Barclay Butler Financial Inc. Mortgage Brokers / beware of barclay barclay financial
Borrowers of home loans need to make sure you Google Barclay Butler and Barclay Butler Financial Inc. of 1051 East Dundee Road, East Dundee Illinois 60118. Barclay Butler is a scammer and please note that Barclay Barclay is not a lender but a broker who gets commissions on deals he gets and gets yield spread premium of 2.75%. Go to direct lenders like Guaranteed Rate where they are a reputable company and a direct lender and not a direct lender impersonator like Barclay Butler Financial. Here is another lawsuit against Barclay Butler Financial and Barclay Butler. He is so proud of being a President of this mom and pop broker house but on his website he impersonates he is a lender. He is not a lender but a broker/hustler. Beware and be careful before using Barclay Butler and Barclay Butler Financial. Read the public record below:
2015 IL App (1st) 143326-U
March 15, 2016
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
CLEO BRIDGES, ) Appeal from the
) Circuit Court of
Plaintiff-Appellant ) Cook County
v. ) No. 13 L 14069
7303 incorporated, d/b/a start rehab, inc., )
hammond avenue, inc., gregory bingham, barclay butler, )
ann kann, tom "doe, " j rehab, juan )
marquez, farah hogan, and barclay butler and barclay butler financial inc. ) honorable
financial, inc., ) eileen m. o'neill burke,
defendants-appellees. ) judge presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices Neville and Simon concurred in the judgment.
¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's complaint.
¶ 2 Plaintiff Cleo Bridges appeals from an order of the circuit court granting defendants'
7303 Incorporated d/b/a Start Rehab, Greg Bingham, Hammond Avenue, Inc., and Ann Kann's
motion to dismiss her complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2012)) and defendants' Barclay Butler, Barclay Butler Financial, Inc. and
(West 2012); (2) her claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; (3) defendants Barclay Butler and Barclay Butler, Inc., and Farah Hogan were involved as fiduciaries and are therefore barred from claiming that they lacked direct involvement. Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred with Barclay Butler and Barclay Butler Financial for mortgage fraud and
the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 For purposes of this appeal we recite and accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences from these facts in favor of plaintiff. Edelman, Combs and Latturner v. Hinshaw and Culbertson, 338 Ill. App. 3d 156, 164 (2003).
¶ 5 On December 12, 2013, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against defendants alleging common law fraud in count I and violations of the Act in count II. 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2012).
Plaintiff alleged that after receiving a Start Rehab flyer about owning a newly rehabbed home for about $300 a month, senior citizens Cleo Bridges and her husband William Bridges called Start Rehab and obtained a list of available properties. After they viewed a few of the properties, the
Bridges chose a home at 330 West 102nd Place in Chicago. At the time they viewed this property, work was being done to the home.
¶ 6 In September 2009, the Bridges visited Start Rehab's offices and spoke to "Tom." Annie or Ann Kahn, another Start Rehab representative, told them that they would have to make payments of $250 per month to start the process. Tom told them that after those payments were made Mr. Bridges would be able to obtain a reverse mortgage on the property. They would also be required to make a $1, 500 down payment on the home. The Bridges decided to go forward and paid the $1, 500 down payment and signed some paperwork that was required to start the purchase of the home "through Start Rehab's reverse mortgage senior home buying program." They did not receive copies of all of the documents that they signed. "Tom" also informed the Bridges that they would have to live in the home and make monthly payments for seven or eight
months before they would be able to obtain the reverse mortgage and title to the property. Plaintiff asked "Tom" if she would be able to get a reverse mortgage from Barclay Butler and Barclay Butler Financial Inc. in her own name at a later date. "Tom" told her that at the closing her name would be included on the deed so that she would be able to get her own reverse mortgage in the future if her husband passed away.
¶ 7 The Bridges moved into the home in October 2009 and began making the monthly payments. On or about October 26, 2009, Start Rehab along with Gregory Bingham, the beneficiary of the trust, recorded a trustee's deed dated September 22, 2009, with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds, that conveyed title to the property in Mr. Bridges' name only. The
Bridges were unaware of the existence of the deed. The trust controlled by Bingham had purchased the property at 330 West 102nd Place in Chicago after foreclosure on March 3, 1999, for $16, 000. Defendants sold the property to Mr. Bridges six months later for $134, 000. Also, on October 26, 2009, Start Rehab and Bingham recorded a mortgage dated September 9, 2009, for $34, 590 from Barclay Butler Financial Inc. The Bridges were unaware of the existence of this mortgage due to Barclay Butler
¶ 8 According to the complaint, Barclay Butler and Barclay Butler Financial was not a licensed lender or mortgage company and was not a registered corporation in the State of Illinois. Plaintiff further alleged that Hammond Avenue is a fictitious entity controlled by Bingham and used to skim equity out of the properties he purports to sell pursuant to his reverse mortgage senior home buying program.
¶ 9 According to plaintiff, about June 2, 2010, Start Rehab and recorded a $69, 886 mechanic's lien on behalf of Juan Marquez of J Rehab against the property for the performance of work and delivery of material. Because the work on the property was nearly complete at the time the Bridges moved in, they were unaware of the mechanic's lien. Plaintiff further alleged
that J Rehab is a fictitious entity controlled by Bingham. The mechanic's lien was notarized by Barclay Butler.
¶ 10 The Bridges made their initial "mortgage billing" payments of $250 to Barclay Butler. After plaintiff visited that address and found a vacant,
boarded-up single family home, plaintiff called Start Rehab for clarification. She was told by an employee to send payments to "Western Sites" at an "Avondale address." However, subsequent billing statements directed the Bridges to make payments to Hammond Avenue at "the Avondale address." In mid-2010, the payments increased to $453, which included "accrued/prorated property tax & insurance escrow." The Bridges made the payments as required.
¶ 11 The Bridges completed federally required counseling for obtaining a reverse mortgage in October 2010. The closing on the reverse mortgage took place on December 13, 2010. By this time, plaintiff was 63 years old and was qualified by age to obtain a reverse mortgage. Mr. Bridges was 10 years older than plaintiff. At the closing, plaintiff noticed that her name was not on the mortgage papers. She inquired about why her name was left off the mortgage and was told by Barclay Butler, Michael Wilfong, Mark Settle, and Farrah Hogan of Barclay Butler Financial that the loan papers needed to be in Mr. Bridges name "for everything to work." Plaintiff alleged that the "reason defendant engineered the loan to be in Mr. Bridges name alone is that he was about ten years older than [plaintiff] and therefore they could extract much more value from the reverse mortgage." Plaintiff also alleged
that Hogan then told plaintiff that her name would be put on the deed so that she would be able to obtain her own reverse mortgage in the future. Plaintiff believed that her name was put on the deed at closing. Releases of the Hammond Avenue mortgage and the mechanic's lien were
executed on January 4, 2011. The reverse mortgage "of nearly $90, 000" was executed on December 13, 2010, and recorded on January 24, 2011. Defendants "received at least $85, 467 of the mortgage proceeds."
¶ 12 When Mr. Bridges became ill two years later, plaintiff contacted the reverse mortgage company to inquire about getting her own reverse mortgage. Plaintiff was told that her name was not on title to the property so she would not be able to obtain a reverse mortgage if her husband passed away. She was told that she would have to refinance the entire balance due at that time in order to keep the home. The expected pay-off balance of the reverse mortgage was more than the value of the property and therefore it would be impossible for plaintiff to obtain a reverse mortgage after Mr. Bridges passed away. A conventional mortgage was unobtainable given plaintiff's income. Mr. Bridges passed away on September 25, 2013.
¶ 13 As to count I, plaintiff alleged that defendant made numerous material false representations and deceptive omissions that were false and misleading with the intent to deceive plaintiff and induce her to enter into the subject transaction to her detriment. Plaintiff further
alleged that Barclay Butler of Bingham and the entities controlled by him engaged in a pattern of deceiving elderly home buyers into believing that they were acquiring homes through a reverse mortgage program
where they would only have to pay taxes, insurance and utilities and have a home they could live in for the rest of their lives. She also alleged that Barclay Butler and Bingham created a scheme to defraud individuals and financial institutions by using sham transactions, fictitious liens, and fraudulent appraisals to obtain the financing to pay off the false liens and thereby sell real estate for far greater than its actual market value.
¶ 14 As to count II, plaintiff alleged that defendants violated the Act when they made the following fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions of material fact:
"a. Soliciting elderly consumers with misleading advertising;
b. Misleading the Bridges into thinking that they could live in the home for the rest
of their lives for only the cost of taxes, insurance, and utilities;
c. Recording false liens to inflate the value of the property to make it appear that there
were $69, 000 worth of improvements made;
d. Misrepresenting and omitting the nature of documents signed by plaintiff and her
e. Misleading plaintiff as to the nature of services offered by Start Rehab;
f. Acting as an unlicensed mortgage broker;
g. Acting as an unlicensed mortgage lender; and
h. Acting as an unlicensed real estate broker."
Plaintiff further alleged that these statements were material and were made with the purpose of Barclay Butler Financial and Barclay Butler inducing the Bridges to enter into the transaction.
¶ 15 Pursuant to section 2-619.1, defendants Start Rehab, Hammond Avenue, Inc., Barclay Butler, Greg Bingham and Ann Kann moved to plaintiff's complaint. 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2012). These defendants argued that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for common law
fraud under count I pursuant to section [protected] ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2012)). They also argued that plaintiff's count II for violation of the Act should be pursuant to section 2-619 for being brought outside of the statute of limitations (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2012)). Defendants
Farrah Hogan, Barclay Butler of Barclay Financial moved to plead plaintiff's complaint pursuant to section 2-615 on the basis that plaintiff failed to allege the required element of common law fraud and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2012). Plaintiff
generally opposed defendants’ motions.
¶ 16 After a hearing, the circuit court plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The court determined that count I for common law fraud must be valid because plaintiff allege specific facts that stated an action for common law fraud, and she did not set forth any facts to bring such a claim where she was not a party to the real estate transaction involving her husband. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2012). Illinois Consumer Fraud Act count because plaintiff failed to bring her claim within the applicable three-year statute of limitations. 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2012). The court subsequently denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider and motion to file an amended complaint.
It is from these orders that plaintiff now appeals.
¶ 17 ANALYSIS
¶ 18 Section 2-619.1 permits a party to combine a section 2-615
Just Google Barclay Butler Financial and Barclay Butler and you will see his negative reviews on [redacted] and other consumer sites.