Chapter 5 - THE HOUSE WITH TWO MORTGAGES
-5
I learned how close I came to losing my house from a banker named Allison Price.
She called after Rebecca sent fraud notice.
“Mrs. Romano, I need to confirm you did not submit the refinance package.”
“I did not.”
“Did you authorize Luca Romano to submit on your behalf?”
“No.”
A pause.
“Then we have a serious problem.”
The application contained:
My Social Security number.
Driver’s license.
Tax returns.
Bank statements.
Employment verification.
Digital signature.
Most data genuine.
Some altered.
The employment verification came from an email domain one letter different from the library’s real domain.
My salary changed from $42,800 to $118,400.
My title:
Director of Community Partnerships.
Actual:
Community Programs Coordinator.
Who created fake verification?
Romano Aviation Consulting paid a freelance web developer to create domain and one-page site.
Luca.
Premeditation.
Then bank statements.
Real account.
But Luca had deposited $6,000–$8,000 monthly for six months, then withdrew comparable amounts through household accounts.
It looked like regular consulting income.
In reality, circular transfers.
He manufactured debt-service ability.
Why?
Because once refinance closed, original mortgage and HELOC would become one loan solely under my name.
He had court decree awarding home to me.
The bank believed divorce real and financial settlement complete.
I would own house.
And owe around $537,000.
Current value:
$610,000.
Almost no equity left.
My $165,000 inheritance down payment essentially gone.
Meanwhile Chicago condo purchase:
$315,000.
Current equity:
about $80,000 after mortgage.
Romano Aviation Consulting:
$64,000 remaining.
Pension:
over $600,000.
Luca had extracted my equity and preserved his retirement.
The secret divorce was an asset-stripping mechanism.
Not merely romantic convenience.
Then Allison said:
“There’s another lien.”
My stomach sank.
“What?”
Second mortgage application?
No.
A home-equity advance from nine months ago.
$74,000.
I had not known.
How had bank allowed beyond $418k line?
Different lender.
Luca submitted divorce decree showing house mine and a power of attorney supposedly allowing him to act for me.
Signature:
mine.
Not.
Notarized:
Rosa Romano.
Again.
Money went:
$39,000 tax payment on Chicago condo/consulting income.
$20,000 debt.
$15,000 transfer to Rosa.
Rosa.
My mother-in-law received fifteen thousand from loan against my home.
Why?
Rebecca subpoenaed later.
Rosa used it to pay down her condo.
Payment for help?
Texts:
Luca:
Once closing done I’ll make you whole for Mercer lease and everything.
Rosa:
I don’t need payment.
Luca:
Take fifteen. You’ve carried enough.
She accepted.
“Carried” deception.
Then Rosa’s finances showed something else.
Luca had paid her $1,500 monthly for almost two years.
From Romano Aviation Consulting.
The same company funded by marital money and Leo’s college fund.
She was not merely mother helping son.
She was on payroll.
What service?
“Administrative consulting.”
No contract.
No work beyond managing lies.
My attorney called it potentially evidence of conspiracy, not automatically illegal.
Then Rosa requested meeting.
I refused at first.
She sent letter.
Elena,
I know you believe I helped Luca because I hate you.
I do not.
I laughed.
That opening did not help.
Then:
I believed the marriage was already over long before you did.
How could she decide?
She wrote:
Luca told me he wanted to leave when Leo was four. I begged him not to do anything until he was certain. Then Mia came. I believed children would be harmed by public conflict.
So she helped secret conflict instead.
Then:
I told myself you knew emotionally.
That phrase.
She equated marital unhappiness with consent to divorce.
Then:
When Luca asked me to help with service address, he said attorney needed stable location because you refused papers.
I did not.
Did she believe?
Maybe initially.
Then she impersonated?
Letter avoided.
I showed Rebecca.
She said:
“She’s minimizing.”
Yes.
Then Rosa’s attorney offered proffer.
She wanted avoid criminal exposure related forged notarization and false service.
Now fear.
We eventually agreed deposition.
Not private.
Rosa sat across with attorney.
She looked older.
“Did you pretend to be me when process server came?”
Silence.
Her lawyer whispered.
She answered:
“Yes.”
My hands shook.
“Why?”
“Luca said you knew filing was coming and would refuse.”
“Did you speak to me?”
“No.”
“Did you ever ask?”
“No.”
“Then how did you know?”
“I trusted my son.”
Family.
Again.
“Did you sign my name?”
“No.”
“Who did?”
“Luca.”
“He practiced?”
She cried.
“Yes.”
“How?”
Driver’s license copy.
Old mortgage documents.
My Christmas cards.
Then settlement witness.
Rosa signed that she saw me sign.
False.
“Why?”
“Luca said terms reflected what you would receive anyway.”
“Did you read?”
“Some.”
“Did you know pension waived?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know home debt?”
“Not total.”
“Did you know Chicago condo?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know it was funded from our house?”
She hesitated.
“Yes.”
There.
“Did Celeste know?”
“No.”
“Did you know Leo’s education money was used?”
Her face collapsed.
“Not at first.”
“When did you learn?”
“Last year.”
“And?”
“I told Luca to replace it.”
“Did he?”
“No.”
“Did you tell me?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“Because then everything came out.”
Exactly.
Protecting lies required protecting theft.
Then:
“Why fifteen thousand?”
She looked ashamed.
“He insisted.”
“You kept.”
“Yes.”
“What did you think it was?”
“From consulting.”
“Did you know consulting got money from our house?”
“Some.”
No clean.
Then she said:
“I love Leo.”
I almost stood.
“Do not use his name to make yourself feel better.”
She cried.
Fair.
“I’m sorry.”
“Are you?”
“Yes.”
“Then help fix his account.”
She agreed to return fifteen thousand plus all monthly “consulting” payments traceable—around $31,000.
She did.
Sold jewelry/car.
Good.
Not enough.
Then a new discovery from second lender.
The forged power of attorney gave Luca authority not only over house.
It listed:
banking,
retirement,
education accounts,
insurance.
Broad.
Had he used elsewhere?
Yes.
Leo’s 529 custodian had accepted it to change authorized account manager.
That was how withdrawals occurred.
Rosa notarized.
She had effectively helped her son gain legal-looking control over my finances.
Then life insurance.
My attorney requested.
Luca’s airline-provided life insurance:
$1.2 million.
Beneficiary changed eighteen months ago.
Old:
Elena 80%.
Leo 20%.
New:
Celeste 70%.
Mia 30%.
No Leo.
My son removed entirely.
Separate supplemental policy:
$500,000.
Celeste primary.
Mia contingent.
No Leo.
I stared.
This was not simply financial planning after alleged divorce.
Even if Luca believed us divorced, Leo remained his son.
Why remove?
Because he had designated a survivor trust? Maybe.
No.
He had simply replaced first family.
Then pension survivor waiver allowed future spouse Celeste sole spouse benefits.
Leo had education fund drained.
I felt rage unlike affair.
Adults can fail marriages.
Parents do not get to financially erase children because new life is easier.
I filed for accounting of all Leo-related assets.
Then Luca requested emergency hearing, claiming I was alienating Leo.
He wanted parenting time.
He had not seen son since airport.
He had texted.
Leo refused.
I never blocked.
Therapist advised no forced immediate.
Court scheduled.
At hearing, Luca’s attorney said:
“Mr. Romano has always been an active father.”
True.
School pickups.
Baseball.
Bedtime.
The judge asked:
“Then why does the child believe father abandoned him for second family?”
Our attorney presented announcement recording.
Courtroom heard:
Celeste, will you marry me?
My own video.
Leo’s excited whisper before:
That’s Dad!
Then silence.
I almost broke.
The judge watched Luca.
“Did you know your son was aboard?”
“No.”
“Would you have made announcement if you knew?”
“No.”
That answer hurt.
Not because he regretted proposal.
Because he regretted exposure.
Then judge:
“Did you tell child about half-sibling?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“I was waiting for appropriate time.”
Four years.
“Did you drain education account?”
His lawyer objected.
Separate financial issue.
Judge allowed limited relevance to trust.
Luca said:
“I reallocated temporarily.”
There was that word.
“Balance?”
He did not know.
I did.
$4,218.
Judge ordered no further access to child accounts.
Parenting time supervised initially with therapist due emotional rupture, not because safety violence.
Good.
Luca looked devastated.
As we left, he said:
“Elena, you’re turning Leo against me.”
I stopped.
“No.”
I looked him in eyes.
“You built a life he wasn’t allowed to know existed.”
Then:
“He’s reacting to the truth.”
May you like
That was not alienation.
It was consequence.
