This issue had a snowball effect and assisted in the loss of my Ph.D. program. I was financially suspended from my Ph.D. program in December of 2004. I am in a debt management program now.
December 12, 2003
Consumer Services/Real Estate
Office of Banks and Real Estate
310 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2130
Chicago, Illinois 60604-4278
Via Certified Mail
Chicago Mortgage Acceptance
Mr. Don Druse, President
Mr. Mike Grohe, CEO
435 N. LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60610
Dear Sir/Madam:
I, Fred Nance Jr., submit the following account of my family’s encounter with Chicago Mortgage Acceptance, which has caused extreme harm to my family, my credit rating, and me due to the negligence and lack of due diligence to complete a transaction.
It is with regret I report what appears to be extreme neglect and disregard by your employee Mr. Robert Jackson. I reported the following issues to Mr. Matthew Lanfear on or about December 3, 2003, articulating my issues in more detail and fashion. Matthew gave my case to Mr. David Essex to see if Mr. Essex could “fix” the case. I asked Matthew if I could leave a message for one of you. Matthew told me that I could not leave a message for either of you or talk to either of you because you guys hired him to take care of issues such as mine. Therefore, an important part of arbitration and consideration was broken.
I engaged an employee who allowed me to speak to Mr. Mike Grohe, only because he was in the office at the time I was speaking to this employee. I spoke to Mr. Mike Grohe on or about December 8, 2003 who told me that he would look into my issues and investigate them, and get back to me. Mr. Grohe has never returned my call as he promised with any results from his “investigation.” Therefore, since I cannot get a response suitable to satisfy the requirements I sought upon entering into an agreement with Mr. Jackson, it appears that I must suffer the harm from my experience with Mr. Jackson, which subjects me to pursue other avenues for relief, such as, contacting and requesting an investigation from the Office of Banks and Real Estate.
On or about October 14, 2003 I entered into a verbal and preliminary agreement with Chicago Mortgage Acceptance through Mr. Robert Jackson, loan officer, to re-finance my home, at 8.4% with two-year A.R.M., and provide debt consolidation through the American Financial Arbitration group. I asked Mr. Jackson to explain the two-year A.R.M. I told him I did not want to be locked into an 8% deal for two years. Mr. Jackson never gave me an answer as to whether this deal would lock me into 8% for two years. On November 27, 2003 I spoke with my sister, Dianne Nance-Kenner who retired from TICOR about my deal. When I told her about the length of time, she was amazed it was taking so long. In addition, she told me that I should look at my proposed deal (the paperwork) to see if a box was checked stating I would be charged a penalty if I paid off the loan before it matured. I looked at my paperwork and the box is checked stating I may have to pay a penalty if I paid off the loan before it maturity. This is the question I continued to ask Mr. Jackson that he never answered. I called him on Monday, December 1, 2003 and told him what I had discovered. I asked him why didn’t he tell me this when I had been asking him all the time about being locked into this deal for two years. Mr. Jackson did not answer me.
Mr. Jackson acquired a credit report on October 16, 2003 from the Factual Data Bureau, which is a merged credit report for Fred Nance Jr., and my wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance who is the co-borrower in this proposed deal. Chicago Mortgage Acceptance acquired another report on or about December 8, 2003.
The October 16, 2003 credit scores for Fred Nance Jr. are 556 from TransUnion, 535 from Equifax, and 513 from Experian. Darlene Nance’s credit scores were 529 from TransUnion, 527 from Equifax, and 522 from Experian. The December 8, 2003 credit scores for Fred Nance Jr. are 481 from Equifax, 516 from TransUnion, and 482 from Equifax, and Darlene Nance’s scores are 530 from Equifax, 524 from TransUnion, and 525 from Experian. How could Mr. Jackson allow this to happen? I believe he was inattentive and neglected to facilitate and expedite my file. I did everything he asked me to do. I provided all primary information and documentation needed. As we moved forward, I provided all secondary documentation needed.
On October 22, 2003 Mr. Jackson met with my wife and I at the Chicago Mortgage Acceptance office located at 435 N. LaSalle St., Chicago, Illinois, 60610. Mr. Jackson gave us a list of items labeled proposal. He estimated the total payoff and savings. He told us what monthly bills we had to pay off. We paid the bills two (2) days later. I told Mr. Jackson we could not pay off the bills for Chase Master Card and Sears because of the amount they wanted. Mr. Jackson told us don’t worry about those bills because American Financial Arbitration would take care of them in the negotiations. American Financial Arbitration was supposed to negotiate our bills down before a “final payoff.”
On or about December 2, 2003 one of our creditors called me and told me that they had made a deal with American Financial Arbitration for payoff on November 30, 2003. The creditor stated that since they have not been contacted and paid for this deal, the deal was off the table. The creditor stated that American Financial Arbitration told them that the deal would be completed by December 15, 2003. Therefore, the creditor was stated they were willing to provide another deal for me through American Financial Arbitration.
I immediately called Mr. Jackson; explained and articulated the call I received. I asked Mr. Jackson why was it taking him so long to complete the deal when I had done everything I was supposed to do. Mr. Jackson told me that I would have to payoff the monthly bills I paid off before to get the deal going again. I asked Mr. Jackson why hadn’t he called me to alert me to the refinancing not going through. He said he was still working the deal out.
I told Mr. Jackson that I was presently at court in the downtown area of Chicago, and that I was coming over to his office to get everything that he had of mine, and I wanted to speak to his supervisor. I was only ten minutes away. Mr. Jackson told me that he would not be in the office. I told him to leave my documents with the receptionist and that I wanted to speak to his supervisor. Mr. Jackson told me again he would not be in the office. I asked him why does he have to be there for me to pick up my documents and see his supervisor. Mr. Jackson did not answer me. I proceeded to his office.
When I got to his office Mr. Jackson was there. I asked the receptionist to inform Mr. Jackson supervisor I wanted to see him. Mr. Matthew Lanfear responded. I explained the issues.
This transaction should not have taken the time it did. There should have been some due diligence on the part of Mr. Jackson. Telling me not to pay bills because he would take care of them leaves the responsibility of the deal on Mr. Jackson. The credit scores I had at the beginning of this deal would have been sufficient to complete this deal. I believe I accomplished a refinancing in August of 2003 with the credit scores I had on October 15, 2003.
On or about December 10, 2003 I requested and received copies of the credit reports taken by Chicago Mortgage Acceptance from Mr. Matthew Lanfear. At that time, Mr. Lanfear stated that he was still examining my case to see if the company could do anything with it. After discussion with Mr. Lanfear, I asked him if he does get someone to accept my refinancing would my interest rates be higher. Mr. Lanfear said yes. Mr. Jackson initially agreed that I would receive an interest rate of 8.4%, which would be a two-year A.R.M. After review of my agreement with Mr. Jackson, I suggested he assure me that there were no prepayment fees because I did not want to be locked into an 8% deal.
Therefore, I am requesting the Office of Banks and Real Estate conduct an investigation into this matter. I sought relief through an investigation from Chicago Mortgage Acceptance to no avail. It appears that they are willing to let me fall through the cracks. I asked them how is one certified to do what Mr. Jackson does. I was told that Chicago Mortgage Acceptance does the certification for its employees, to which Mr. Jackson has been part of receiving his certification. This would tell me that Mr. Jackson is not licensed. Does one have to be licensed to do these transactions? This suggests a fault or liability of Chicago Mortgage Acceptance to allow a person to operate in such a manner as Mr. Jackson did.
The fault and/or liability of Chicago Mortgage Acceptance is that with my testimony in this matter, Chicago Mortgage Acceptance has working knowledge of the issues and has chosen to do nothing. I know that Chicago Mortgage Acceptance can make my deal work in an appropriate manner, with appropriate arrangements, that is, a decent interest rate and appropriate loan payoff arrangements due to the physical strain and mental stress endured by my family due to the actions or non-actions of their employee. I believe they have a responsibility to complete what Mr. Jackson screwed up. My credit scores were okay to make this deal work in the beginning, when I engaged Mr. Jackson in his capacity of representing Chicago Mortgage Acceptance.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC & Darlene Bouyer-Nance, BS
cc: Mr. Don Druse, President
Mr. Mike Grohe, CEO
December 23, 2003
Consumer Services/Real Estate
Office of Banks and Real Estate
Mr. David Espinozo, Supervisor
310 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2130
Chicago, Illinois 60604-4278
Chicago Mortgage Acceptance
Mr. Don Druse, President
Mr. Mike Grohe, CEO
435 N. LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60610
Mr. Espinozo:
As of December 23, 2003, I have not heard from Mr. Don Druse, President and Mr. Mike Grohe, CEO of Chicago Mortgage Acceptance acknowledging receipt of the original letter or to acknowledge an understanding or remorse for what has happened to me with and through their company Chicago Mortgage Acceptance.
The following is a list of creditors, which I have had to make arrangements with to avoid garnishment of my checks and public embarrassment.
Chase Bank $200.00 Post-dated to 12/24/03
Sears $150.00 Post-dated to 12/24/03
Capital One $175.00 Post-dated to 12/26/03
Target $ 60.00 Post-dated to 12/26/03
Household Bk $ 70.00 Post-dated to 12/26/03
Marshall Fields $ 25.00 Post-dated to 12/26/03
Great American Finance $179.67 Post-dated to 12/26/03
American General Finance $100.00 Post-dated to 12/26/03
This company has threatened garnishment of my employment check because they want an amount in excess of $400.00.
This has taken my present payroll checks and some. There are other bills that my wife and I are unable to pay due the issues raised in the earlier complaint dated December 12, 2003, such as, ComEd (excess of $160.00); Comcast (excess of $160.00); U.S. Bank (excess of $336.00); Toyota ($350.00); NICOR Gas (excess of $780.00); American Family Insurance (excess of $200.00); Verizon (excess of $350.00); American Express (excess of 350.00); Capital One (different than above-excess $200.00); Water bill (excess of $85.00); and Sam’s Club (excess of 50.00). This is not inclusive of other bills that are in default and collections. I, to pay off this debt and to begin anew, originally encouraged this deal, avoiding any future debt of this nature.
In the infancy of this deal, I explained to Mr. Robert Jackson (Chicago Mortgage Acceptance) that this deal with Chicago Mortgage Acceptance would clear my debt allowing my credit score to increase, which would allow and assist in the acquisition of a final loan of $10,000.00 to finish my PhD dissertation studies, which would bring me a proposed salary of six figures. Mr. Jackson agreed that he could make this happen.
Sallie Mae, the lender who holds my school loans, denied my final loan in September of 2003 because I did not have a co-borrower. I never needed a co-borrower before this final loan. I owe in excess of $150,000.00 in school loans, which are deferred to June of 2006. This particular loan was mapped out in early 1996 to be easily paid off when I finished my PhD studies through a low-interest payment that would probably be as low as $400.00 a month. It is affordable if one is making six figures, which my PhD will do with various contractual obligations. Presently, with the projected figures of my wife and I for the year 2004, we will receive $80,000.00 in income. This is a combined income, to which, I am presently receiving approximately $48,000.00 without PhD status.
Nevertheless, what has happened in this deal with Chicago Mortgage Acceptance has put me in extreme financial difficulty. It appears that this may be a regular operating practice since no one from that firm has contacted me since I wrote my letter to you on December 12, 2003 expressing regret or remorse. As of this date, December 23, 2003, I have not received my return copy receipt for the delivered certified mail to Chicago Mortgage Acceptance. In addition, when I called your office, Office of Banks and Real Estate, no seemed to be able to find my complaint, which I received a return copy of my certified receipt date-stamped on December 15, 2003. My certified receipt from the Office of Banks and Real Estate’s receiver of my certified mail did not sign it. This certified package sent to the Office of Banks and Real Estate, and to Chicago Mortgage Acceptance, contained a 4-page cover letter and over 45 copies of documents to support my issue against Chicago Mortgage Acceptance.
I have briefly spoken with you Mr. Espinozo, on or about December 19, 2003 about the receipt of my certified mail to the Office of Banks and Real Estate. I left a message on your voice mail on or about December 20, 2003. I have not had a return call from you acknowledging receipt of my documents, which your office personnel seem to have misplaced. I would appreciate a call from you acknowledging receipt of my complaint, along with acknowledging receipt of this letter, which will be faxed at this time, 5:46 AM from my home, and a hard copy mailed this morning, December 23, 2003. I am also faxing and mailing a copy of this correspondence to Chicago Mortgage Acceptance in the time frame mentioned.
I am alerting the public, by email and Internet, to this product and process of neglect and lack of due diligence by Chicago Mortgage Acceptance. I hope that the Office of Banks and Real Estate will assist in my endeavor to recover whatever remedy is available to appropriately address and satisfy my issues.
Thank you,
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC
cc: http://www.complaints.com/
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
CNBC
December 24, 2003
Consumer Services/Real Estate
Office of Banks and Real Estate
Mr. David Espinozo, Supervisor
310 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2130
Chicago, Illinois 60604-4278
Chicago Mortgage Acceptance
Mr. Don Druse, President
Mr. Mike Grohe, CEO
435 N. LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60610
Mr. Espinozo:
Thank you for responding to my inquiry and complaint on December 23, 2003. In discussing the harm and mental anguish my family suffered in this painstaking ordeal with Chicago Mortgage Acceptance, original letter and letter dated December 23, 2003, I forgot to outline the late fees and finance charges incurred during this period of time, that is, October, November, and December 2003. The following account, which is does not include all debt, is noted:
Chase Mastercard $511.68
Sears $385.00
Capital One (Business) $ 58.00
Capital One (Personal) $163.28
Target $ 33.85
Marshall Fields $ 68.66
Household Bank $123.00
American General Finance Unknown 18% on over $7,000.00 finance charge plus late fees
Great American Finance Unknown over $3300.00
Adding more harm to injury, I talked to American General Financial Services on December 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th of 2003 reporting that I was having difficulty raising the monies needed to payoff delinquent monthly payments, that is, October-November-December totaling approximately $690.00, because my deal with Chicago Mortgage Acceptance had fallen through. I received a letter dated December 18, 2003 from Mr. Ronald Atyeo, Manager of American General Financial Services (708-656-7878) stating “unless we receive your payment by December 28, 2003, your account will be turned over to an attorney for collection of the entire balance. You have ignored our repeated requests to discuss this matter. …If we obtain a judgment against you, you may be required to pay additional cost. …If we do not receive payment from you by December 28, 2003, you will hear from an attorney.” I have been talking to these people for over three months about my debt with them. I am not sure of what Mr. Atyeo meant when he states in his letter “You have ignored our repeated requests to discuss this matter.”
As I stated in my original complaint to the Office of Banks and Real Estate, American General Financial Services was contacted by American Financial Arbitration, which was the entity Mr. Jackson assigned to assist in arbitrating my debt, regarding the payoff of this debt.
According to American General Financial Services (Cindy), American Financial Arbitration contacted them in November of 2003 and arbitrated a settlement due at a proposed closing date on November 30, 2003 by Mr. Jackson. Cindy called me on or about December 2, 2003 reporting since the scheduled payment due was not given, the deal between American General Financial Services arbitrated in behalf of Fred Nance Jr. was off the table. In addition, Cindy stated that American Financial Arbitration reported to her that a new closing date was given to them of December 15, 2003. Apparently, someone from Chicago Mortgage Acceptance was communicating to American Financial Arbitration that a deal was being completed.
I am not sure of what Mr. Ronald Atyeo of American General Financial Services is conveying in his correspondence of December 18, 2003 as he refers to “…You have ignored our repeated requests to discuss this matter.” Not only have I been in contact and in discussion, but apparently American Financial Arbitration has been in contact with them also. In addition, on November 24, 2003 I received a letter from Mr. Ronald Atyeo that states, “Is lack of money the only reason your payment is past due? If so, call us at 708-656-7878. You may be able to qualify for extra cash. When you took out your loan, we promised to do all we could to be as helpful as possible.” What does this really mean?
Therefore, this is merely an update to inform. I don’t mean to burden your office with this issue. I believe, in the final analysis, that in order to make an informed decision, truthful information must be shared. It is my hope that a decision will be made that addresses the harm rendered and received.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC
cc: http://www.complaints.com/
ABC
NBC; CNBC; MSNBC
CNN
CBS
American General Financial Services
http://www.chicagoafterhours.com/
This correspondence has been sent to http://www.complaints.com/ as a follow-up to my original complaint to http://www.complaints.com/ on December 12, 2003.
June 9, 2004
Consumer Services/Real Estate
Office of Banks and Real Estate
Mr. D. Lorenzo Padron
Mr. David Espinoza
310 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2130
Chicago, Illinois 60604-4278
Mr. Padron:
I have been in touch with someone that attempted to get employment with Chicago Mortgage Acceptance (CMA). The person who applied for the job was very disappointed in the professionalism of CMA. This has prompted me to put the reply I received from CMA on www.complaints.com.
I submitted my complaint about CMA on December 12, 2003. I contacted the Office of Banks and Real Estate regarding my issues. Director of Consumer Services Mr. David Espinoza of the Office of Banks and Real Estate handled my complaint. He did a very poor job, and may be guilty of leaning in favor of a company that lies about its practices. Without laboring the issues, I want to point out one response CMA made to the Office of Banks and Real Estate that was an outright lie.
In a letter written by Mr. Matthew J. Lanfear dated February 12, 2004 to the Office of Banks and Real Estate, it reports an outright lie in the 4th paragraph. I contested this lie and Mr. Espinoza of the Office of Banks and Real Estates did nothing about it. The 4th paragraph states, "additionally Mr. Nance did not have a Bankruptcy on his Credit report as of late October. By December a Bankruptcy had appeared on Mr. Nance's credit, which he was completely aware of. This Bankruptcy completely killed any chance there was in closing the loan...." This is an outright lie. I have never filed for Bankruptcy. There could not have been a Bankruptcy on my credit report if I have never filed for Bankruptcy. CMA lied when they reported to the Office of Banks and Real Estate that I had prior knowledge of a Bankruptcy on my credit report. The Office of Banks and Real Estate never contested this lie I made Mr. Espinoza aware of.
CMA never brought this to my attention. If CMA had informed me that I had a Bankruptcy on my credit report, CMA and I could have investigated this issue and found it to be untrue. CMA submitted this lie to cover the deceit I reported on December 12, 2003. I brought this to the attention of Mr. Espinoza and he did nothing about it. Not only did CMA lie to the Office of Banks and Real Estate about me and a Bankruptcy, they were also late in responding to the Office of Banks and Real Estate's mandated response time. Nothing was done to CMA regarding their late response time.
The Office of Banks and Real Estate sent me a letter dated February 25, 2004, a day after CMA responded. I guess an investigation does not take a long time with the Office of Banks and Real Estate. It appears the Office of Banks and Real Estate took everything CMA said to be gospel, and did not even investigate whether I had a valid Bankruptcy on my credit report. There should be a public outcry. If this happened to me, it has happened to others. Mr. Espinoza was negligent in his duties to investigate my charges and response by CMA.
The letter dated February 25, 2004 sent by the Office of Banks and Real Estate reads in part as follows: "Although the Office of Banks and Real Estate reviews all complaints involving the entities that we regulate, we are not able to resolve all concerns...CMA conveyed that you were referred to a company that arbitrates reduction of credit obligations, but had no affiliation or responsibility to that company's success in its negotiations...Our review determines compliance to rules within our jurisdiction, including rules of the Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987 (Act). CMA stated that it could not secure refinancing for you because your Loan to Value was not acceptable to the prospective lenders. Each entity has its own criteria in which a borrower must qualify, and your loan application must meet qualifications of each lender to which the mortgage broker submits your application. CMA submitted signed documents that indicated your awareness of the original terms of the loan, and a Denial Notice specifying the reasons for the denial. However, it appears Chicago Mortgage Acceptance failed to demonstrate your awareness of changes as the loan progressed. Therefore, by copy of this letter, we refer Chicago Mortgage Acceptance to the rules of the Act that addresses: Changes Affecting Loans in Process, Section 1050.1230; and Good Faith Requirements, Section 1050.1250. Be assured that a copy of your complaint will be maintained in our records to monitor the development of a pattern of a similar complaint with this company regarding the above-cited rules. We appreciated your report of this issue. However, this office can take no further action at this time. Thank you bringing this matter to our attention."
There is no mention of the lie reported by CMA regarding a Bankruptcy on my credit report. As you can read, there was nothing substantive addressed in this response or in the Office Banks and Real Estate's investigation relating to the overwhelming complaint issues raised. This letter was signed Virginia Calvin, Consumer Services Administrator. She sent a copy to Matthew J. Lanfear, Managing Director, Chicago Mortgage Acceptance MB.0006571, 435 N. LaSalle, Suite 100, Chicago, Illinois, 60610.
If there is anyone out there who knows a lawyer that will take this case, I will be ever grateful to you for the referral. You can bet there are others out there with similar issues.
On March 3, 2004 I received an email regarding Chicago Mortgage Acceptance Corporation. It states as follows: "Fred, thanks for the advice. Can you please tell me how you got your ratings on the search engines so high? OBRE (Office of Banks and Real Estate) might actually be able to help me with my problem. My problem is real estate related...Okay I probably shouldn't say this but I actually used to work for CMA and wish to remain anonymous. The company is owned by Extreme Traffic Builders they are on the 4th floor. The company probably has several lawsuits against them for various reasons. It is my guess that the company will probably change their name in the next 6 months. Especially with your report online. I can't say for sure. Their whole business and marketing plan is basically a scandal. They send out these deceptive mailers for FHA refunds and then turn the customer to refinance. Don comes from the car sales business so he believes in "turning" all his customers. They send out coupons for $2495 off closing costs for purchasing homes. The customers are then charged a higher up front fee as well as a higher rate. They also send out other fictitious mailers. They basically try to prey on the uneducated consumer and try to take full advantage of them. (Primarily Spanish speaking). As for filing a lawsuit, I would encourage you to do so, but I really don't think you will get very far with it. Just stay on OBRE. Talk to some real estate attorneys and ask them if they know any LITIGATORS. I wouldn't spend too much of my own money on this but if you can find an attorney to do it for free, then by all means try it. The reason I say this is because...I don't think there have been any cases like this yet so you might actually be making new law which would bring the attorney lots of publicity. Remember you get what you pay for though...Another bad marketing piece is the 1.25% interest rate. It is not the interest rate but yet they push it. GOOD LUCK and keep me posted...p.s. their loan officers are not very well trained...I know other people have complained to OBRE about CMA, are they responsive or is there a lot of red tape."
This is the response I got from an email about my CMA complaint. Need I say more? The Office of Banks and Real Estate is covering up for CMA. If there are other complaints. Why aren't they acting?
If there is anyone out there with an attorney’s name who would be willing to look over my complete set of documentation, I would really appreciate a call or contact by mail.
I don't expect the Office of Banks and Real Estate to take any further action. I want to talk to a lawyer about the Office of Banks and Real Estate's non-action techniques. Please respond. I welcome all emails and telephone calls.
Thank you.
Fred L. Nance Jr., ABA, MA, CADC
cc: Mr. Don Druse, President
This correspondence has been sent to http://www.complaints.com/ as a follow-up to my original complaint to http://www.complaints.com/ on December 12, 2003.
June 9, 2004
Consumer Services/Real Estate
Office of Banks and Real Estate
Mr. D. Lorenzo Padron
Mr. David Espinoza
310 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2130
Chicago, Illinois 60604-4278
Mr. Padron:
I have been in touch with someone that attempted to get employment with Chicago Mortgage Acceptance (CMA). The person who applied for the job was very disappointed in the professionalism of CMA. This has prompted me to put the reply I received from CMA on www.complaints.com.
I submitted my complaint about CMA on December 12, 2003. I contacted the Office of Banks and Real Estate regarding my issues. Director of Consumer Services Mr. David Espinoza of the Office of Banks and Real Estate handled my complaint. He did a very poor job, and may be guilty of leaning in favor of a company that lies about its practices. Without laboring the issues, I want to point out one response CMA made to the Office of Banks and Real Estate that was an outright lie.
In a letter written by Mr. Matthew J. Lanfear dated February 12, 2004 to the Office of Banks and Real Estate, it reports an outright lie in the 4th paragraph. I contested this lie and Mr. Espinoza of the Office of Banks and Real Estates did nothing about it. The 4th paragraph states, "additionally Mr. Nance did not have a Bankruptcy on his Credit report as of late October. By December a Bankruptcy had appeared on Mr. Nance's credit, which he was completely aware of. This Bankruptcy completely killed any chance there was in closing the loan...." This is an outright lie. I have never filed for Bankruptcy. There could not have been a Bankruptcy on my credit report if I have never filed for Bankruptcy. CMA lied when they reported to the Office of Banks and Real Estate that I had prior knowledge of a Bankruptcy on my credit report. The Office of Banks and Real Estate never contested this lie I made Mr. Espinoza aware of.
CMA never brought this to my attention. If CMA had informed me that I had a Bankruptcy on my credit report, CMA and I could have investigated this issue and found it to be untrue. CMA submitted this lie to cover the deceit I reported on December 12, 2003. I brought this to the attention of Mr. Espinoza and he did nothing about it. Not only did CMA lie to the Office of Banks and Real Estate about me and a Bankruptcy, they were also late in responding to the Office of Banks and Real Estate's mandated response time. Nothing was done to CMA regarding their late response time.
The Office of Banks and Real Estate sent me a letter dated February 25, 2004, a day after CMA responded. I guess an investigation does not take a long time with the Office of Banks and Real Estate. It appears the Office of Banks and Real Estate took everything CMA said to be gospel, and did not even investigate whether I had a valid Bankruptcy on my credit report. There should be a public outcry. If this happened to me, it has happened to others. Mr. Espinoza was negligent in his duties to investigate my charges and response by CMA.
There is no mention of the lie reported by CMA regarding a Bankruptcy on my credit report. As you can read, there was nothing substantive addressed in this response or in the Office Banks and Real Estate's investigation relating to the overwhelming complaint issues raised. This letter was signed Virginia Calvin, Consumer Services Administrator. She sent a copy to Matthew J. Lanfear, Managing Director, Chicago Mortgage Acceptance MB.0006571, 435 N. LaSalle, Suite 100, Chicago, Illinois, 60610.
I don't expect the Office of Banks and Real Estate to take any further action. I want to talk to a lawyer about the Office of Banks and Real Estate's non-action techniques. Please respond. I welcome all emails and telephone calls.
Thank you.
Fred L. Nance Jr., ABA, MA, CADC
cc: Mr. Don Druse, President
