Woman Forcibly Removed From Home, In Spite Of Restraining Order Against Citibank

A woman in El Paso has been fighting foreclosure for several months, saying she was making payments and that Citibank was crediting them to an escrow account without telling her or explaining why. A federal court recently issued a temporary restraining order preventing the bank from foreclosing while the case is litigated, but that didn’t stop county constables from forcibly removing her from her home last week.

“CitiMortgage foreclosed on the house claiming that I had not made payments on the loan. I had,” she tells El Paso’s KTSM-TV, which has been following the story for quite some time. “I have proof that I had. I don’t want my money back. This is my home and I have the right to be here.”

And that lack of communication with the bank seems to have been extended to the local County Attorney’s office, which says it didn’t know there was a restraining order in place the day it sent constables to evict the homeowner.

“One day they tell me yeah you’re ok you’re litigating. The next day they say we’re coming back to evict you tomorrow,” says the woman. “The laws are not defending me the homeowner. You know I presume that people are innocent until proven guilty. I’m guilty until proven innocent.”

When her lawyer showed up to explain the situation, he says the constables would not believe him unless he went with them to the court house to confirm the order’s existence.

“It appears they’re not honoring the judge’s order. The county attorney is challenging his authority (Federal Judge) to issue a restraining order,” says the lawyer, who says his client appears to be a victim of robosigning.

The lawyer says that many of the of the foreclosure and eviction documents for homes in the area have been signed by the same person, though he claimes the signatures do not all match.

“We don’t have County Clerks that pay attention to what papers are being filed,” said the homeowner.

A rep for Citi provided the following laughably useless comment to KTSM:

Over the past year, Citi has significantly enhanced its oversight of mortgage foreclosure law firms. These enhancements included strengthening policies and procedures, hiring dedicated resources to oversee law firm performance, and increasing the frequency and scope of Citi’s onsite law firm audit program.

That’s really swell. But what about the woman with the restraining order?

Woman Forcibly Removed from Home But Fights Eviction [KTSM]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Lethe says:

    “The lawyer says that many of the of the foreclosure and eviction documents for homes in the area have been signed by the same person, though he claimes the signatures do not all match.”

    If this is the case, why hasn’t anyone acted on this? Isn’t signing someone else’s name on a legal document illegal?

    • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

      “Huml says there are different looking signatures for Beverly Mitrisin. She says they’re being forged. We called Beverly Mitrisin, who said she cannot comment because she works for different law firms. We would have to contact the one specifically handling Bea Huml’s case. We have reached out and are waiting for a response.”

    • IWanaGoFishing says:

      Its’s perfectly legal if you have their authority.

      • RvLeshrac says:

        No, it isn’t legal to sign someone else’s name, ever. If you have power of attorney, you sign *YOUR* name.

        • RickScarf says:

          Yup. You’d sign it “RvLeshrac by Rickscarf, POA” if RvLeshrac had extended notarized power of attorney for me to sign for him on documents pertaining to that house sale.

    • ARP says:

      Yes, but that only applies to living persons. Illegal activities by corporations are simply a breakdown in following procedures and are not punished. If I forge a check that’s a felony. If a bank forges my signature that’s a procedural error. Corporations are people for all the good stuff, but none of the bad.

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      Laws are laws to keep the unruly, uncivilized, unwashed masses at bay. The wealthy and powerful need not worry about that L word.

    • runswithscissors says:

      Ahahahaaha! Corporation cannot commit crimes! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  2. homehome says:

    so you can put a restraining order against a company from their own property?

    plus, I hope she has a copy of their payment history showing that information. Looks like the restraining order failed, they fail against criminals too though.

    • homehome says:

      plus, how did she not notice 3 payments weren’t going to the right place. That’s how you have to be have a foreclosure start with most companies.

      • OutPastPluto says:

        How would you know? She paid the bank. Without some feedback from the bank, how is either she or you going to know that the bank is screwing up?

        The bank holds all of the relevant information.

        Have we reached the point where we can’t even take for granted the fact that a bank will properly service a loan or file a document. Do we all have to collectively waste mountains of time overseeing every little details? Do we have to “nanny” corporations?

        • crispyduck13 says:

          Do we have to “nanny” corporations?

          Maybe not, but we do have to ignore trolls.

          • FatLynn says:

            Are you serious? My bank autodrafts my mortgage each month. I don’t then check to make sure that the balance on my mortgage account has decreased. Why on earth should anyone be expected to do that?

            • homehome says:

              Probably because you’re an adult.

              • FatLynn says:

                No, I’ve authorized them to take money from my account each month to apply to my mortgage. If they took money out of my account for some other reason, they would be stealing from me. There’s no monthly statement or anything on a mortgage account.

                (Reading the whole article, it seems that she had notices and payments returned, so that’s a different story, but if the bank were truly misapplying her payments for no reason, that would be outrageous).

                • CubeRat says:

                  What bank do you have your mortgage with???? I’ve never heard of a bank that didn’t issue statements; were these done away with at some institutions?

                  I had mine at WF, and they have quarterly statements. I’ve checked each statement to be sure it’s listed. Actually, it was listed on my list of accounts, so when I saw the payment clear my account, I could look at account list and make sure the balance on the mortgage decreased. Or I could click on it and see the details. I still looked at the quarterly statement, same as every other account I have.

                  • FatLynn says:

                    I get annual statements, including the escrow adjustments for the upcoming year. I can call and get my balance if I need to at some other time, but my point is that it’s the bank’s responsibility to properly apply a payment.

                    We have a contractual agreement that says “the bank does x”, we don’t have a contractual agreement that says “the bank may do x if they feel like it, and if they don’t, it’s the homeowner’s responsibility to find the problem and fix it before the bank does”.

                  • who? says:

                    Lots of banks issue a book of payment coupons, and only issue a statement once a year. It’s a really common practice. With all the, buying, selling, and refinancing, I’ve had 8 mortgages with 6 different companies in the last 20 years, and only BofA has sent me a monthly statement.

                • coffee100 says:

                  > If they took money out of my account for some other reason, they would be stealing from me.


                  Do you honestly think that any police officer on this planet would even take a report for this?

              • AstroPig7 says:

                It has nothing to do with being an adult and everything to do with companies being unable to perform the simple tasks they say they will.

                • homehome says:

                  Dude it says she received late notices. If you’re getting late notices you need to grow up and find out why. They don’t just sent late notices because they’re bored. If a company sends me a late notice, I’m immediately finding out what the problem not, not waiting 3 months. Of course it’s the big bad bank, cause the consumer could never be lying.

                  • Cor Aquilonis says:

                    You need to talk to my landlord. They send out late notices to me every-so-often, even though I always pay my rent on time. I call to follow up, and they say: “Did you pay?” and I say “Duh. Yeah.” and they say “Oh then just ignore it.”

                    I’m just saying, if a company can’t handle simple payments, they’re probably screwing up late notices, too.

                    • homehome says:

                      Your land lord is just lazy lol, regardless I would check anyway because I wouldn’t want any misunderstanding. yea, I know it’s work, but it’s the responsible thing to do. I do want to be homeless because I got lazy.

                    • Cor Aquilonis says:

                      Well, I’m already set up to move next month, so I won’t have to deal with it anyway. But I always did have to check and make sure the check cleared by the 5th. *sigh*

                  • AstroPig7 says:

                    Chill. You’re reading the wrong things into my comments you’re responding to. You told FatLynn what “adults” do, but your statement implies that I should be checking with the city every month to ensure they actually credited my utilities account, the power company to ensure they actually credit my energy account, and so on. There is something horribly wrong with a world where we have to follow up on companies this often.

                    • homehome says:

                      Yes, you should be checking that the bills you pay each month are paid. Why wouldn’t you?

                    • AstroPig7 says:

                      So every month you call each of your utility providers and ask them if they did their jobs? If so, then you must be the only “adult” I’ve ever met.

                    • CubeRat says:

                      Well, I check the next statement to be sure my payment was applied…..there are at lease two adults in this chat…and you aren’t one of us.

                    • homehome says:

                      I rarely call, I just make sure it’s documented that they got the payment. And most times they have automated system where I can get payment info in about 30 seconds so I don’t even talk to people. It’s pretty easy, I don’t even have to hold the phone to do it. And I know most people don’t, but that’s my point. They should. They about the people who have had the error for 6 months straight, think about that if they decided to look at their bill just once in that period, it could’ve saved them time, money and effort.

                    • runswithscissors says:
                    • tooluser says:

                      help! SO VERY VERY TIGHT IN HERE

                      OMG! Ponies!

                    • AstroPig7 says:

                      Stupid lack of an edit button. I hit submit before I realized I had misread an earlier statement. Ignore my first reply about calling once a month (obviously you were referring to printed statements given with the next bill). Regardless, my point is that we shouldn’t have to follow up on companies this often. This kind of incompetence should carry consequences if it occurs frequently enough.

                  • runswithscissors says:

                    Maybe – I don’t know – engaging them in a court of law and getting a staying order from a judge is EXACTLY her “growing up” and dealing with the bank’s ongoing mistake?

            • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

              I check my statement every month for exactly that. It’s the responsible thing to do, and it takes about 5 seconds.

      • StarKillerX says:

        This is one more reason I like our local S&L, they still give bankbooks not only for accounts but for mortages as well, you don’t need to use them but you can, so every monthly payment, and priniciple only, are recorded by them right in the book.

        It really simplifies things, and makes it very easy to see that everything was done properly.

      • coffee100 says:

        Hey genius? What’s stopping the bank from throwing her payments in a drawer someplace and filing the foreclosure anyway? Apparently they are willing to file a bald-faced signed fraud with a court of law. Are they legally obligated to accept her payments? Says who? A judge? The same judge they ignored?

        While we’re at it, what’s stopping the bank from sending a pack of armed gorillas over to your house, burning it to the ground and beating the shit out of you, then turning you in for arson and pocketing the insurance money?

        Go ahead. Say “the police.” Please.

        • homehome says:

          You have any proof of them doing this? If you do, I’ll give you a serious response, if not, then let’s stick to facts and not over the top hysterics.

      • kc2idf says:

        Who said she didn’t notice? Who said she didn’t call the bank when she saw it, get promised it would be fixed, only to find next month that it was still broken?

        You ever deal with a corporate mistake? It can take a long time and many repetitions before it gets fixed.

        Now, I’m sure that some asshat is going to say “get it in writing.” Good luck with that. They won’t write down anything that they don’t want to. Meanwhile, you’re under the gun.

    • Coffee says:

      Did you read the article? There’s impending litigation between the woman and Citi. She alleges that she has been paying her mortgage and that they’re putting the money in an excrow account instead of applying the payments to her balance. The order is temporary, pending the litigation.

    • RobertWBoyd says:

      “Looks like the restraining order failed, they fail against criminals too though.”

      Don’t you mean “Looks like the restraining order failed, they fail against other criminals too though.”

    • Republicrat says:

      That’s not how the system works. The bank does not own the property just because they hold a mortgage on it.

    • soj4life says:

      Wasn’t the company’s property. Customer was making payments, citi screwed up and then farva and the gang made it worse.

  3. BeamMeUp says:

    So she is making payments, Citi is putting them in an Escrow account and denying that they are being made?

    And why are the constables going to the courthouse with her lawyer? Can’t anyone use a phone?

    Boy I am glad my mortgage is NOT with Citi.

    • Lyn Torden says:

      Or in El Paso County.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

      Because the courthouse can verify the documents in person?

    • FatLynn says:

      Something doesn’t add up here…for anyone with an escrow account, the number can go up or down a bit every year, depending on changes to property taxes. If they under-escrow you in one year, they can raise your monthly payment in the following year to make up for it.

      Now, if this happens, Citi should have a) provided her with ample notice of the change and b) calculated a new payment such that the right amount goes in escrow with enough leftover to make the P&I payment. Then, she should have sent in a bigger check each month as needed.

      One of those things did not happen, but it’s not at all clear which side messed up.

      • AustinTXProgrammer says:

        If they way under escrow it can hurt too. I had a 33% increase in my mortgage payment 1 year after I moved in for 6 months, then it dropped in steps to be about 8% over the original payment. I have been successful at getting my taxes lowered too so that is why the numbers don’t make any sense at first glance.

      • physics2010 says:

        They use the escrow for more than just taxes and insurance. If there is any extra money that you’ve paid without specifying it goes to principal they throw it in there until you tell them what you want them to do with it. For some reason one of my payments was short $10, so rather than applying it to the mortgage they threw it into the escrow account and said my payment was late. This was back in the first year of my mortgage. It took 4 months to get the money applied correctly. In the interim I ended up just sending in an additional entire mortgage payment so that everything was cycling properly.

  4. T&J says:

    It would seem that the lady or her attorney would have possession of the Restraining Order, to evidence it’s existance.

    Without it, a reasonable person would assume that it does not exist.

    Sometimes, it is easy to get a television station to be quick with a story before all facts are in.

    Let;s wait for the rest of the story.

    • Firethorn says:

      It said they wanted to go to the courthouse to verify the validity of the document. Sounds like the officers never encountered paperwork like that before.

    • Sound Money Girl says:

      Actually, the article says that the station has been following the story, so it sounds like they have all the facts in this case.

      • FatLynn says:

        No, it doesn’t, because they don’t seem to know that a restraining order is not the same thing as an injunction.

      • CalicoGal says:

        All of the articles about this case on KTSM’s site are incredibly one-sided and do not contain any information from the bank.

  5. Warren - aka The Piddler on the Roof says:

    This unchecked thuggery by banks really needs to stop. What’s it gonna take?

    • matlock expressway says:

      An actual boycott?

    • pgr says:

      This is exactly why our right-wing conservative, Tea Party morons blocked Elizabeth Warren’s nomination.

      Fuck the people, our 1% handlers need more tax breaks so they can own us all, not just the pols ;(

      • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

        Congratulations! You are now allowed to enter Massachusetts!

      • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

        Are you talking about poor li’l Fauxcahontas? Yeah, she’d be the perfect person to head the CFPB because they needed a leader who would sink so low as to knowingly lie through their teeth to claim minority status and steal a job from a deserving person (but actual Native-Americans are used to rich white people doing this to them, so it’s no biggie, right?).

        Elizabeth Warren is a low-life piece of shit, and she got what she deserved. Hopefully she’ll get it again in November — but that’s expecting Massachusetts voters who have been stuck on brain-dead for decades to actually have a clue — so there’s little hope of this actually happening.

    • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

      Oh, I don’t know… maybe people actually paying their bills on time and not ignoring warning letters from their lender?

    • Talmonis says:


  6. JJFIII says:

    If you had a restraining order, why wouldn’t you have that in your possession? The whole purpose is to say nobody can do something, and here is the court that says so. Just saying you have one is not actually having one.

  7. Cooneymike says:

    Go back to federal court and move for contempt. Any attorney should be able to do that.

  8. CrazyEyed says:

    The whole story isn’t being told here. I call BS on both sides.

    You don’t get told your being foreclosed upon and then immediately get removed. Foreclosure is a process that takes many months, if not years. If she was making payments she most certainly would not have been removed. Anyime a servicer accepts a payment, it has to restart or resume foreclosure action by sending out a breach letter which by law, gives the homeowner a deadline to cure a default. The only time a servicer can accept payments is if they/investor and homeowner agree to a workout option. If the homeowner fails yet again, the servicer can resume its foreclosure action but again, breach letters and 90 day notices still must be sent out prior to any siezure of property. The way the story is written makes it seem like she was a responsible owner making payments and then was later told she’s in foreclosure. She couldn’t have made payments that close to eviction.

    I would like to know what this restraining order says. What are the limits of the restraining order? Cetaintly police officers are not Citi. She might have got a restraining order on inspectors or representatives of the bank but does that keep her safe from an eviction or sheriff’s sale? I guess I need more information. If the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing I can understand that with big banks. Many times foreclosure departments operate separately from collections department. If the foreclosure department didn’t have good notes from the workout department, it may have not known the homeowner was on a payment plan or had made arrangements. That could explain the delay and if so, this is where I call BS on Citi.

    However, lot of foreclosure paperwork has to be signed, notarized and recorded at the county office. Her lawyer even admits not all signatures matched which puts a dent in their argument or robosigners. He’s arguing the legal aspect of the foreclosure paperwork and proceedings while the OP is arguing that she paid and is now getting foreclosed. Which is it?

    Sounds like both parties are incompetent.

    • FatLynn says:

      Me thinks that the OP/the lawyer/the reporter don’t know the difference between “restraining order” and “injunction”.

    • mikesanerd says:

      Citi was accepting the payments, but they weren’t applying them to the loan. I assume this happened several times in a row, which gives the foreclosure stuff time to go through, presumably while the woman was futilely trying to convince citi that the foreclosure notices were in error. The fact that she already had a lawyer, a restraining order, etc. indicates to me that citi was simply refusing to apply the payments to the loan or acknowledge their errors over a period of time. We don’t have all the details, but this was what I got out of the article. If the company simply refuses to accept your payments, and then claims that you never paid, what are you supposed to do?

      • FatLynn says:

        They sent her several notices that went ignored. Also, they were putting them into escrow. That could have been a totally idiotic mistake by Citi, or it could be that Citi sent her a notice that her escrow was going up and she ignored them.

        • Alessar says:

          It’s completely normal to ignore late/missed payment notices when you’ve sent in a payment. You presume that the payment and the notice crossed in the mail.

    • huadpe says:

      If I weren’t near my $15 free PACER cap I’d go try to find a copy of the judge’s order.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the county attorney faces some serious heat though. Federal court orders are serious business.

    • DemosCat says:

      It depends on the state. In Georgia, most foreclosures are non-judicial. Foreclosures happen faster here than in any other state, about 2-3 months from notice to courthouse auction.

  9. baristabrawl says:

    I blame the OP for living in Texas. Don’t you need a passport to go down there?

  10. CrazyEyed says:

    From the source link:

    “Huml says she paid her mortgage on time every month so, she assumed the late notices from Citibank were a mistake. But then, the bank started returning her checks. Turns out the bank had started applying her mortgage payments of $900 a month to an Escrow account, something she never authorized. So now she was delinquent and because she lost her job she was not given a grace period and no opportunity to work out a payment plan.”

    I use to work in mortgage servicing and in title review at a legal office that dealt with foreclosures so this is my input even if it sounds like I’m being an ass.

    #1. Do not ignore a notice
    #2 if your money is being held in escrow (or suspense) account it means there’s not enough to make a full payment and it has nothing to do with “authorizing”. This is an indication that your mortgage has adjusted, or possible taxes/insurance went up if they were being escrowed. Again do not ignore your notices especially an escrow adjustment letter.
    #3 The bank only returns your payment if a) you are in foreclosure and it HAS to reject payments or b) the payments were not enough to satisfy a monthly payment or c) payments were not enought to satisfy your workout option if you were in default
    #4 Sounds a bit entitled if she thinks she can get an arbitrary grace period
    #5 If she lost her job and was told she didn’t make enough for a payment plan, then it just goes to prove she was sending payments in good faith or ignorance without knowing if they would satisfy the debt she owed. I understand she was in a bad place but you shouldn’t get special treatment from the next person who lost their job and had to move out of a home they couldn’t afford.

    I read the whole news article on the source links. Its a typical case where the laywer is trying to argue shotty foreclosure proceedings when the fact is, she lost her job and couldn’t pay and is upset (like anyone would be) that she’s losing her home. The robosigning is just a diversion to buy her more time. Its the first argument any lawyer will use.

    I can’t speak for Citi knowingly violating a restraining order unless it has no merit on an eviction action as long as Citi is legally foreclosing on the home within their rights as stated by a signed note and mortgage.

    • Lyn Torden says:

      However, she was paying. If the bank raised her payment rate, then this would have been brought forth as part of this process. Shoddy foreclosure process like this has result in hundreds, maybe thousands, of false foreclosure processes in the country.

      Sure, we need the whole story. But once it gets into court, it should all freeze. There should be NO eviction until the matter is done. It clearly is not done. So there is multiple FAIL in the process, and it appears to be CitiBank driving things the wrong way. It is CitiBank that needs to send certain managers to jail or be shut down.

      • CrazyEyed says:

        I agree on some level but Foreclosure IS a legal process. Sometimes eviction is part of the legal process before the bank legally posesses the home part from holding a lien on the property. Since Foreclosure can take months or years to complete, you can remain in your home until the eviction. Many homeowners choose to spring well before that date. I’m not completely blaming the woman, I’m just saying her statements prove negligence as well as Citi’s inability to figure out if shes still in a workout mode or being foreclosed. Judging by the OP’s statements she said she was denied a workout option. There’s nothing else besides litigation after you’ve been denied a workout option (which includes modification). The only other option is a short sale but thats accepting that you need to move out of the home only if the investor agrees to take the hit.

    • coffee100 says:

      > The robosigning is just a diversion to buy her more time.

      The only problem with this theory is that a Federal Judge found sufficient cause to issue a TRO against the bank. If the homeowner can meet that burden, then it is reasonable to assume her case has foundation.

      With all due respect to the fine upstanding people at Citibank (cough), it is not for them to decide if a restraining order has merit. Further, they were notified and had ample opportunity to request a hearing if they wished to argue against it. Your chiding the homeowner about “ignoring notice” goes both ways.

      Since it is clear the bank cannot legally claim title to the property yet, forcibly removing the homeowner while armed is aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary.

      • CrazyEyed says:

        I pretty much agree with your whole statement as Citi appears to have fked up as well and ignored their notices. My comments weren’t so much to argue the validity of a restraining order (I simply do not know the limitations of the one granted), but to argue the apparent ignorance of the OP that got her in this position.

        What I’d like to know is what is the judge using as a basis for the restraining order? A possibility that there’s robosigning? If thats the case lets put the millions of foreclosures on hold and send restraining orders to all the banks. Oh wait, a lot of companies have already done that, except it hasn’t taken a restraining order to do so.

        Trust me, I have little faith on how a lot of these big companies operate but from working with distressed home loans for a few years, you learn fast when people are bullshitting. It doesn’t help when media outlets sensationalize the stories either putting the target on the bank when in most cases. All of this could have been avoided regardless if Citi is screwing up now, if the homeowner simply called about a late notice she received. With something as important as your home, I would certainly take a bit more caution than she did.

        • CrazyEyed says:

          It doesn’t help when media outlets sensationalize the stories either putting the target on the bank when in most cases. All of this could have been avoided regardless if Citi is screwing up now, if the homeowner simply called about a late notice she received

          Where is an edit button when you need one.

          Meant to say:

          It doesn’t help when media outlets sensationalize the stories putting the target on the bank when in most cases the homeowners had trouble making payments. All of this could have been avoided regardless if the homeowner simply called about a late notice she received

  11. CalicoGal says:

    From the source article:

    “she faithfully paid her $900 mortgage each month, so she assumed the late notices she had received were a mistake”

    WTH??? The DAY I get a “late notice” when I made the payment, I’m on the horn before the envelope it came in hits the recycle bin.

    Why in the hell would you “ASSUME” a late notice (more than one!!) was a “mistake” and apparently ignore it??


    • matlock expressway says:

      The bank ignored her payments. She ignored the late notices. The sheriffs ignored the restraining order.

      All of the parties involved were stupid, as are any commenters who get so irate about the whole thing. Chill out.

      • CubeRat says:

        Excellent summary.

      • FatLynn says:

        I actually think the sheriffs may not have f*cked up. They have no reason to take some woman’s word (or her lawyer’s word) that they have a legal document that they can not produce on the spot.

        • MrEvil says:

          Unless her attorney got his law degree from a cereal box, I doubt the lawyer showed up empty handed and had a certified copy of the restraining order on hand.

    • FredKlein says:

      Why in the hell would you “ASSUME” a late notice (more than one!!) was a “mistake” and apparently ignore it??

      Because she was making her payments on time?

  12. CalicoGal says:

    From the source article:

    “she faithfully paid her $900 mortgage each month, so she assumed the late notices she had received were a mistake”

    WTH??? The DAY I get a “late notice” when I made the payment, I’m on the horn before the envelope it came in hits the recycle bin.

    Why in the hell would you “ASSUME” a late notice (more than one!!) was a “mistake” and apparently ignore it??


    • Lyn Torden says:

      She might be stupid, but the bank is still wrong. The bank should have known entirely on its own, what it is doing. Any bank that can’t do that needs to be shut down. There is no excuse for requiring customers to keep your accounts in order. Hire an auditor.

      As to this lady’s stupidity, keep in mind that her checks were being cashed, at first. That’s very inconsistent with a late notice. I do agree she should have called. And the person she spoke with should have corrected everything on the spot (but guess what … they never do).

      I actually had such an experience from a credit card bank. They applied my on-time payment to another account. It took them 45 days to clear it up, with me getting morning wakeup calls from their collections department for those entire 45 days after they knew the payment was misapplied. Guess which bank. Yup! Citi!

  13. notanignoramus says:

    False arrest.

    • benh999 says:

      Kind of tough charge to prove without her being arrested.

      • notanignoramus says:

        Well, the County Prosecutor is denying involvement even though the Sheriff’s deputies clearly claimed that they were working under his orders. She was put in handcuffs and was being told not to “make this hard,” which indicates to me that they were placing her under arrest (not merely detaining her) due to some sort of warrant.
        Someone screwed up and now they are trying to cover for it.

      • notanignoramus says:

        Well, the County Prosecutor is denying involvement even though the Sheriff’s deputies clearly claimed that they were working under his orders. She was put in handcuffs and was being told not to “make this hard,” which indicates to me that they were placing her under arrest (not merely detaining her) due to some sort of warrant.
        Someone screwed up and now they are trying to cover for it.

  14. CalicoGal says:

    Oh good grief All these people claiming “Oh woe is me I am a *VICTIM* of robosigning… Um, yeah, i lost my job and didn’t make payments BUT ROBOSIGNING… They’re stealing my house!”

    Horsehockey pucks!!

    • matlock expressway says:

      Care to translate all that to English?

      • Cor Aquilonis says:

        You gotta say it with the cadence of an countrified old man sitting on a ramshackle porch muttering to himself about the dissolute youth. Then, it all comes together.

    • ARP says:

      Whether they made payments or not doesn’t matter. If they want to evict, there is a specific process to do that. They must follow that process…period. By having robosigners, they are not following that process.

  15. coffee100 says:

    In 2000 they came for our jobs.

    In 2008 they came for our homes.

    What’s next? And since it’s clear there is no law in these matters (the bank is free to ignore a restraining order and commit perjury, fraud, burglary, aggravated kidnapping and grand larceny on television) what will the bank entitle itself to next?

    • Talmonis says:

      A cut in line for the guillotines. Don’t worry, if they turn enough people out into the streets, there will be a reckoning to come for the bankers and their sycophants.

  16. AllanG54 says:

    Citibank…..working tirelessly to take over BoA’s slot for the Golden Poo.

  17. Hungry Dog says:

    Anybody else reminded of that one Southpark episode?
    Aaand it’s gone!

  18. oldwiz65 says:

    Why would county constables care about a federal order? They don’t answer to the federal government.

  19. coffee100 says:

    What if I did have proof? So what? What are they going to do? Call the cops? What cops? Where? What cop is going to arrest the bank?

    We’ve reached a point in America where all you need is a #%(*#%& receptionist and a logo behind the front desk and you can do any #%)(*#@#!#% thing you want. If the bank can file fraudulent documents with the court what the hell stops them from stealing her payments? If the bank can ignore a Federal restraining order, what stops them from ignoring the courts entirely?

    What if the bank sends the gorillas over to the house and they empty the refrigerator and carry a couple of the daughters off in the night? Who’s going to stop them? The cops? They can forcibly remove the homeowner without fear of prosecution over the orders of a Federal Judge. What, patrolman Chucky is going to roll up in his radio car and arrest them?

    I notice you really don’t want to answer that. You don’t want to answer because it leads to a pretty dark place, don’t it? We have a rule of law in this country which is rapidly becoming the law for us and rule for them, and I think I speak for more than a few others when I say WE’RE GETTING A LITTLE FUCKING TIRED OF LISTENING TO PEOPLE LINE UP TO DEFEND THE FUCKING BANK.

  20. ILoveBacon says:

    Living the American dream!

  21. Curbrunner says:

    Sounds like the cops or the DA are in contempt of court for not respecting the restraining order.

  22. vicissitude says:

    Oh gosh, many comments on the legality of things, but there is another newer, (Not new.) angle on this. Judges and Sheriffs / local police making deals on foreclosed homes for money. In Northern Eastern Idaho, they do this all the time and the practice includes illegal foreclosures, foreclosed properties going to prearranged deals with Sheriffs and other city officials. Some turning around the properties for big profit. Now it’s being done all over the country. Every time I see a new city, or county talking about foreclosure deals going to law enforcement for cheap, it reminds me of mafia practices. Especially when Sheriffs / police will not take the word of a bona fide lawyer? No phone call to the court clerk and the kicker, she’s still removed regardless. Aside from bank error, drawing from experience, there’s more going on here. Corruption is costing America everything, including their homes. It’s okay, keep drinking your tea…

  23. Extended-Warranty says:

    There are two sides to every story.

    I’m pretty sure I know more people who don’t pay for their homes on time, and point the finger, rather than those who were legitimately wronged by the bank.

  24. ScottG says:

    Wells Fargo did a similar thing to my ex. She was making payments and instead of applying it to the mortgage they put it in some escrow. Fortunately she was watching the statements and saw that the balance wasn’t decreasing and called them. They gave some BS answer. After a couple more calls to them and to our attorney they fixed it – claimed it was some sort of “procedural error”.

  25. Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

    “The county attorney is challenging his authority (Federal Judge) to issue a restraining order,””

    Sounds like he took a page straight out of the Obama playbook.

    • Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

      Nice politicization of a non-political issue.

  26. SilverBlade2k says:

    Time to sue to the tune of 20 million..

  27. Tonymartinez60 says:

    This is just wrong. If any person, media or otherwise, would look up the public record, it is very clear that Mrs. Huml signed the documents at the bottom of each page. The escrow account is specifically described. In essence, either she didn’t read the document, or she didn’t understand that she was authorizing an escrow account. Further, Mrs. Huml did not mind when Beverly Mitrisin signed her loan agreement with the very stamps described as forgery.

    If one looks back at Mrs. Huml’s record, it is very clear that she failed to pay her taxes, making an escrow account completely necessary.

    Mrs. Huml describes a situation that her 96 year old mother will be out on the street, when in actuality, she owns other houses, including one across the street from Bea Huml’s house. Mrs Huml also owned several houses but simply is losing them one by one. It is not because she does not have the money but instead because she doesn’t want to spend it.

    Somebody please, look at the facts. They are available to all. This is a case of Mrs. Huml’s antics finally backfiring. There is more. . .lying on court documents is part of Mrs. Huml’s history.

    If stamps and varied signatures have been used on these documents, they have been used on many many more. At this point, if Mrs. Huml wins her “case”, so should we all.