Posted on: 16th Oct, 2009 10:55 am
The preamble below is from a Federal suit that will be filed on monday, has anyone else experienced this type of refusal of assistance. Dave
On March 5, 2009 Defendant did file suit in Berkeley County court for standard foreclosure on real estate owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently answered Defendants complaint referencing a U.S. congressional mandate, dealing with the recently passed “Home Affordable Modification programâ€, binding to Defendant, Plaintiff was asking for relief and assistance with said real estate mortgage. Defendant in an affidavit dated 10 June 2009 denies that any assistance is required within the congressional mandate dealing with foreclosure relief. The Defendant did subsequently receive a foreclosure order from the Berkeley County Master in Equity in November 2009. Plaintiff is currently being forced from his home and was never considered for any type of assistance. It is Plaintiffs opinion that due to Defendants denial of any responsibility to the congressional mandate given to them; to assist home owners in remaining in their homes, that Defendant did wantonly and willingly conspire to deprive plaintiff of his personal, property in violation and contempt of a congressional mandate, and the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. It is Plaintiffs contention that Defendant did discriminate against Plaintiff by denying him any mandatory assistance. Defendants reason and position for the denial of assistance is that Plaintiff is a Veteran and possessed a Veterans Administration Loan. It is Plaintiffs contention that Defendant is in willing and conscious contempt of a congressional Mandate required of all parties accepting public bail out assistance. It is Plaintiffs contention that the Defendant along with the cooperation of Berkeley county court for the state of South Carolina have violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the lawsâ€.(US Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment Section One). Additionally Defendant has specifically discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974,(15 U.S.C. § 1691) by stating “veteran†as the reason for denial of services. In enforcing the state property foreclosure procedures with out consideration of recent congressional mandates concerning the same, Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and caused great financial, emotional and physical harm.
On March 5, 2009 Defendant did file suit in Berkeley County court for standard foreclosure on real estate owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently answered Defendants complaint referencing a U.S. congressional mandate, dealing with the recently passed “Home Affordable Modification programâ€, binding to Defendant, Plaintiff was asking for relief and assistance with said real estate mortgage. Defendant in an affidavit dated 10 June 2009 denies that any assistance is required within the congressional mandate dealing with foreclosure relief. The Defendant did subsequently receive a foreclosure order from the Berkeley County Master in Equity in November 2009. Plaintiff is currently being forced from his home and was never considered for any type of assistance. It is Plaintiffs opinion that due to Defendants denial of any responsibility to the congressional mandate given to them; to assist home owners in remaining in their homes, that Defendant did wantonly and willingly conspire to deprive plaintiff of his personal, property in violation and contempt of a congressional mandate, and the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. It is Plaintiffs contention that Defendant did discriminate against Plaintiff by denying him any mandatory assistance. Defendants reason and position for the denial of assistance is that Plaintiff is a Veteran and possessed a Veterans Administration Loan. It is Plaintiffs contention that Defendant is in willing and conscious contempt of a congressional Mandate required of all parties accepting public bail out assistance. It is Plaintiffs contention that the Defendant along with the cooperation of Berkeley county court for the state of South Carolina have violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the lawsâ€.(US Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment Section One). Additionally Defendant has specifically discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974,(15 U.S.C. § 1691) by stating “veteran†as the reason for denial of services. In enforcing the state property foreclosure procedures with out consideration of recent congressional mandates concerning the same, Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and caused great financial, emotional and physical harm.
It is sad to see that the bank refuses to assists the vetrans, when they are gettign assistnace from the goverment to save them self
If you look at the WEB all you see is how Citi is helping and assisting people to stay in their homes, it's a bunch of bull.
anyone can claim anything in a preamble to a lawsuit. in fact, if someone didn't claim some sort of issue, they wouldn't stand much chance to be successful in bringing the suit...don't you think?
i have no expertise in discussing what citi or any other lender is doing in relation to the congressional "mandate" or in relation to veterans, but i have to state my opinion that 1) there's no mandate to give everyone a modification; 2) the 14th amendment doesn't seem appropriate to this scenario (but of course i'm not a lawyer or a judge); 3) the suit was filed in order that the borrower could get relief - not so he could defame citi forever.
i have no expertise in discussing what citi or any other lender is doing in relation to the congressional "mandate" or in relation to veterans, but i have to state my opinion that 1) there's no mandate to give everyone a modification; 2) the 14th amendment doesn't seem appropriate to this scenario (but of course i'm not a lawyer or a judge); 3) the suit was filed in order that the borrower could get relief - not so he could defame citi forever.
