Consumer complaint received 2017-08-22
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: CITIBANK, N.A. (OH)

I initiated a loan modification request or temporary forbearance in XX/XX/XXXX with Citimortgage. Citimortgage is the loan servicer for XXXX XXXX on my 1st mortgage. Citi assigned XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXXas my " single point of contact throughout the duration of my loan modification treatment. '' Citi assigned XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXXas my " single point of contact throughout the duration of my loan modification treatment. '' Volumes of communications were exchanged ( see attached files ) to comply with the loan servicer 's documentation requests. Citi assigned XXXX XXXX onXX/XX/XXXX as my " single point of contact throughout the duration of my loan modification treatment. '' Volumes of communications were exchanged ( see attached files ) to comply with the loan servicer 's documentation requests. For some unknown or undisclosed reason, the entire file was placed " on hold. '' After multiple inquiries, I was informed by XXXX XXXX in an email dated XX/XX/XXXX with a request for yet additional information. At this point it should be noted that I had provided Citi with every document requested on a timely basis with date stamped compliance, MULTIPLE TIMES. At this same proximate time, I received notification on XX/XX/XXXX that Citi was transferring the servicing of our mortgage to XXXX effectiveXX/XX/XXXX. ( See attached ) On XX/XX/XXXX we received notification that Citi would NOT be transferring our servicing to XXXX. Volumes of communications and loan servicer 's documentation requests were timely satisfied and on XX/XX/XXXX I was notified in a letter from my single point of contact, XXXX XXXX, that Your Application for Mortgage Assistance is Complete. ( See document attached ) On XX/XX/XXXX, four days after providing a complete loan modification packet ( for about the 5th time ) Citi filed Foreclosure. ( See attached XXXX County Court Docket ) This action violated my federal protections under CFR 1024.41 ( f ) ( 2 ) which would preclude Citi from filing for foreclosure when they had received a completed mortgage assistance application. On XX/XX/XXXX, the entire process was started all over again, AS IF none of the previous 10 months document requests and compliance on my part, had ever happened.
OnXX/XX/XXXX, Citi assigned XXXX XXXX as my " single point of contact throughout the duration of my loan modification treatment. Volumes of communications and loan servicer documentation requests continued. ( See attached flles ) Simultaneously to answering and re-answering the same informational requests from Citi underwriting and XXXX XXXX, the foreclosure legal team was in full operation filing motions in court, filing affidavits, creating Preliminary Judicial Reports, opposing my Motion for Mediation, etc. ( See communications from attorney 's attached. ) The loan servicer was " dual tracking '' the loan modification and legal processes which is clearly evident from the attached XXXX County Court docket. Even if Citi was not precluded from filing foreclosure in the first place, ( which they were precluded ) they were guilty of the " dual tracking '' infraction. Once again the CFR protections designed to prevent this from happening were violated at huge personal cost to me. After many more informational and document demands made by Citi were met by me on a timely and fully compliant basis, I was informed onXX/XX/XXXX that XXXX XXXX was assigned to be my " single point of contact throughout the duration of my loan modification treatment. '' The loan servicer continued to make document demands, the legal process continued in " dual tracking '' fashion ( see attached court docket ) and I was in the process of answering a specific loan servicer document request datedXX/XX/XXXX ( see attached ) when we were informed in a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX that we had been refused a loan modification and had been conditionally approved for a short sale. ( which we explicitly were not interested in ) In addition while we were being detained chasing down the same documents again for what had to literally be the 7th time, the servicer without cause makes a determination and either kept it to themselves or instructed their attorney, XXXX XXXX, to conceal it. We literally received the loan servicer determination on the day ( 14 days hence from determination ) that our Appeal would be due. On XX/XX/XXXX, the loan servicer 's attorney filed a Motion for Summary Judgement utlizing an Affidavit and Final Judiciary Report constructed on XX/XX/XXXX. After getting caught in their fraud, the attorney withdrew their summary judgment motion in order for the loan servicer to conduct an " appeal. '' It should be further noted that no such appeal took place. 14 days later, the original determination was " rubber stamped '' and the attorney refiled the Motion for Summary Judgment. OnXX/XX/XXXX Citi assigned XXXX XXXX as my " single point of contact throughout my loan modification treatment. It is clear from Citi 's conduct that they never intended to provide a loan modification, that they were at all times " dual tracking '' this process to lead me to Foreclosure and that various Civil Federal Rule 's have been violated for them to achieve their illicit ends. The reason given for refusing the loan modification was that we were refused " because we had been modified before. '' What reasonable mind would accept that after 22 months and countless volumes of document demands that the " reason '' for the loan modification being denied was something that a 4th grader could have determined all those many months ago? In addition to the specific violations of CFR 1024.41 ( f ) ( 2 ), it should be fairly clear to the reasonable minds at the CFPB that Citimortgage is " thumbing it 's nose '' at CFPB Consent Order 2017-CFPB-0005.