11/28/2023 0 Comments Freedom mortgage violations![]() ![]() The Owners reasoned that Freedom’s attempts to comply with the HUD requirements in January 2017, five years after the September 2011 default, the “guidelines and purpose of the housing program …meaningless.” iii The Owners argued that the timing of compliance, i.e., “within a three-month period prior to the default” was a material aspect of the face-to-face meeting requirement. Specifically, the Owners asserted Freedom failed to comply with § 203.604(b)-(d) “prior to accelerating the alleged debt” and there was “no authority” for Freedom to comply retroactively. The Owners again moved to dismiss the complaint based on non-compliance with HUD regulations. In May 2017 Freedom filed a new foreclosure against the Owners which was “virtually identical” to the prior foreclosure complaint. The following month Freedom sent the Owners a certified letter regarding repayment options and also sent a representative to visit the property “for the purpose of arranging a face-to-face meeting.” Freedom alleged it was able to speak with one of the owners, Rivkah Olivera (Rivkah), in person on Januand at that time “attempted to arrange a face-to-face meeting to discuss repayment options.” Freedom claimed Rivkah was “unresponsive or unwilling” to arrange a meeting. Notably, the order of dismissal noted dismissal was without prejudice and that Freedom could refile after complying with “any conditions precedent as required under the HUD regulations.” ii The court agreed and dismissed the case in December 2016. The Owners moved to dismiss the action based on Freedom’s failure to communicate with the Owners and failure to attempt to conduct a face-to-face meeting prior to the Owners missing three mortgage payments, as required by § 203.604(b)-(d). The Owners failed to make their September 2011 mortgage payment and all subsequent payments, so in 2012 Freedom initiated foreclosure proceedings. Michael Baez (referred to collectively as “the Owners”) owned mortgaged property in South Elgin, Illinois (the Property). Section 203.604(b)-(d) required mortgagees to “make certain reasonable attempts to meet with and communicate” with defaulting mortgagors “before three monthly payments on the mortgage went unpaid and before filing for foreclosure…” i Search for this case: Freedom Mortgage Corporation v.The Second District Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Freedom Mortgage Corporation’s (Freedom) foreclosure based on Freedom’s failure to comply with federal HUD regulations codified at 24 C.F.R. Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.Īccess this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Legal Description, #2 Exhibit Necessary Parties, #3 Exhibit Note, #4 Exhibit Mortage, #5 Exhibit Assignment of Mortgage, #6 Proposed Summons, #7 Civil Cover Sheet) (Cheli, Deana)Īccess additional case information on PACER McLain, New York City Environmental Control Board Bureau, New York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-16422225 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO, filed by Freedom Mortgage Corporation. NOTICE of Lis Pendens by Freedom Mortgage Corporation (Cheli, Deana)Ĭorporate Disclosure Statement by Freedom Mortgage Corporation (Cheli, Deana)ĬOMPLAINT against Alex C. NOTICE by Freedom Mortgage Corporation Certificate of Merit (Cheli, Deana) ![]() by Freedom Mortgage Corporation (Cheli, Deana) See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2023.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |