denials of credit;

e. Potential tax liability resulting from the mis-allocation of her 

mortgage interest payments.

COUNT I – RESPA

56. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-55.

57. Exhibits I, P, and Q are “qualified written requests” as defined in the 

Cranston-Gonzales amendment to RESPA, 12 U.S.C. §2605(e).

58. In violation of its obligations under the Cranston-Gonzales amendment,

CitiMortgage, Inc. failed to take corrective action. Citi also reported information regarding

allegedly late payments to one or more credit bureaus within 60 days from plaintiff’s qualified

7

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
written requests in violation of 12 U.S.C. §2605(e)(3).

59. Plaintiff has been injured as a result.

60. Defendant engages in a pattern and practice of not responding to qualified 

written requests.1

 WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of the 

plaintiff and against defendant for:

(1) Compensatory damages;

(2) Statutory damages; 

(3) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and

(4) Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT II – FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

61. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-55.

62. CitiMortgage, Inc. violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681s2(b), by falsely verifying to the credit bureaus that Plaintiff’s mortgage was over 120 days behind

when they contacted CitiMortgage, Inc. in response to Plaintiffs’ disputes. 

63. Section 1681s-2(b) provides:

(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. 

 (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [15

USC §1681i(a)(2)] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or

accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer

reporting agency, the person shall 

(A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed

information; 

 

(B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer

reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [15 USC

§1681i(a)(2)];

 

(C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer

reporting agency; and 

 1Plaintiff’s counsel is aware of several individuals whose qualified written requests Defendant

did not respond to.

8

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
(D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or

inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting

agencies to which the person furnished the information and that

compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. 

 

 (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and

reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided

by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of

the period under section 611(a)(1) [15 USC §1681i(a)(1)] within which

the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required

by that section regarding that information. 

 

64. CitiMortgage, Inc. committed such violations willfully or negligently,

thereby 

violating 15 U.S.C. §1681n and/or §1681o.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and

against defendant for:

(1) Appropriate compensatory, general and punitive damages;

(2) Costs of suit; and

(3) Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT III -- BREACH OF CONTRACT 

65. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-55.

66. CitiMortgage, Inc. and plaintiff executed the loan modification agreement 

attached as Exhibit A.

67. Plaintiff has made all payments due under Exhibit A.

68. From November 2010 through the present, CitiMortgage, Inc. has directly 

refused to honor Exhibit A.

69. Such conduct amounted to a breach of contract.

70. Plaintiff has been injured as a result.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of

plaintiff and against defendant for:

9

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
(1) Compensatory damages;

(2) Costs of suit; and

(3) Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT IV -- ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

71. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-55.

72. CitiMortgage, Inc. engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices, in 

violation of §2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2:

a. By executing a loan modification with plaintiff, accepting 

plaintiff’s payments under the loan modification, and later unilaterally rescinding the loan

modification and declaring plaintiff to be in default; and

b. By ignoring its obligations under RESPA.

73. Plaintiff has been injured as a result.

74. Defendant engages in a pattern and practice of executing loan 

modification agreements and later failing to honor them.

75. CitiMortgage, Inc. engaged in such conduct in the course of trade and 

commerce, and with reckless disregard of the plaintiffs’ rights.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of 

plaintiff and against defendant for:

(1) Compensatory damages;

(2) Punitive damages; 

(3) Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; and

(4) Such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.

s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

James O. Latturner

10

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
Catherine A. Ceko

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, L.L.C.

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

s/ Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

11

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
NOTICE OF LIEN AND ASSIGNMENT

Please be advised that we claim a lien upon any recovery herein for 1/3 or such

amount as a court awards. All rights relating to attorney’s fees have been assigned to counsel.

s/Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

Daniel A. Edelman

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

T:\26447\Pleading\Complaint_Pleading.wpd

12

Case: 1:12-cv-01212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/21/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12