Susan and George Michael, homeowners in Lake Bluff, Illinois, sued Safeguard Properties (SGP) and CitiMortgage Inc. alleging that when they fell behind on their mortgage, Citi hired SGP to conduct useless drive by property inspections and charged the Michaels for them. In documents obtained exclusively by Foreclosurepedia, we found that the Michaels filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and other laws. In the Answer issued to the US District Court, Citi and SGP attempted to draw parallels to similar putative class action filed against Citi in California, Stitt v. Citibank, in which that court twice held that the plaintiffs had failed to state RICO claims, denied certification and granted summary judgment in favor of Citi on the remaining claims.
Fact of the matter is that it is anticipated that Class Certification will be made as Foreclosurepedia was informed by those whom are familiar with the case.
In behavior which has become standard operating procedure for both Citi and Robert Klein’s SGP, the saber rattling and threats of yet more financial hardship were heard by and through Citi’s belief that they ran the show.
Using that case as support, Citi said that if U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve decides not to dismiss the instant case, she should strike all the class action claims because determining if a property inspection fee was proper requires an “endless series” of individual inquiries into each borrower’s mortgage, the applicable servicing guidelines and each borrower’s loan file.
“The class allegations should be stricken now so that the parties do not waste significant time and expense on discovery into purported classes that could never be certified,” Citi said.
What is most interesting is the fact that in Paragraph 6 of the lawsuit, the Michaels allege that,
Defendants [Safeguard Properties and CitiMortgage Inc.] target any residential homeowner with a delinquent mortgage for recurring property inspections, conducted with a maximum of expedience by having their inspectors drive by the properties as opposed to traversing the premises on foot. By churning out monthly inspections of targeted residences, Defendants are able to generate substantial income.
The lawsuit states that these inspections are between ten and twelve dollars each in many cases. More telling, though, is Paragraph 7 of the lawsuit which alleges,
CitiMortgage utilizes automated computer software to order and schedule the aforesaid inspections, regardless of countervailing factors such as the lack of evidence that a property is at risk of abandonment.
Paragraph 7 goes on to say,
CitiMortgage’s software program automatically schedules the property inspections, generating work orders that are electronically transmitted to its field services vendor.
According to US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines, a mortgage lender is only authorized to be reimbursed for recurrent property inspections AFTER attempts to contact the borrower have been unsuccessful. I want that to sink in for a minute. You see, we are heading down the slippery slope of FDCPA. For years, Eric Miller, Executive Director of the National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS) has supported NAMFS Members, of which Safeguard Properties is one, in their billing regimen knowing this salient fact.
Foreclosurepedia has been the spearpoint in piercing Miller’s cronies fraudulent billing of both HUD itself and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHA) with spurious claims upon the FHA Form 27011. Countrywide Inspection Services LLC (CWIS), a heavy contributor to Eric Miller’s NAMFS, has been under investigation by the HUD Office of the Inspector General and all three of the NAMFS firms currently awarded hundreds of millions of dollars by HUD under its Management and Marketing (M&M) Contracts have had abysmal track records.
Many have questioned whether or not Craig Karnes, the HUD M&M Director is, perhaps, too close to those being awarded billions of dollars under his Directorship. It is obvious that HUDs refusal to allow for FOIA Inquiry; that refusing to allow both transparency and bona fide investigations to function, calls into question the Directorship itself. A recent example is that Foreclosurepedia filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, 16-FI-RO4-02124, requesting the scorecard information upon Sage Acquisitions, CWIS and BLM Companies. Karnes Regional FOIA Public Liaison, Alvera D Crittendon, refused to do such and stated, in part,
Disclosure of monthly performance scorecards is likely to cause substantial harm to a company’s position; and thus, monthly performance scorecards are protected from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 4.
Are you fucking shitting me?! So, Karnes and HUD are legally allowed to ensure that the very same US Taxpayers whom Karnes funnels billions of dollars to are not allowed to know whether the work is being done in a manner proscribed by contract BECAUSE THE TRUTH MIGHT HURT THEM?! This is precisely the kind of Obama Administration bullshit that the voters rejected when they took the extraordinary step of electing Trump into office! Whether or not Trump will be the end game or not, I could care less about. What I do care about is the simple fact that we have a government of criminals overseeing the sheeple being herded to the slaughter.
And in the meantime, even as Foreclosurepedia moved federal whistleblowers over to HUD to not only testify to the egregious actions being taken by Miller’s pals at Sage, CWIS and BLM Companies, the Shadow Rackets continue down at Atlanta HUD. That is a fact, ladies and gentlemen. With the wink and a nod in which Eric Holder was so famous for, these valiant men and women were ushered into the HUD Hive and then kicked to the curb as they challenged the notion that Minority Females and Labor, in conjunction with US Taxpayers, were being raped like children at Pedophile Island.
Without further adieu, here is the Michael’s suit. It brings up a lot of that which forced the Washington State Court to make ALL FORECLOSURES without a judicial ruling, illegal.
[tnc-pdf-viewer-iframe file=”https://foreclosurepedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Michael-v-CitiMortgage.pdf” width=”800″ height=”800″ download=”false” print=”false” fullscreen=”false” share=”true” zoom=”false” open=”false” pagenav=”true” logo=”false” find=”true” language=”en-US” page=”” default_zoom=”auto” pagemode=””]