In re Beatriz Santiago Respondent Case No. APPEARANCE The undersigned enters the appearance of: Beatriz Santiago Counsel for Respondent George C. Collins Adrian Vuekovioh COLLINS BARGIONE VUCKOVICH One North LaSalle Street Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312-372-7813 av?lcb?laweom ?lm 41 1543?? MAR 11 2015 ?ax-@154 Courts bomml?/slon?/ecretary (lg/W eorg . Collins! ?n Vdcl?/ovich COURTS COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS In re BEATRIZ SANTIAGO, MAR 1 1 2015 Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court No. . of Cook County, Illinois Courts bommig/sion?ecretary AGREED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ANSWER, INSTANTER COMES the Respondent BEATRIZ SANTIAGO, by her attorneys, GEORGE B. COLLINS and ADRIAN VUCKOVICH of COLLINS BARGIONE VUCKOVICH, and for her Motion for Leave to File her Answer to the Complaint, Instanter, states as follows: 1. The Complaint in this case was filed on February 6, 2015. 2. A period of time was required in order to prepare an answer to the complaint and obtain documents from counsel for the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board in order to properly respond to the complaint. 3. An answer has been prepared. 4. Respondent seeks Leave to File the Answer, Instanter. A copy of the proposed answer is being submitted along with this Motion. 5. Counsel for JIB has agreed to this Motion on March 10, 2015. WHEREFORE, Respondent Beatriz Santiago respectfully requests that she be granted Leave to File her Answer to the Complaint, Instanter. By: the Attorneys for Respondent George B. Collins Adrian Vuckovich COLLINS BARGIONE VUCKOVICH One North LaSalle Street Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 372-7813 COURTS COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS A In re BEATRIZ SANTIAGO, MAR 1 2015 Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court No. of Cook County, Illinois COUPE om sion ?ecmtary ANSWER TO COMPLAINT COMES BEATRIZ SANTIAGO, by her attorneys, GEORGE B. COLLINS and ADRIAN VUCKOVICH of COLLINS BARGIONE VUCKOVICH, denying that she has brought her judicial of?ce into disrepute, and for her Answer to the Complaint. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 1. Beginning no later than June 2013, and continuing through March 2014, Respondent in connection with the re?nancing of her mortgage on a property located on North Spaulding Avenue in Chicago, Illinois (the ?Spaulding property?), attempted to and did deceive her mortgage lender by making several misrepresentations in her mortgage application documents that caused her lender to believe she occupied the Spaulding property as her primary residence and that she intended to occupy the Spaulding property as her primary residence within 60 days of executing a mortgage agreement, when in fact she resided at another property and had no intention of establishing residency at the Spaulding preperty. ANSWER: The allegations are admitted except that Respondent did not intend to deceive the mortgagee. The circumstances, and mitigation, will be offered at hearing. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Background 2. Respondent is a Circuit Judge or the Circuit Court of Cook County for the Sixth Judicial Subcircuit. She is currently assigned to the Municipal Department, Traf?c Section, of the First Municipal District. ANSWER: Admitted as of the date the Complaint was filed. 3. Prior to becoming a judge. Respondent served as an Assistant Public Defender in Cook County for approximately fourteen years. Upon graduating from law school and before joining the Office or the Cook County Public Defender, Respondent worked in private practice in the areas of personal injury, collections, and insurance defense. ReSpondent was elected to the Of?ce of Judge on November 6, 2012, to a term that expires in December 2018. ANSWER: Admitted. 11. Challenge to Respondent?s Candidacy for the Of?ce of Judge 4. In her Statement of Candidacy for the Of?ce of Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Sixth Judicial Subcircuit, which Respondent ?led on November 22, 2011, Respondent stated, under oath, that she resided at a property located on West Potomac Avenue, Chicago, (the ?Potomac property?). The Potomac prOperty is located within the Sixth Judicial Subcircuit. ANSWER: Admitted. 5. The Potomac property is owned by Respondent?s parents, and is the same home in which Respondent resided prior to attending college and during most of her career as an Assistant Public Defender. Respondent has no ownership interest in the Potomac property. ANSWER: Admitted except that prior to August or September 2011, Respondent lived at the Spaulding property and before that, certain other addresses, including the Potomac property. 6. Prior to the Democratic primary election for her current seat, an objector challenged Respondent?s eligibility to be a candidate based, in part, on allegations that Respondent did not reside within the Sixth Judicial Subcircuit. ANSWER: Admitted. 7. The objector alleged, in pertinent part, that contrary to Respondent?s representation in her Statement of Candidacy that Respondent resided at the Potomac property. Respondent actually resided at the Spaulding property, a property Respondent had purchased in August 2005. ANSWER: Admitted that the objector alleged that Respondent lived at the Spaulding property. 8. The Spaulding property is located in the Seventh Judicial Subcircuit. Respondent would not have been eligible for the Of?ce of Judge for the Sixth Judicial Subcircuit if she, at the time of her candidacy, resided at the Spaulding property. ANSWER: Admitted. 9. The obj ector?s petition challenging Respondent?s residency and eligibility to become a judge for the Sixth Judicial Subcircuit was adjudicated before an election hearing of?cer in a three-day hearing that commenced on January 26, 2012. ANSWER: Admitted. 10. Respondent testified at that hearing that she had purchased the Spaulding property in August 2005 and moved into the home in February 2007. Respondent testified that she had moved out of the Spanlding property and returned to the Potomac property in either late August 0r early September of 2011, prior to completing her Statement of Candidacy, in order to help her family care for her ailing father, who had recently been diagnosed with Parkinson?s disease. ANSWER: Admitted. 1. Respondent testified at the hearing that she did not reside at the Spaulding property and that she had not resided at the Spaulding property since moving out in 2011. ANSWER: Admitted. 12. During the hearing before the election officer, Respondent was cross-examined ?a regarding a representation she had made in a August 23, 2005 mortgage agreement with Chicago Bancorp relating to her purchase of the Spaulding property (the ?2005 Mortgage Agreement?). ANSWER: Admitted. 13. Speci?cally, Respondent was confronted with Paragraph 6 of the 2005 Mortgage Agreement, titled ?Occupancy Clause,? which provides, in pertinent part: Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower?s principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as the Borrower?s principal residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless Lender otherwise agrees in ANSWER: Admitted. 14. Respondent at the hearing admitted that she had not complied with the Occupancy Clause of the 2005 Mortgage Agreement, and that she did not move into the Spaulding property until February 2007, eighteen months after representing that she would move into the Spaulding property within 60 days. ANSWER: Denied that the allegations accurately set forth Respondent?s testimony. Respondent testified that after purchasing the Spaulding property, Respondent undertook substantial renovation and rehabilitation of the property because she intended to reside there, during which time Respondent was unable to live at the property. 15. Respondent was also confronted with the Occupancy Clause of her January 26, 2007 mortgage refinancing agreement with Chicago Bancorp relating to the Spaulding property (the ?2007 Mortgage Agreement?), which is substantially identical to the Occupancy Clause contained in the 2005 Mortgage Agreement. ANSWER: Admitted. 16. On January 30, 2012, the election hearing officer issued a written Report and Recommended Decision denying the objector?s challenge to Respondent?s candidacy for the 4 gamma 1 Of?ce of Judge. While the hearing of?cer determined that there were ?a number of facts regarding the Candidate?s residency that are not entirely plausible,? she ultimately concluded that the ?inconsistencies and improbabilities created by the Candidate?s testimony . . . [were] not suf?cient to conclusively establish that the Candidate [did] not reside at [the Potomac property].? ANSWER: Admitted. 17. The County Of?cers Electoral Board adopted the Hearing Officer?s Report and Recommended Decision on February 1, 2012. ANSWER: Admitted. 18. Respondent won the Democratic primary for the Office of Judge in March 2012, and was elected to the Of?ce of Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County for the Sixth Judicial Subcircuit on November 6, 2012. Respondent was sworn in as judge and began serving her current term in December 2012. ANSWER: Admitted. Respondent?s 2013 Mortgage Re?nancing Application and Mortgage Agreement 19. On June 24, 2013, nearly two years after establishing residency at the Potomac address, Respondent submitted an application to American Equity Mortgage to re?nance her 2007 mortgage on the Spaulding property (the ?2013 Mortgage Application?). ANSWER: Admitted. 20. The ?nal page of the 2013 Mortgage Application, immediately above the ?Borrower?s Signature? line, provides: 1/ We fully understand that it is a Federal crime punishable by ?ne or imprisonment, or both, to knowingly make any false statements concerning any of the above facts as applicable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code Section 1001, et seq. ANSWER: Admitted. 21. Respondent knowingly made numerous false statements in the 2013 Mortgage Application and accompanying documents. Speci?cally, Respondent represented in her application that she currently resided at the Spaulding property and that she intended to occupy the Spaulding property as her principal residence within 60 days or executing the mortgage instrument. ANSWER: Respondent admits the documents contain the statements generally described in paragraph 21. Respondent denies any wrongful intent in the execution of the documents alleged, and has made every payment required. 22. In Section II or the 2013 Mortgage Application, titled ?Property Information and Purpose of Loan,? Respondent indicated, Property will be: Primary Residence.? ANSWER: Admitted. 23. In Section of the 2013 Mortgage Application, titled ?Borrower?s Information,? Respondent provided the Spaulding property address as her ?Present Address.? ANSWER: Admitted. 24. In Section VI of the 2013 Mortgage Application, titled ?Assets and Liabilities,? Respondent represented in her ?Schedule or Real Estate Owned? that she owned the Spaulding property as her primary residence. ANSWER: Admitted. 25. Section of the 2013 Mortgage Application, titled ?Declarations,? contains the following inquiry: ?Do you intend to occupy the property as your primary residence?? Respondent marked the box under the column titled ?Yes? in response to this question. ANSWER: Respondent does not recall putting the mark in the box and therefore does not admit or deny the allegation. 26. Also on June 24, 2013, Respondent electronically signed a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development form titled ?Important Notice to Homebuyers? (the Notice? ANSWER: Admitted. 27. The ?rst page of the HUD Notice that Respondent signed contains a section titled ?Don?t Commit Loan Fraud,? which states, in pertinent part: ?Do not falsely certify that a property will be used for your primary residence when you are actually going to use it as rental property.? ANSWER: Admitted. 28. The HUD Notice that Respondent signed warns of the potential consequences of providing false information in loan documents: Penalties for Loan Fraud: Federal Laws provide severe penalties for fraud, misrepresentation, or conspiracy to in?uence wrongly the issuance of mortgage instruments by HUD. You can be subject to a possible prison term and ?ne of up to $10,000 for providing false information?. ANSWER: Admitted. 29. On June 24, 2013, Respondent also electronically signed a one-page form titled ?Consequences to Borrower for Providing Inaccurate Information?. ANSWER: Respondent does not recall making an electronic signature, and therefore denies the allegation. 30. That form provides that ?[t]he effect of misrepresentation is costly to all parties involved,? and lists ?[c]riminal prosecution? among the ?potential consequences that may be incurred by the borrower and other participants.? ANSWER: Admitted. 31. The same form also lists specific examples or misrepresentations, including participation in or any knowledge of: Knowingly submitting inaccurate information, including 7 false statements on loan application(s) with the intent to alter or mislead the lending decision?; and Inc0rrect statements regarding current occupancy or intent to maintain minimum continuing occupancy as stated in the security instrument.? ANSWER: Admitted. 32. Certain or Respondent?s representations to AEM on June 24, 2013 were false. At the time Respondent completed and electronically signed the 2013 Mortgage Application, HUD Notice, and form titled ?Consequences to Borrower for Providing Inaccurate Information,? she did not occupy the Spaulding property as her primary residence and had no intention of returning to the Spaulding property and occupying it as her primary residence. Indeed, pursuant to the Illinois Circuit Courts Act, 705 ILCS 35/2f, Respondent could not establish residency at the Spaulding property while maintaining her eligibility to sit as a judge from the Sixth Subcircuit.1 ANSWER: Respondent denies this paragraph, except that she admits 705 ILCS 35/2f, and that she did not intend to reside outside the Sixth Subcircuit while serving as a Judge from the Sixth Subcircuit. 33. In July 2013, during the underwriting process for Respondent?s loan, representatives of AEM took notice that most of the documents accompanying Respondent?s 2013 Mortgage Application, including pay stubs and proofs of employment, re?ected that Respondent maintained her primary residence at the Potomac property rather than the Spaulding property. In addition, after running a background check on Respondent, ABM determined that the home address provided in Respondent?s application documents?the Spaulding addressm?was not the most active address reported by Respondent?s credit grantors in the past 90 days. 1 The Illinois Circuit Courts Act provides, in pertinent part: resident judge elected from a subcircuit shall continue to reside in that subcircuit as long as he or she holds that office.? 705 ILCS 35/2f. 8 W?g ANSWER: Respondent has no knowledge of the internal actions of AEM. 34. On July 18, 2013, a mortgage broker for AEM sent Respondent an email asking her to explain why most of the documents submitted with her 2013 Mortgage Application re?ected that the Potomac property was her primary residence. ANSWER: Admitted. 35. In response to inquiry, and in reference to the Potomac property, Respondent stated, my mother?s address which is the address I use for all work related issues.? Respondent did not disclose to AEM that the Potomac property was also her address and primary residence, thereby attempting to mislead ABM to believe that the Spaulding property was her primary residence. ANSWER: Admitted that the email was written and contains the language quoted. Denied that it was misleading. 36. Also on July 18, 2013, Respondent signed and submitted to AEM two separate Letters of Explanation of which she intentionally provided false and misleading information regarding her residency and her connection to the Potomac property. ANSWER: The letters are admitted but the conclusory allegations of providing intentionally false and misleading information are denied. 37. In the ?rst Letter of Explanation, Respondent stated, ?The address at (redacted) Potomac Ave Chicago ll 60651 is my mothers (sic) address. I have all my ?work related bills go to her home. I have no ownership interest in the property.? ANSWER: Admitted. 38. Respondent did not disclose in the First Letter of Explanation that the address at West Potomac was also her address, thereby attempting to mislead AEM to believe she did not (Wit, '3 .4 reside at the Potomac property. ANSWER: Denied as to the effect of the statement. Admitted as to the letter. 39. In the second Letter of Explanation, Respondent stated, ?The property at (redacted) Greenview ave aprt 3, (redacted) North Av and (redacted) potornac ave 2? are former addresses of mine. I have no ownership interest in the properties.? ANSWER: Admitted. 40. Respondent?s representation in her Second Letter of Explanation that the Potomac property was her ?former address? was false. Respondent did in fact reside at the Potomac property and occupied it as her primary residence. ANSWER: Denied the representation was false in that Potomac was a former/prior address from which Respondent left and then moved back in August or September 2011. 41. On August 9, 2013, following inquiries regarding her residency status, Respondent signed the mortgage application documents she had completed on June 24, 2013, including the 2013 Mortgage Application, HUD Notice, and form titled ?Consequences to Borrower for Providing Inaccurate Information.? ANSWER: Admitted. 42. Also on August 9, 2013, Respondent completed and signed an Occupancy Certi?cation provided by AEM. The Occupancy Certification, providing three options, requires the borrower to certify his or her intended use of the property subject to the mortgage: 1/ We the undersigned certify that: Primary Residence We will occupy the Property as my/our principal residence within 60 days after the date or closing as stated in the Mortgage or Deed of Trust l/We executed. l/We will continue to occupy the Property as my/our principal residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless otherwise agrees in writing. 10 AW Secondary Home will occupy the Property as a second home (vacation, etc) while maintaining a principal residence elsewhere. Investment Property l/We will not occupy the Property as a principal residence or a second home. The property is an investment to be held or rented. ANSWER: Admitted. 43. The Occupancy Certi?cation reminds that ?it is illegal to provide false information in an application for a mortgage loan. Mortgage fraud is punishable by up to 30 years in federal prison or a ?ne up to $1,000,000, or both, under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 1001, et seq.? ANSWER: Admitted. 44. Respondent placed an next to the paragraph titled ?Primary Residence.? ANSWER: Admitted. 45. Respondent also completed a Mortgagor?s Af?davit on August 9, 2013, in which she certi?ed as follows: presently occupy, or intend to occupy, the subject property as my principal residence, and am not now considering any proposal to sell the subject property to third persons.? ANSWER: Admitted. 46. Also on August 9, 2013. Respondent executed a mortgage instrument between herself and ABM (the ?2013 Mortgage Agreement?) containing an Occupancy Clause substantially identical to the two Occupancy Clauses with which she has been confronted at the January 2012 hearing before the election hearing of?cer. The Occupancy Clause in the 2013 Mortgage Agreement provides: Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower?s principal residence within 60 days after the execution or this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property us Borrower?s principal residence for at least one 11 year after the date or occupancy, unless Lender otherwise agrees in writing, which consent shall be unreasonably withheld or unless extenuating circumstances exist which are beyond Borrower?s control. ANSWER: Admitted. 47. Respondent?s representations to ABM on August 9, 2013 were false and misleading. At the time Respondent executed the 2013 Mortgage Agreement, and signed the 2013 Mortgage Application, HUD Notice, Mortgagor?s Af?davit, Occupancy Certi?cation, and form titled ?Consequences to Borrower for Providing inaccurate Information,? Respondent had no intention of occupying the Spaulding property as her primary residence. Indeed, Respondent was aware that she could not establish residency at the Spaulding property while maintaining her eligibility to hold the Of?ce of Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County from the Sixth Judicial Subcircuit. ANSWER: Admitted that Respondent resided in the Sixth Judicial Subcircuit at the Potomac property, which is Respondent?s parents? home and admitted the documents were executed. Denied that Respondent intended to mislead or make false statements. 48. Through Respondent?s misrepresentations in the 2013 Mortgage Application and accompanying documents in June and August 2013, and misleading responses to inquiries from ABM regarding her residency in July 2013, Respondent attempted to induce AEM to execute a primary?residence mortgage??with an interest rate commensurate with that type of mortgage?? on a property that Respondent did not intend to use as her primary residence. ANSWER: Denied in that Respondent did not focus on ?residency? as does the Complaint, but intended to borrow and then repay the money in accordance with the terms of the loan. 49. Following the execution of the 2013 Mortgage Agreement, Respondent continued 12 Wm to live and maintain her primary residence at the Potomac property. ANSWER: Admitted. 50. On December 4, 2013, the television news program WGN Investigates, as part of a joint investigation with Medill Watchdog, aired a three-part news series titled ?Who is Judging the Judges? which criticized Respondent for representing in the 2013 Mortgage Agreement that she intended to occupy the Spaulding property as her primary residence. ANSWER: Admitted. 51. In March 2013, Respondent contacted ABM to discuss her residency and the representations she had made in the 2013 Mortgage Application. ReSpondent then for the ?rst time informed AEM that the Spaulding property was at that time?that is, in March 2013 not being used as her primary residence. ANSWER: Admitted. 52. ReSpondent did not, however, disclose to ABM that she had never occupied the Spaulding property as her primary residence at any point after the execution of the 2013 Mortgage Agreement, nor did she disclose that she had not intended to occupy the Spaulding property as her primary residence at the time she applied for the mortgage in June 2013 nor when she consummated the transaction in August 2013. ANSWER: Respondent does not have a transcript of the conversation with AEM, and believes she answered the questions which were asked. She does not know that she was or was not asked about 2013 and therefore denies the allegations. VIOLATIONS 53. Through the above?described conduct, Judge Santiago failed to personally maintain high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. 13 In so doing, Judge Santiago violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 61, which provides: An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective. ANSWER: Respondent submits her work as a Judge has been done correctly and in accordance with the law. 54. Through the above-described conduct, Judge Santiago failed to respect and comply with the law and conduct herself in a manner that promotes public con?dence in the integrity of the judiciary. In so doing, Judge Santiago violated the Code of Judicial Conduct Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62, Canon 2, which provides in pertinent part: (A) A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself or herself at all times in a manner that promotes public con?dence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. ANSWER: Respondent has been honest and impartial in her judicial work. The re?nancing did not involve any judicial act. The text of the Rule is admitted. WHEREFORE, Respondent Beatriz Santiago prays that the Commission consider and decide this case within the entire discretion awarded it the Constitution. By: (?ne of the Attorneys for Respondent George B. Collins Adrian Vuckovich COLLINS BARGIONE VUCKOVICH One North LaSalle Street Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 372-7813 14 COURTS COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS In re BEATRIZ SANTIAGO. Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court No. of Cook County, Illinois Courts om sionJec-retar?y NOTICE OF FILING TO: John Gallo Karim Basaria Sidley Austin LLP One S. Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60603 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 11$h day of March, 2015, Respondent did ?le With the Illinois Courts Commission the following documents: 1) Appearance of George B. Collins and Adrian Vuckovich for Respondent; 2) Respondent?s Motion for Leave to File Answer, Instanter; 3) Respondent?s Proposed Answer By: ?b?w 0% ?lth/? Attornef?or Respondent George B. Collins Adrian Vuckovich COLLINS BARGIONE VUCKOVICH One North LaSalle Street Suite 300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 3 112-372-7813 ,ersg STATE OF ILLINOIS ss: COUNTY OF COOK CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Sharon Purnell, an non?attorney, on oath state that I served copies of the foregoing Notice and document(s) referred to therein: by causing copies to be delivered by regular mail and email, in the U.S. mail located at One North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602 with proper ?rst?class postage fully prepaid directed to the parties indicated at their addresses set forth on the attached Service List, on March 11, 2015 before the hour Of5:00 pm. ULP Sharon Purnell SUBSCRIBED AND 0 before me on this day of I i