Consumer complaint received 08/28/2015 about Mortgage (Conventional fixed mortgage) with CITIBANK, N.A. (FL).
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint: Please see attached motion before the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Paragraph XXXX is my complaint to you as well. I previously asked for an investigation into a complaint I filed about the illegal devaluation of my property, which forced me into foreclosure in the first place. It may be still under investigation. 

Now I am on the other end of a property devaluation candle that burns at both ends. The sale of my property, through the on line system, by the bank, which as you will see by the explanation in the motion, resulted in a value XXXX percent below its worth. It was accomplished by the bank itself, with the publishing of a very low value they would pay for the property, only {$170000.00}. The amount is {$100000.00} less that it was purchased for in 2001. The bank 's actions effectuated the low sales price on my unit. If the sale is not reset, then I will be subject to a {$150000.00} deficiency judgment at the age of XXXX. The amount bid has nothing to do with the price my unit could sell for in an open competitive market, and because the sale was to a third party, the county has told me they will count it which will devalue every property in the building, an injustice for many including the MBS owners.. 

You will see I have quoted an attorney who had the sale of his client 's property cancelled with his argument that the online system is not fair. Why are the banks allowed to participate and aid and abet an system of sale that desecrate everyone 's property value and cause deficiency judgments in this manner. Please do something about it. This can not be excused by a ruling that it is internal between the servicing bank and XXXX XXXX. Both the servicer and XXXX XXXX have obligations under federal law to protect the consumer 's loan value, both the borrower 's and the XXXX investor 's. They are legally obligated to do so by my mortgage contract. Please intervene and make the bank join me in contesting this sale, and have them then be the purchaser which takes the unit back appraises it and puts in back on a open competitive market. That is the way it has always worked and because of this the values never went down, only stagnated during recessionary times. 

May I point out that during the foreclosure crisis it was hedge funds buying up these properties at pennies of the dollar, hedge funds which had banks as their major clients, banks whose actions made the values go down with low bids on the on line system, and then they hugely profited buying them up. 

You will see I say the banks use of the online system violates my contract because my contract required adherence to RESPA provisions. RESPA provision require adherence to federal law and regulations which govern federally realted mortages, and the fdICs regulations say that a federally related mortage to sell, especially when it is over {$25000.00}. must be appraised by a certified appraiser and put on the market for a reasonable time. 
Finally may I complain that the bank knows I am appealing to the Supreme Court and therefore never should have requested the scheduling of the sale in the first place.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation