I am suing Citimortgage.....follow along as I hang these bastards.

reply to post by Kokatsi

I believe the law is the law. I believe that banks defraud the buyer upon the initiation of the contract by not specifying the way the money is created, or how the loan will be securitized. When I sign a contract, I deserve full disclosure of what granting my signature originates. I was not provided this disclosure. Not that I wouldn't have signed, but the bank did not disclose the truth, because they had other ways of making money off my signature.

Just be upfront with me lender.

I believe that the bank got way too powerful. I missed several payments, but where does it say that they can add on bogus fee after bogus fee and hold me hostage until I pay it? Are these fees legal? I believe some are, and that others are illegal and serve to create extra profit, When I am being foreclosed upon, I have no voice in the matter. I either pay their bogus, trumped up fees OR I lose my home. There is no oversight for the banks...they have your proverbial balls in their palm...and they are squeezing hard.

If you can defend yourself, you are okay. If you can't afford counsel, you may be doomed. The way this system is set up, is that the banks have all the power. They can squash you with lies, confusion, initimidation and extortion. Once you are behind, you can't even use your equity to bail yourself out. If you have 500k in equity....and you miss one payment, that equity can be held ransom.

NEVER, EVER, ALLOW EQUITY TO BUILD UP IN A PROPERTY. ONCE YOU DO, YOU ARE A SITTING DUCK. My equity could have saved me had I accessed it earlier. I could have paid off the arrearages....but once the bank got involved.....it became very difficult to access this equity.

The banks don't play by the rules....and that is why they are NOW in a panic. 68 million homes do not have clear title to their homes because of MERS/LPS. They home owners didn't do this. The banks did.

by not specifying the way the money is created

If banks have the magical ability to "create money out of thin air", then how do you explain the unprecedented number of bank failures?

If all it took for a bank to "create money out of thin air" was to simply have new borrowers sign mortgage contracts, then why do banks that are in trouble stop lending money? Why wouldn't a troubled bank simply keep on writing loans to raise more capital?

After all, according to your logic, this is how banks make "money out of thin air", right?

If a bank were in distress, all it would have to do - by your theory - is simply write more loans. So why do banks stop writing loans when they need to raise more capital?

The answer is simple: Your logic is erroneous. Banks don't create money out of thin air. When a loan goes bad, the bank takes a loss. Writing more loans doesn't make up for those losses.

Banks can't magically conjure money out of thin air. If it could, there would be no such thing as a bank failure, and the FDIC wouldn't even exist.

how the loan will be securitized

Most mortgage contracts permit the lender to sell the mortgage note to whomever it chooses.

Regardless of who buys the note from the bank, the bank still issued funds on your behalf at closing to enable you to purchase your new house.

I missed several payments, but where does it say that they can add on bogus fee after bogus fee and hold me hostage until I pay it?

Read your mortgage contract. Collection costs upon default become your responsibility. Collection attorneys are not cheap.

Are these fees legal?

Yes, because the bank has to recoup the costs of collection. Either you pay for these costs because you defaulted, or they will ultimately be passed on to the rest of the customers of the bank in the form of higher fees and/or higher interest rates.

According to your theory, it's cheap for the bank to foreclose - It is not, by the way, as I pointed out earlier. You also believe that collection costs should be paid for by anyone but the borrower in default, despite the mortgage contract stating otherwise.

NEVER, EVER, ALLOW EQUITY TO BUILD UP IN A PROPERTY. ONCE YOU DO, YOU ARE A SITTING DUCK.

Bad advice. Your best option is to pay off your home as soon as possible to avoid paying interest altogether. The sooner you start reducing the principal balance by building equity, the faster you will pay off the house and be free from paying interest.

The banks don't play by the rules....and that is why they are NOW in a panic. 68 million homes do not have clear title to their homes because of MERS/LPS. They home owners didn't do this. The banks did.

Most experts that have looked closely at the MERS situation agree that it's not much of an argument to skip out on paying your mortgage.

You are correct, however, in that the sale of some of these mortgage contracts to other third parties may not have been done competently. It doesn't, however, negate the fact that you owe a loan balance.

At the end of the day, the bank paid for your house at closing. Who they sold the note to after the fact is a potential dispute between the bank and the buyer, which is simply a matter of following the paper trail.

The borrower would be hard pressed to suggest the bank didn't pay for the house at closing.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Apparently you dont understand where the money comes from to make these loans...you should research this instead of attacking. Being uneducated makes you a sounding horn for the people that take advantage of the system..legally..lol...please educate yourself where money originates from and then you will understand why the banks have failed.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


Hang on..I'm thinking you are a troll at this point...you are spreading incorrect information..please again..educate yourself. You have things a bit backwards...banks do not go negative making a loan..they go waaayyy positive..see, they write the interest and principal back into their books once the loan is complete. And then make more loans off that money. This is why banks fail and how money (debt) comes into existance. It is a very old game..just in a new package..so please..do some research

Hang on..I'm thinking you are a troll at this point...you are spreading incorrect information..please again..educate yourself. You have things a bit backwards...banks do not go negative making a loan..they go waaayyy positive..

Nonsense. Just because I don't buy your garbage conspiracy theory about banking, does not equate that you have a picture perfect view of the banking world. Sorry.

When a bank closes a loan, they stroke a check to the seller of the real estate property for the sales price, say $500,000. This cash is wired to the seller of the property once the loan closes. The cash wired is real money, as evidenced by the fact that the seller can use these funds to pay for tangible products and services in the marketplace.

On the bank's books, after closing the loan, they now have a Loan Receivable for $500,000 plus the interest expected to be received over the next 30 years from the borrower. This Loan Receivable is an asset on the bank's books.

Example:
$500,000 Paid at Closing
Mortgage set at a fixed rate of 5% Interest
Borrower's Monthly Payment: $2,684/month
$2,684/month x 180 months (15 years) = $483,120

Even in the above example, the bank still has not recovered its original investment of $500,000 after 15 years!

During those first 15 years, if the borrower defaults, the bank has a minimum shortfall of $16,880 ($500,000 less $483,120) before collecting any interest on the loan.

Banks don't create money out of thin air. When a loan goes bad, the bank takes a loss. Writing more loans doesn't make up for those losses.

Apparently you dont understand where the money comes from to make these loans.

Your "conspiracy theory" logic doesn't make any sense. Either a bank has unlimited cash by writing new loans (your theory) and can never possibly fail, or a bank takes losses on loans that default.

If your theory is correct (it is not, by the way), then there would be no need for the FDIC and we would not have the unprecedented number of bank failures in the past couple of years.

Again, answer my questions noted above:

If all it took for a bank to "create money out of thin air" was to simply have new borrowers sign mortgage contracts, then why do banks that are in trouble stop lending money? Why wouldn't a troubled bank simply keep on writing loans to raise more capital? After all, according to your logic, this is how banks make "money out of thin air", right? If a bank were in distress, all it would have to do - by your theory - is simply write more loans. So why do banks stop writing loans when they need to raise more capital?

By the way, banks don't need to "create money out of thin air". Look at the Balance Sheet of any well-run conservative bank and you can see that they have plenty of assets -- Cash, Stock and Bond Investments, Real Estate, Loan Receivables, etc.

Not to mention plenty of deposits on hand -- Many in the form of CD's or Certificates of Deposit which charge a hefty penalty for early withdrawal. Technically, deposits from bank customers are liabilities on the bank's books. (However, the general likelihood and probability of every depositor withdrawing their cash at the same time is highly unlikely, unless in the event of a bank run, which does happen from time to time. Hence the FDIC guarantee on deposits up to $250,000.)

Banks earn interest on loans. What do you think they do with that interest? They take that profit and use it for expansion, and to make more loans to other customers.

Banks don't operate in a fairy land of make-believe. They are reality-based businesses like any other business.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

The payment of cash by the bank at the closing table is not a liability. That payment of cash -- the "loan" --- is backed by a legally enforceable contract signed by the borrower. Furthermore, the bank will hold a first lien position in the house itself.

The loan itself, as I stated earlier, becomes a loan receivable on the bank's books after the loan paperwork is signed. That loan receivable is an asset, not a liability as you stated earlier. Again, check with your CPA, who will confirm my statements above, and perhaps do a better job of explaining it to you.

Bottom line: Loan receivables are assets for the bank, not liabilities.

Back in my college days we were taught:

owners equity=assets minus liabilities

That means anytime there is a cash PAYMENT you debit assets(cash account to be specific). Since getting a loan involves a full transaction, that means loan receivable plus interest receivable become credited which are BOTH asset accounts.

For every transaction there is a debit and credit that affect owners equity. The real profit from the transaction is the interest receivable that is amortised over the duration of the loan plus the bank fees!

Originally posted by daddio

THERE IS NO MONEY.......your signature GIVES the Federal Reserve/Banks the authority to print worthless paper. IT is OUR "money"/divinity/wealth and NOT the banks. What happened is that we were duped into "believing" that when we apply for a "loan" that the banks "give" us a loan FROM the bank, the truth is.....the bank has nothing to loan. Our signature creates the funds and the bank keeps them and tells us we have to pay that much, plus interest, back to them. WRONG!!!!! There books were balanced the second our signature was put to paper. They then tell us we must pay the loan back, but there was no loan, the "money" you give them back plus interest goes STRAIGHT to the bank owner and the rest of the federal mafia. The interest pays the bank employees weekly salary. When oh when are you people gonna wake up to the fraud?

Read my thread and others on the subject of the strawman. Look up the definition in Barrons Law Dictionary Second Edition.

Without over-complicating things I think you are both correct and wrong at the same time.

Money is REAL because it is legal tender; you can purchase goods and services with it.

Yes the money/currency is interest bearing because the federal reserve inc. is a "semi"-private central bank that circumvents the constitution because our fore-fathers thought it wise to betray our nation to european banking cartels.

Money is what people, knowningly or unknowningly, agree to be legal tender. We could substitute US Federal Reserve Notes for warner brother monopoly money at any time without backing the currency up with precious metals or anything else of significant value; it would be called fiat currency, such as the aforementioned notes currently in circulation.

The reason we are taxed is because the government needs money to operate itself and manage the nation'. If money was actually issued by a national bank, the prime rate collected from primary lending to commercial banks would substitute the need for taxation to a great extent, if not entirely. Here within lies the con-job! People wrongfully assume, because they don't know better, that since the US Treasury PRINTS the money FOR THE FED, that automatically it is "national money" aka belongs to the people indirectly. Wrong!!!

Congress sold-out the nation back in 1913(if I remeber correctly) when it delegated issuing authority to non-governmental hands and today pretends everything is fair since they have a few people "monitoring" its affairs and "suggesting" couses of action.

For every transaction there is a debit and credit that affect owners equity. The real profit from the transaction is the interest receivable that is amortised over the duration of the loan plus the bank fees!

You are correct. I don't disagree with anything that you are saying. You are only affirming what I have already stated multiple times in this thread.

When a bank strokes a check at closing to be paid to the seller, it is taking its own cash money, and paying that money to the seller of the property. It's cash account goes in the negative by, say $500,000, which is the sales price of the house. They are out $500,000 on the day of closing.

However, at the time of closing, the borrower signs a mortgage note, and agrees to repay that mortgage over the course of the next 30 years. The bank places a first lien on the property, meaning it has first priority to sell the house at auction ahead of any other creditors in the event the borrower defaults.

That mortgage loan now becomes a Loan Receivable on the bank's books, and the bank will earn profit in the form of interest over the next 30 years. A big chunk of the interest is collected in the first 10-15 years, as the payments during this time period are practically Interest Only, with only a small portion of the payment being applied to Principal reduction.

The Loan Receivable is, in fact, an Asset on the bank's books.

However, if the borrower defaults, the bank stops receiving payments from the customer. Depending on the time of default, a Principal balance remains. On top of the Principal balance owed, the bank has to incur collection fees, attorney costs, court costs, appraisal costs, etc., which make the total amount owed -- Principal balance plus Collection costs -- even greater.

Worse yet, the bank has the exciting proposition of trying to sell the collateral -- the house -- which, in this current market, could easily have been devalued by up to 50% or more.

If the principal balance owed is still at or near $500,000, and the house is worth $250,000, the bank takes a $250,000 loss plus collection costs, which can typically run $25-50,000 or more.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by daddio

THERE IS NO MONEY.......your signature GIVES the Federal Reserve/Banks the authority to print worthless paper. IT is OUR "money"/divinity/wealth and NOT the banks. What happened is that we were duped into "believing" that when we apply for a "loan" that the banks "give" us a loan FROM the bank, the truth is.....the bank has nothing to loan. Our signature creates the funds and the bank keeps them and tells us we have to pay that much, plus interest, back to them. WRONG!!!!! There books were balanced the second our signature was put to paper. They then tell us we must pay the loan back, but there was no loan, the "money" you give them back plus interest goes STRAIGHT to the bank owner and the rest of the federal mafia. The interest pays the bank employees weekly salary. When oh when are you people gonna wake up to the fraud?

Read my thread and others on the subject of the strawman. Look up the definition in Barrons Law Dictionary Second Edition.

The reason we are taxed is because the government needs money to operate itself and manage the nation'. If money was actually issued by a national bank, the prime rate collected from primary lending to commercial banks would substitute the need for taxation to a great extent, if not entirely. Here within lies the con-job! People wrongfully assume, because they don't know better, that since the US Treasury PRINTS the money FOR THE FED, that automatically it is "national money" aka belongs to the people indirectly. Wrong!!!

Well, you are incorrect again. Taxes are a USURY FEE for the use of the printed paper, AND NO the Treasury prints the "T" bills which they then TRADE for the Federal Reserve note, which costs a mere 4 cents to print, for full FACE VALUE. That is, the Fed gets a $100 dollar treasury bond for 4 cents worht of worthless paper. An IOU for the gold taken by the House Joint Resolution 192. It is the promissory note to pay ALL publics debts, but we were given IOU's in the form of FRN's which means nothing, you have a TSA account number in Washington D.C. which has approximately 15-50 million dollars in it fromt he sale of your birth certificate. Take control of that number and you can write off all debt. This has been explained so many times here!!!

Edit to add, the "government" is suposed to be funded by import and export duties and taxes, not on PERSONAL property or anything to do with private affairs. Government would and should be limited by that and the rest is up to the repsonsible patriots, sovereigns. ME and you.

reply to post by lostviking


Go get em OP.

Star and flag.

reply to post by lostviking

In February, I got sick. The increase in bills made it difficult to pay my mortgage and I got behind. On April 16th I paid Citimortgage online $2,748.48 witch was payment in full for Feb., March, and Aprils mortgage payments. I received e-mail confirmation of payment that said CitiE_ID:698887
“Thank you for your payment.

Regarding Account: XXXXXX@#$%

Your payment of $2,748.48 will be credited to your account on 4/18/2011, unless that date is a federal holiday or your payment was submitted after 5 p.m. ET, in which case, it will be credited the following business day.

To view details of your payment, please visit www.payment.citi.com. If you have questions about this payment, please contact us at 1-866-675-5743.

We cannot respond to individual messages through this email address. It is not secure and should not be used for account-related questions.

For general account inquiries, please contact us at 1-800-283-7918 or visit www.citimortgage.com.

Calls are randomly monitored and recorded to ensure quality service.”
On April 19th Citimortgage turned my account over to an attorney for foreclosure. I received a letter today informing me that I am in foreclosure even though I am paid current. When I called Citimortgage I was told that there was nothing the agent could do. That I was responsible for attorney fees and that the only options I had were “payback” plans, even though, I am paid current and do not owe any outstanding mortgage payment.
In order to reinstate my mortgage, the agent took some information from me that will be forwarded to the foreclosure department. I was told that within 15 to 30 I would be contacted with a new payment that would include a portion of the attorney fees until those are paid off and then my payment will return to the same amount as before. By the time I am contacted I will owe another mortgage payment, possibly 2, and the Citimortgage agent advised me not to make those payments until I had spoken to the foreclosure department.
I am being billed attorneys fees for a foreclosure that even though I do not currently owe a mortgage payment.

reply to post by spowart


File a complaint with your State Attorney General's office.

Also contact your local representative for assistance.

They are looking for these kind of abuses.

Send a certified letter to the President of Citibank informing them you are making a formal complaint against them with your State Attorney General.

You might get a response quicker doing this.

I have done all except the certified letter. I'll do that tomorrow.
Thanks

reply to post by spowart


All correspondence MUST be by certified mail.

Too easy for them to say "we never got it". That's their standard line.

Also you might hire an attorney just to get him to write a strong letter. Should only cost a couple hundred dollars.

I feel your pain, but why not pay online? You will find that they can't just "return" your payment.

Originally posted by lostviking
reply to post by wiredamerican

 

You got that right Wiredamerican! Believe me, if I do get a new loan, it will be on an inexpensive home and I will pay it off as quickly as humanly possible. In addition, I will look for an owner carry situation, triple the payments, and own the property outright (except for taxes of course). I will never again buy a mini-mansion, the expensive European car or finance a lifestyle. I have learned frugality, the power of having less to maintain, and the freedom brought on by minimalism.

Banks are potentially in big trouble, because people are coming around. I can be equally happy on a houseboat. People are beginning to understand that when you consume, you are owned. The materialistic mentality of the 80's and 90's is gone forever. I think we have found that it doesn't take much to be happy. Good sheets, quality over quantity, and real food. Our decisions will impact the big builders, agrifarmers, and drug companies. We are going back to a time of sanity.

Yeah, that is nice and all. But for every person that thinks like you, there are at least 10 that haven't learned their lesson yet.

reply to post by lostviking


lostviking this is a heck of a thread. i wish you and the others best of luck in having these nightmares go away. it's a shame you have to resort to using a lawyer. may we see the day when evil bankers types swing from the gallows for all to see.

lostviking i loved what you wrote:
"I think that we create a Patriot bank that loans money based on the underlying asset. Refinances would be easy, and new loans would be based primarily on the value of the asset, and secondly by the credit of the individual. There was a time when people actually had to put money down on a home or car mortgage. This down-payment made the buyer have some 'skin' in the game. We need to start lending the right way. Interest rates should never exceed 5%. I'm just rambling, but it isn't rocket science. We should be able to emulate the older banking traditions."

i think that is a darn clever idea, and i hope someone runs with it. a humble little bank for the people by the people sounds wonderful. the common people have to stop feeding TPTB. we've bought into their lies long enough. those bastards don't care if good people lose their homes and wind up on the street. that is sickening.

our Federal Reserve, our government, our banking system, the Wall Street american psychos --- they have all proved they are not fit or competent to perform their tasks correctly or honestly. none of them are willing to change; it is time we change them, for the good of all.

best of luck to you and the others in your good fights.

The world is a crazy place when banks are involved. I divoriced 7 years ago and every thingwas done proper the ex got 1/2 the business and ran it into the ground filed. I was contacted several times for money but everything was done by a good lawyer and i owe nothing. So I thought. Two weeks ago i gor a letter from a law firm telling me I owe nearly $300k. I called them and tried to explain that i would get my lawyer to send them copies of the paperwork and we could be done with it. Last week they sent me a bill for $450 consultation I returned it with a bill for $750 for my trouble. Ihaven't heard back but my lawyer said don't worry and don't respond to them again he'll take care of it and bill the ex.

reply to post by LooseLipsSinkShips


I did pay online

reply to post by lostviking
,
Hello,
My Husband and I are too suing Citimortage. We have a lawyer, but I am not sure where he is going on this. We filed for Bankrupty in 2008, to keep this house. We payed the mortage every month. Then in May 2009, all of the sudden we get a default letter. We call and call, (to India), and finally are informed that the money is going to "unappiled funds". Of course, they are holding all of our money, and tacking on late charges,fees and default charges. After 10 or so mod request and continuing to send them the payment and EXTRA money for the late fees, they still put the money to "unapplied funds". This goes on for 2 years. Finally we had over two months of payments in "unapplied funds" we of course called for the millionth time to get the money applied to the loan. The next month we get a default letter, and a statment saying that the 2 and a half months payments has disappeared. We filed suit. Now our lawyer wants us to yet again fill out a loan mod appilcation. I have a bad feeling on this. Maybe its me, but what do you think?