Colorado Housing Fraud Complaint

Write a letter to the Colorado Attorney General for not protected my rights. House sold March *, * , the Plaintiff assert that the Defendants in this case have collectively engaged in a Conspiracy to Defraud Borrowers by consistently and knowingly failing to comply with federal and state housing laws and regulations. This alleged behavior not only violates specific regulations and guidance promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), but also constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under Colorado law, and breach of contract under common law. Under Colorado law, a conspiracy is “a combination of two or more persons to accomplish by concerted action an unlawful or criminal purpose, or a lawful or criminal purpose by unlawful means” (Sherman v. Moffett, * Colo. *, * P.2d * (*)). To prove a conspiracy, one must show: (*) two or more persons; (*) an object to be accomplished; (*) a meeting of minds on the object or course of action; (*) an unlawful overt act; and (*) damages as to the proximate result (Jet Courier Service, Inc. v. Mulei, * P.2d * (Colo., *)). Here, all these elements have been met: multiple defendants combined efforts to deny Plaintiff proper housing relief, intentionally breached regulations and guidance, and directly caused Plaintiff harm and damage. We take issue with the Defendant’s flagrant and knowing disregard for Mortgagee Letters published by HUD, specifically Mortgagee Letters *-*, *-*, *-*, *-*, *-* (URL: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/administration/hudclips/letters/mortgagee). These letters and regulations clearly outline the procedures and standards that the Defendants were expected to follow - and under our claim, knowingly failed to adhere to. By failing to offer the mandated loss mitigation options, the Defendants violated * CFR § *.*, part of Federal Housing Administration (FHA) regulations (URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/*/*.*), which requires that mortgagees take reasonable actions expected to generate the smallest financial loss to the federal Department. The Defendants have also violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) (URL: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-is-respa-what-does-it-require-what-kind-of-complaints-can-i-submit-to-the-cfpb-about-violations-of-respa-en-*/). Specifically, the Defendants have engaged in "dual tracking," a practice outlawed by RESPA under * C.F.R. § *.*(g) (URL: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/*/*/*/*-*/amendments-to-the-*-mortgage-rules-under-the-real-estate-settlement-procedures-act-regulation-x-and). This law prohibits mortgage servicers from initiating foreclosure proceedings if a homeowner is pursuing loss mitigation options. Moreover, the Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices as defined by sections §*-*-* to * of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) (URL: https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-*-consumer-and-commercial-affairs/co-rev-st-sect-*-*-*.html). The Defendants' actions in not providing correct COVID modification information and real relief to the eligible borrowers, breach this act as they constitute a fraudulent practice and/or deceptive act or practice that causes significant public impact. In sum, the Defendants violated federal, state, and common law through their calculated disregard of clear legal regulations and direct, intentional harm to the Plaintiff. Their knowledge and comprehension of these regulations directly indicate their blatant intention to gain unlawful profit by means of unethical and illegal practices.