Consumer complaint received 2016-08-28 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional fixed mortgage
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure — 
Company: PNC Bank N.A.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
Please reference complaints:XXXX,XXXX,XXXX These complaints contain 4 years of history requesting XXXX XXXX XXXX, our mortgage owner the Servicer of mortgage, PNC Mortgage, and PNC Bank, the XXXX lien holder. Each time we received responses where one bank blamed the other and refused to take responsibility for failure to request the desired solution. Finally, we received approval for a deed-in-lieu from PNC Mortgage and PNC Bank, copies attached. XXXX XXXX XXXX then approved and issued a proposed deed-in-lieu agreement ( copy attached ). It requested to we move out in two weeks, which was impossible. When requested to extend that date, we received no response. Due to delay of PNC Mortgage and XXXX XXXX XXXX, we are not sure that date is still available. 
Most importantly, the deed-in-lieu proposal from XXXX XXXX XXXX 's attorneys provided no protection from further personal liability, unlike what my attorney has seen before. The wording in fact stated several times that they could seek any deficiency after they received the deed. In fact, our research shows it is illegal to request a deed in lieu that includes a deficiency judgment in Illinois law, copy attached. 
Points of fact, our sole assets are a government pension, social security and a 401k retirement account. What little cash we have left is from those sources, and it will be used for our move. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX 's attorneys have stated they and their investors required they include such deficiency statements with a deed-in-lieu. In past complaints XXXX XXXX XXXX has taken no responsibility in this matter, stating PNC Mortgage is the servicer. Now, it is XXXX XXXX XXXX and their attorneys who are culpable and need to remove the language that allows a deficiency judgment. PNC Mortgage has not provided decision making contacts. 
XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased the Loan from PNC Mortgage after PNC Mortgage took over the original mortgage as successor to National City Bank. We were never notified of this until XXXX XXXX XXXX issued a summons to us to start foreclosure proceedings. We have been in and out court with the bank attorneys who can not explain the public record, which shows only a construction loan of {$600000.00} ; this perplexed the foreclosure judge. The public record also shows a home equity loan, which were with PNC bank. 
PNC Bank has agreed to defer the remaining balance to {$6000.00} to be paid by PNC Mortgage upon settlement, copy attached. 
The second item stopping foreclosure is that the XXXX XXXX XXXX attorney can not reconcile the amount of the purported final mortgage amount, which is not filed in public record. However, documents provided by the attorney in court show a calculation error whereby the balance of the construction loan was to be increased by the extras added during the construction period. The balance was actually added to the original amount of the construction loan, copy attached. For the years we paid the mortgage we were over charged principal and interest. 
Also attached is a copy of the property record, which draws a picture of the collusion by these banks to structure the paperwork to avoid the property owners and their attorney from speaking of anyone of authority to resolve this situation. In fact, XXXX XXXX XXXX started foreclosure, before there was any record of the mortgage being transferred. The property record from XXXX County Court shows the foreclosure date as XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and the property recording of the transfer to XXXX XXXX XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, signed XXXX/XXXX/XXXX ( copy attached. These documents are created and filed after the fact. In the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX, their servicer PNC Mortgage, along with the investors are avoiding following banking rules by structuring a tier of ownership to not allow the mortgagee to reach a responsible person for resolution. 
As stated and demonstrated in our former submissions,

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation