Mortgage -- Closing on a mortgage -- Complaint #5674713

Complaint Overview

Complaint ID: 5674713

Company: Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC

Product: Mortgage

Sub-Product: Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)

Issue: Closing on a mortgage

State: Pennsylvania

ZIP Code: XXXXX

Date Received: 2022-06-15T12:00:00-05:00

Date Sent to Company: 2022-07-14T12:00:00-05:00

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

Submitted Via: Web

Consumer Narrative

On XX/XX/XXXX, I became a 50 % owner of a property as a tenant in common. My co-owners were my parents owning the other 50 % as a married couple. When I was conveyed my interest, I knew a mortgage existed that was taken out by them in XXXX. There were XXXX years left on the balance until it was paid in full. In XXXX, my father passed away. In XXXX, my mother passed away. Her 50 % ownership required probate which I did complete. While meeting with the probate attorney, it was discovered that XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX as successor to XXXX XXXXk, XXXX had granted my parents 2 different mortgages after I had been conveyed my ownership interest. Both mortgages encumbered the entire property - including my share- and both utilized a portion of my equity in their creation. Loan # 1 was for {$50000.00} and Loan # 2 was for {$80000.00}. Loan # 1 paid off the balance of the XXXX loan, and Loan # 2 paid off Loan # 1 and remained an open loan against my property. I was the heir of my mother 's 50 % and I was made Admin of her Estate. So, I was a 50 % owner as a tenant in common by way of a Quit Claim Deed in XXXX of XXXX, and I was owner of the other 50 % by way of being the heir. I hired a real estate attorney who commenced with filing a Quiet Title Action. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX countered with the argument that the heir should have to pay back the amount from Loan # 1 that satisfied the XXXX loan, and the Admin of the Estate should be responsible for repayment of Loan # 2. They agreed that I was an owner at the time of the loans that did not sign as a borrower or as a non-borrowing owner. I, in fact, hadn't signed anything agreeing to the encumbrance or use of my equity as I was not even aware the loans existed until a decade after the fact. My Quiet Title Action was heard on XX/XX/XXXX with the final decree being that, " On XX/XX/XXXX, a Quit Claim Deed dated XXXX XXXX was recorded with the XXXX County Department of Real Estate. It is undisputed that, pursuant to the Quit Claim Deed, Plaintiff held a 50 % interest as a tenant in common with her parents who held a 50 % interest as tenants by entireties ''. The Judge further stated that, " ... the Court does not find that the lender can encumber the entire fee through either the XXXX or XXXX mortgages. At the time that these two loans were made, Plaintiff 's 50 % interest as a tenant in common was of record and should have been discovered through a diligent search. Plaintiff was not a party to the loan documents and was wholly unaware of the existence of either mortgage until after both of her parents passed. Under these circumstances, the mortgages recorded after payoff of the XXXX loan could only encumber the 50 % interest held by XXXX ' parents. '' XXXX XXXX, XXXX provided no proof of there having been title searches conducted ahead of either loan to me during document discovery or to the Judge at trial. They had, however, conducted a title search in XXXX for the purpose of foreclosure. That search did, in fact, pull what was the priority deed in the sequence of ownership at the time of both loans. Still, during the 7 years it took to get to trial, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX- in conjunction with the loan servicing company they hired- sent me over 50 letters threatening me with foreclosure when forclosure was never an option. As well, because XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX encumbered the entire property with a loan that I never signed or agreed to, they left me unable to borrow against or sell my property which is the right of a tenant in common. These loans were, to me, fraud as my equity was used to create loans for someone that was not me. Their actions constitute a taking. They left me an owner in name only unable, to this day, to borrow against the property that has been legally mine since XXXX.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer

This analysis is AI-generated based on publicly available CFPB complaint data. It does not constitute financial or legal advice.

Related Pages

• Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC Company Profile
• Mortgage Complaints
• Closing on a mortgage Complaints
• Pennsylvania Complaints
• Company Rankings
• Company Directory
• Search Complaints