Unresolved Mortgage Loan Questions and Legal Concerns

In connection with our 2009 mortgage loan (originally with Anchor Bank, now serviced or claimed by Old National Bank), we have identified several unresolved questions and legal concerns that require clarification. Over the course of our interactions and legal proceedings related to this loan, various issues have arisen that remain inadequately addressed. We outline these issues below and request thorough, transparent responses and appropriate remedies for each.

1. Documentation of Mortgage Loan Ownership

We formally request clear documentation identifying the current owner of our mortgage loan. The loan was originated by Anchor Bank in 2009 and subsequently came under Old National Bank’s administration, but it is unclear which entity now holds the note. Confirming the true owner of the loan—whether it is Old National Bank, Fannie Mae, or another entity—is essential so that we know who has the legal right to enforce the mortgage. We ask that the bank provide official proof of ownership or investor information for our loan in a timely manner.

2. Examination of Original Loan Documents and Summary Judgment Evidence

We also request the opportunity to inspect the original promissory note and mortgage documents, as well as any evidence that was presented at the summary judgment stage of our case. We have reason to believe that the loan was sold to Fannie Mae within 30 days of the loan’s closing in 2009. If this is accurate, then Fannie Mae is the actual owner of the loan, and Old National Bank’s role would be that of a loan servicer rather than the owner of the debt. We need to verify this through direct examination of the original documents (including any endorsements or allonges on the note) and the evidence used to support Old National’s claims in court.

In a recent pre-trial hearing, the attorney representing Old National Bank initially asserted that Old National itself owned our loan, but then corrected himself on the record. This inconsistency has heightened our concern that Old National Bank may not, in fact, be the real party in interest (i.e., not the truly injured party) in the legal action against us. We question where our mortgage payments are ultimately being directed if Old National is only the servicer and not the owner of the loan. It is critical for us to obtain full clarity on these points, as they impact the legitimacy of any enforcement action and our understanding of to whom we owe the debt.

3. Prior Chapter 13 Attorney Misconduct and Its Consequences

We feel it is important to document an earlier incident of professional misconduct that has a bearing on our current situation. During a prior Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, we experienced serious attorney misconduct that caused us substantial financial harm. The issues with that attorney’s performance were significant enough that we pursued a legal malpractice claim, which resulted in a settlement to compensate us for the losses incurred. This history is relevant because it exemplifies the kind of professional errors we have unfortunately endured and it underscores why we insist on strict accountability and accuracy in the handling of our mortgage matters now.

4. Objection to 40-Year Loan Modification Proposal

We also formally object to the loan modification that was proposed to us as a resolution for our mortgage dispute. The terms of that modification would extend our mortgage to a 40-year term and result in a total repayment amount of approximately $360,000. We consider these terms to be financially oppressive and unreasonable. Accepting such a modification would impose an unsustainable burden on us, effectively locking us into decades of additional payments far beyond the original loan’s scope. We seek a more equitable and realistic solution to address our mortgage issues, rather than a modification that simply increases the debt and prolongs our obligation without addressing the underlying problems.

5. Erroneous Double-Billing of Property Taxes

Another issue that gravely concerns us is an accounting error made by Old National Bank during our Chapter 13 bankruptcy repayment plan. The bank inadvertently double-billed us for property taxes, an error amounting to roughly $10,000 in overcharges. We discovered this discrepancy ourselves and brought it to the bank’s attention. Only after we challenged the figures did the bank acknowledge the mistake and correct our account.

While we are relieved that this error was ultimately fixed, it should never have occurred in the first place. Such a significant mistake not only strained us financially during the bankruptcy process but also seriously eroded our trust in the bank’s ability to accurately manage our loan. This incident underscores the need for transparency and vigilance in all accounting related to our mortgage.

6. Concerns Regarding Judicial Impartiality and Jury Trial Denials

We have growing concerns about the fairness of the legal process in our case, particularly with respect to judicial impartiality and our right to a jury trial. One concern involves a potential conflict of interest with the presiding judge, Judge Jeffrey Kuglitsch. It came to our attention that Judge Kuglitsch had previously shared an employer with Gary Cerny, an individual involved in this case, which raised questions about the judge’s ability to remain impartial. We formally requested that Judge Kuglitsch recuse himself due to this possible conflict of interest; however, the judge denied our recusal motion and continued to preside over the case. This outcome, with the judge effectively ruling on his own potential conflict, has left us uneasy and concerned about whether our matter is being handled without bias.

In addition, we made formal requests to have a trial by jury for both the summary judgment proceedings and for the adversary proceeding related to our case. Both of these requests for a jury trial were denied. The denial of our requests for a jury—especially in matters as significant as a summary judgment (which effectively decided the case without a full trial) and an adversary proceeding—has heightened our concern that we are not receiving the full measure of due process. These combined circumstances have led us to question the overall fairness and impartiality of the proceedings. We raise these points not to disparage the court, but to ensure that our legitimate concerns are acknowledged and that every effort is made to afford us a fair hearing.

Conclusion

In summary, we have approached the resolution of these mortgage-related issues in good faith and with a genuine desire to reach a fair outcome. Unfortunately, our trust has been steadily undermined by the series of errors, misrepresentations, and adverse decisions we have encountered over the years. From clerical mistakes and improper charges to fundamental questions about who truly owns our loan and whether we are being treated impartially, each incident has contributed to our growing apprehension.

Nonetheless, we remain committed to finding an equitable resolution. We respectfully request that Old National Bank (and any other relevant parties, such as the loan’s investor or the court) provide transparent, written responses and documentation addressing each of the concerns outlined above. By answering these questions and rectifying any outstanding issues, it is our hope to restore a measure of trust and proceed forward with a clear understanding of our rights and obligations. We appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and we look forward to a prompt and substantive response to this formal inquiry.