Consumer complaint received 2025-11-26 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
In XXXX, I entered what I believed was a standard home purchase with XXXX XXXX. I later discovered that the alleged loan was never funded by the named lender. Internal records that I eventually obtained show that the account was created four days after closing and immediately set to a zero-dollar balance. The actual funding sources were undisclosed warehouse lenders ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  that never appeared on any disclosures I signed. Because no consideration was provided by the named lender, the transaction was never consummated under federal lending law. 
Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, I sent disputes, accounting requests, and Qualified Written Requests to Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, CHFA Loan Servicing, and XXXX XXXX Firm. I requested a full accounting, payment history, escrow records, suspense ledger activity, chain of title, chain of endorsements, servicing logs, proof of purchase, documentation showing the lawful creditor, and HUD authorization required for foreclosure of an FHA-insured instrument. None of these requests were answered. None of the required documents were provided. Every effort to obtain proof of standing or creditor identity was ignored.

Before the Rule 120 hearing, there was no recorded assignment of
the deed of trust. I checked the county records repeatedly. XXXX did not disclose or produce any assignment before the hearing and did not enter one into the court record. During the hearing I raised this statutory defect. Instead of requiring compliance, the judge excused the omission and stated he did not interpret the word shall as mandatory. After the hearing was over and after the sale was ordered, an assignment suddenly appeared in the mail.In XXXX I entered what I believed was a standard home purchase with XXXX. I later discovered that the alleged loan was never funded by the named lender. Internal records that I eventually obtained show that the account was created four days after closing and immediately set to a zero-dollar balance. The actual funding sources were undisclosed warehouse lenders ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) that never appeared on any disclosures I signed. Because no consideration was provided by the named lender, the transaction was never consummated under federal lending law. 
Beginning in XX/XX/XXXX, I sent disputes, accounting requests, and Qualified Written Requests to Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, CHFA Loan Servicing, and XXXX XXXX XXXX I requested a full accounting, payment history, escrow records, suspense ledger activity, chain of title, chain of endorsements, servicing logs, proof of purchase, documentation showing the lawful creditor, and HUD authorization required for foreclosure of an FHA-insured instrument. None of these requests were answered. None of the required documents were provided. Every effort to obtain proof of standing or creditor identity was ignored.

Before the Rule 120 hearing, there was no recorded assignment of the deed of trust. I checked the county records repeatedly. XXXX did not disclose or produce any assignment before the hearing and did not enter XXXX into the court record. During the hearing I raised this statutory defect. Instead of requiring compliance, the judge excused the omission and stated he did not interpret the word shall as mandatory. After the hearing was over and after the sale was ordered, an assignment suddenly appeared in the mail. I located it in county records only after manually searching by the reception number. The assignment was executed by individuals working for the same servicer, acting on both sides of the transfer. It was not recorded before the hearing and was not disclosed before the order. This is not a valid assignment. 
XXXX also introduced testimony from individuals who had no personal knowledge of the loan, the funding, my communications, or the accounting. Their first affiant was an Illinois Dovenmuehle employee who had never met me. After I objected, XXXX left me a voicemail the Friday before the Monday saying they would bring in a different witness. That witness XXXX XXXX of CHFA also had no personal knowledge of any of the underlying facts. My objections were disregarded. My discovery requests were denied. 
In bankruptcy, XXXX filed a proof of claim identifying CHFA as the creditor but used the Illinois address belonging to Dovenmuehle Mortgage. I later found more than seventy federal bankruptcy cases where XXXX used this same pairing. XXXX is a Colorado political subdivision, not an Illinois entity. This raises serious identity and standing issues that deserve review. 
The payoff figures provided by XXXX and XXXX were contradictory and inconsistent : {$250000.00}, {$260000.00}, and {$230000.00} and later XXXX k plus not ( the figure reported on the XXXX ). None of these numbers match the Public Trustees surplus accounting or the internal ledger data. These inconsistencies undermine the reliability of the accounting and the legitimacy of the claimed debt. 
Despite the defects, XXXX pursued foreclosure under Colorado Rule 120. This was an FHA-insured instrument that required HUD authorization for foreclosure. No authorization has ever been produced. A foreclosure sale was then conducted based on an unsigned order. My recorded rescission and my notarized Affidavit of Obligation were ignored. My disputes were ignored. All defects were disregarded. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX armed sheriffs deputies broke down my door and forcibly removed me from my home, even though the foreclosure relied on an unsigned order, no HUD authorization, no valid assignment, and no proof of consideration or standing. More than half my personal property was lost or destroyed during the eviction. My neighbors witnessed the scene and believed it was a criminal raid. The harm was severe, unnecessary, and completely avoidable. 
To this day, {$33000.00} in surplus funds from the trustee sale has not been lawfully returned or accounted for. I submitted multiple notices requesting the surplus and a full accounting. The requests were ignored. 
For more than XXXX years I have attempted to get answers, correction of errors, and disclosure of basic documentation. I received silence, obstruction, altered records, contradictory numbers, and inconsistent identities. I have been displaced from my home, lost equity, lost property, lost peace of mind, and suffered lasting damage to my health and credit. 
I am requesting a full investigation, correction of the record, full disclosure from all companies involved, and independent review of the foreclosure, the accounting, the withheld surplus, the conflicting creditor identities, and the underlying failure of the named lender to provide any consideration at origination. 
I located it in county records only after manually searching by the reception number. The assignment was executed by individuals working for the same servicer, acting on both sides of the transfer. It was not recorded before the hearing and was not disclosed before the order. This is not a valid assignment. 
XXXX also introduced testimony from individuals who had no personal knowledge of the loan, the funding, my communications, or the accounting. Their first affiant was an Illinois Dovenmuehle employee who had never met me. After I objected, XXXX left me a voicemail the Friday before the Monday hearing saying they would bring in a different witness. That witness also had no personal knowledge of any of the underlying facts. My objections were disregarded. My discovery requests were denied. 
In bankruptcy, XXXX filed a proof of claim identifying CHFA as the creditor but used the Illinois address belonging to Dovenmuehle Mortgage. I later found more than seventy federal bankruptcy cases where XXXX used this same pairing. CHFA is a Colorado political subdivision, not an Illinois entity. This raises serious identity and standing issues that deserve review. 
The payoff figures provided by XXXX and CHFA were contradictory and inconsistent : {$250000.00}, {$260000.00}, and {$230000.00} ( the figure reported on the 1099-A ). None of these numbers match the Public Trustees surplus accounting or the internal ledger data. These inconsistencies undermine the reliability of the accounting and the legitimacy of the claimed debt. 
Despite the defects, XXXX pursued foreclosure under Colorado Rule 120. This was an FHA-insured instrument that required HUD authorization for foreclosure. No authorization has ever been produced. A foreclosure sale was then conducted based on an unsigned order. My recorded rescission and my notarized Affidavit of Obligation were ignored. My disputes were ignored. All defects were disregarded. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX armed sheriffs deputies broke down my door and forcibly removed me from my home, even though the foreclosure relied on an unsigned order, no HUD authorization, no valid assignment, and no proof of consideration or standing. More than half my personal property was lost or destroyed during the eviction. My neighbors witnessed the scene and believed it was a criminal raid. The harm was severe, unnecessary, and completely avoidable. 
To this day, {$33000.00} in surplus funds from the trustee sale has not been lawfully returned or accounted for. I submitted multiple notices requesting the surplus and a full accounting. The requests were ignored. 
For more than three years I have attempted to get answers, correction of errors, and disclosure of basic documentation. I received silence, obstruction, altered records, contradictory numbers, and inconsistent identities. I have been displaced from my home, lost equity, lost property, lost peace of mind, and suffered lasting damage to my health and credit. 
I am requesting a full investigation, correction of the record, full disclosure from all companies involved, and independent review of the foreclosure, the accounting, the withheld surplus, the conflicting creditor identities, and the underlying failure of the named lender to provide any consideration at origination.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation