Last July we mentioned how strange it seemed for Citimortgage to classify this transaction as a "Fraud" as quickly as they had even though there were documents in their own files that suggested that Mr. Barrera may have indeed been involved in the fraud. This made no sense at the time until we suggested that they were either going to be reimbursed by their own insurance once they classified the case as an identity theft or fraud or as prosecutor Kostrzewski suggested in his plea agreement with defendant Michael Martinez that the restitution was to be paid back to...
...to victim Citi Mortgage, Inc., or to its successor(s), or, in the event that Citi Mortgage, Inc., is reimbursed for its loss by title insurance, to its insurer of title.Ok, makes sense right? If indeed this case was a clear cut instance of identity theft it only makes sense that the lender could be reimbursed by the title insurance issued by the closing agent who officiated this nefarious transaction, correct? Come to find out though that the claim that Citimortgage put against the title insurance for the Oak Avenue home was denied. Anyone remember this email that we posted a while back?
This email was from the attorney that represented the title insurance company, turns out because of the evidence at hand, Citimortgage's claim against the title insurance was DENIED. I wonder why? Perhaps that last sentence clarifies things a bit..
...Mr. Barrera has perpetrated a fraud on the court in his filings, I intend to advise the judge about the issues you raised.