{"took":94,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":8,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4176876","_score":10.445072,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint for Review The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, Att : Federal Trade Commission & Consumer Financial Protection Bureau This Complaint is Against the 3 major Credit reporting Agencies as well as the XXXX XXXX, and/or any entity that generates Credit Scores.\n\nFrom our research and/or looking into the ongoing matters and/or correspondences and/or informations obtained from others and/or correspondences it appears that FICO and/or Credit Scores are a way to circumvent credit protection laws in place and/or are a model thats used to manipulate the outcomes of percentage rates given to consumers. And its being communicated and/or represented appearances are itself is without any rules or regulations or oversight and/or is there any dispute processes available in relation to the same. \nThat it is adversely effecting economics and the wellbeing of all entities as well as consumers and/or is part of the economic system collapses, past and future, affecting financing, businesses, households as well as the average persons etc. \nIt appears it is controlled by the creditors & credit reporting agencies and/or others generating FICO and/or credit scores model 's and/or entities without any compliance to consumer protections laws, and dispute processes. \nFor example, being able to obtain what the 3 reporting agencies are reporting at no cost within limitations ( Currently more than one free report per year ) in references to an consumers FICO and/or credit score without being charged by the reporting agencies. You can not obtain a free copy f your credit score from any of the reporting agencies and/or or the summaries they are providing to creditors and/or amongst themselves and/or FICO and/or credit score generating entities compliances to regulations requirements in references free reports and/or by the 3 reporting agencies. \nThis pertains to their availability being provided to consumers in references to FICO and/or credit scores and/or summaries prior to and/or by the 3 reporting agencies as per known consumers protection regulations. This makes it so that requirements are being circumvented as well as a mystery with 100 's of variables. \n\nFurthermore, the credit reporting agencies and/or those generating FICO and/or credit scores claim that they dont provide credit scores to consumers and when consumers enquire are made, they are alluded to any such request in writing and/or are circumventing them. \n\n\nFor example, TransUnion ( Please note we are not picking on any one particular we are presenting this about all of them and/or those involved in what the topics we are presenting to you ). \nIt clearly States \" if you like to receive your \" TransUnion Credit Score \" please provide payment then they state \" score if applicable. '' This creates an atmosphere where consumers aren't able to know which of the 100 's of models will be used and/or are applicable to them at any time or during times they are considering financing. \nThis in turn is manipulated by creditors while forcing consumers to have, numerous hard inquiries which lower their scores. \nBecause of the classic tactic used by creditors is, that your rate payments and/or if you qualify is dependence of your FICO and/or credit score which is not free of charge and good luck on that one. The FICO score is a shame and its part of the shell game and it needs to be addressed by this agency and/or the agency needs to forward this complaint to whoever has jurisdiction and/or legislators and/or those who handle Fair Credit Act Violations. Our last complaint fell on death ears and we hope and pray that the new administration will review this complaint and take proper actions to put an end to the Credit Score Shell Game Shame. \nThe Credit Score Which is a secrete between the reporting agencies entities and/or the creditors and the circumvention is the 100 's of models used and even according to TransUnion and the other 3 Credit reporting agencies is a mystery. \nIt also eliminates any prequalification processes excused by the FICO and/or scorecard entities and/or elimination of numerous hard credits inquires instead it increases the need for hard inquiries. \nWhen in fact the same entities have the ability to do soft credit inquires without any consumers consents. All while putting consumers at a disadvantage while opening the door for manipulation of the same and/or rates, credibility and/or for the shell game to occur. The days of Soft inquiries are over and/or The Credit Score Shell Game Scam is the new norm no matter how unfair and biased it is as well as flawed. \nAccording to TransUnion response 100 's of models are used throughout the United States and there are so many variables to generate any one FICO and/or credit score so the XXXX are plentiful. \nAnd if that wasn't bad enough every hard credit inquires drops consumers scores because of the 100 's of models used predicts consumers credit unworthiness and/or that a consumer is less credible due to any given models prediction. \nAlthough some may consider it as one inquiry or lower ones scores less while other 's may not. And again, because there is 100 's of methods used one agency may not of consider it so while others may again its presented as a mystery with many variables created to circumvent any regulatory protections put in place. \nIt also allows the creditors to play the shell game all while raising the price and/or interest rates available to the average consumers and/or denying average consumers of the reserves available at such times that usurping is occurring by scrupulous individuals and/or a limited partnership. \nWhile doing so impacting the overall economy by creating a negative impact on it in the long term by forcing the Fed to drop interest rates creating usurping of scrupulous individuals of those drops which most everyone else is not eligible because of these matters we are reporting about. \nWho then are benefitting from them through a limited partnership of investors that uses high risk methods, such as investing with borrowed money, in hopes of realizing large capital gains and/or through manipulation and/or circumventing preventive measures legislated and/or put in place? \nMeanwhile its usurping the reserves and/or creating higher payments and/or restricting availability of reserves to a limited partnership of investors. Creating a situation where as themselves exclusives in possession of and/or control of the supply of and/or trade in a commodity or services and/or rates reserves etc. available at any given in any point of time. \nAll while having an overall negative impact on the economic systems creating collapses by making such reserves unavailable to consumers and just available to the scrupulous limited individuals who are usurping them. \nWhom also are profiteering from the crashing of the financial economics systems while placing the burdens or bankrupting companies, which may be for-profit, non-profit or government-owned, that sells the promise to pay for certain expenses in exchange for a regular fee, called a premium? All of which is creating the need for an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse. \n\nThe same situations occur when the 100 's of models used predicts one who has the capacity to enter a binding contract has and/or wants to increase the amount of merchant accounts or creditors by lowering their scores. Which is a clear violation of the Fair Credit Act it is discrimination at its best and it based on models that those who are circumventing the Fair Credit Act have willful designed with the purpose to do such. Its not based on your actual history or records it based on a model that most people dont actually fit in. A one size fits all. Its based on other people or some model that some annalist concocted. We will get into some specific situations that occurs in my instances and/or complaint. \nThis also forces and/or opens the door for consumers and/or entities go outside of the United States for financing or to scrupulous or shady characters and/or those engaged in money laundering. \nCreating a negative impact in doing so also creates jitters in the stock markets. And a domino effect of selling of stocks again it impacts the overall economy based on predictions created by a computer prediction system. \nThis is full of unknown variables, which in any given time could change. This in fact in the past has caused the markets to crash. Creating regulatory changes where human interaction is required and/or other safeguards had to be put in place. \nSo basically, it appears their circumventing credit laws that are applicable and are in cohorts with financial institutions and/or FICO and/or other such entities being without any oversight, guidance and/or standards. \nNor can consumers dispute what they are reporting in references to consumers credit scores and/ or their summaries and/or FICO and/or Credit Scores assigned by them and/or any entity. \nWhich the amount of interest rates or availability of credit and/or is the gauge of consumers credibility along with a summary as in the copy we provided to the regulatory oversight agencies and/or ones credibility is determined by and/or based on The Credit Score Shell Scam. \nOr can consumers know what the methods used were or can consumers have any FICO and/or credit scores that are incorrect fixed because there is \" hundreds '' and those methods no one can know except those using them at any given point of time and they can vary. \nSo therefore, they are correct as well as the process according to such by appearance. \nThis should be an indicator that something is wrong and/or of no consistency due to errors and/or data, predictions and/or validity and/or 100 % accuracy isnt occurring properly. \nCreating variables that can be manipulated and/or have an adverse effect on a consumers credit rating, is considered it appears, to be represented as the norm by them which concocted by some analysis based according to them what other people have done. \nAnd as they will state and/or have stated its up to the financial and credit reporting agencies and/or FICO and/or an entity to determine what that is by manipulating and/or generating the \" 100 's of scoring models used today '' Which predicts & profiles, that is discriminatory by its very nature. And uses analysis of hundreds of others prior billing payments made and/or historical data. And not by the individual themselves. \nThen they are allowed to place whomever they want however they want in any category they want without any consistency creating variables in a category whether applicable or not. \nLets look at an example of that if you pay off a Mortgage in full your credit score drops because you paid and account and closed it. ( See Attached copy of Screen Shot ) So, if you borrow and pay back, youre punished by having to pay higher rates and/or even not being able to be granted credit. Because of the Credit Score Shell Game Scam. \nIn this example I had a few different mortgages for different properties al that were paid on time. As well as at times refinanced and/or paid in full. \nLets review some of that the 1st unfair and/or inaccuracy that occurs by the analysis model is that when you refinance a mortgage to get a lower interest rate which increases your income to debt ratio your credit score drops. That is not appropriate and opposite of what should occur. People who do smart money management or lower interest rates lower the length a mortgage are put into the Credit Score Shell Game Scam. And their credit score drops instead of going up. \nNext, they also totally act as though there is no history of mortgage payments for example when you refinance to increase your income to debt ratio the prior mortgage is paid in full. Your then placed in the category which is not correct for the asset and/or the property and/or what has occurred your Credit Score Shell Scam drops. The reason explained is because 2 things one you closed an account. So, are people supposed to keep a mortgage account open that was paid off? Being paced in that category is erroneous and not correct and/or should it be allowed and/or applicable. \nLets look at another worse example. If you pay off your mortgage then own the property outright and have no more mortgage payments on that property. Once again, your wrongfully paced in the Credit Score Shell Scam. \nFor example, your mortgage that you paid off was XXXX a month and you have a duplex that is renting for XXXX a month and a property that you own ( Asset ) Worth Approximately XXXX and you just increased your income to debt ration your credit score drops again because of the Credit Score Shell Scam. \nAgain, its unfair not accurate and is erroneous and/or not based on your actual situation. And/or credit worthiness. Its based on the Unfair Credit Score Shell Scam. \nYoure also punished if you use cash to make purchase and/or pay off bills to avoid interest charges and/or fees. That again punishes and literally fines people for smart management of money and/or their credit to debt ratios. \nFor example, you got a credit card from XXXX XXXX at 0 % interest to work on another duplex so you could lower the mortgage payment and get a better rate as well as pull equity out while updating improving the property to make it so that an apartment income that was not prior could occur. Then you pay off that card because the original agreement you made with the creditor and/or XXXX XXXX was you had to pay the bill off by a certain time to avoid interest cost and be at 0 %. Afterwards your credit score drops again and why well because of the Unfair Credit Score Shell Scam. \nSo, if you have no credit cards and/or have mortgages they dont matter because you dont have credit cards. If you get a credit card for a certain reason then pay it in full and close that account you are again punished because of your good money management and/or keeping your cost down and increasing cash flow and/or savings. You score will go down because Consumer Closed Account. \nYour supposed to keep accounts open so they can charge you fees and/or membership fees and/or in hopes that you max it out and can not pay it seems be the hidden agenda and/or how it is in appearance all of which is hidden and allowed by the so-called Fair Credit Act. \nAnd its all, up to all of them, by doing such manipulative things like the % rates a consumer will be eligible for and/or is based on and/or calculated at any given point of time and/or even afterwards they dont have to correct it. \n\nThen when new data occurs and/or when the previous data predictions were incorrect and/or one of the hundreds of models used predictions was wrong and/or no ones held accountable nor is it fixed and/or adjusted.\n\nThey also dont have to show consumers nor can consumers dispute what them secrete clubs summaries are in references to the ones generated until afterwards ( you apply for credit and then you get a reason of any action and/or rates based on the credit score in that model ) and there is no process or oversight for such a dispute. \nFurthermore, conveniently they dont have to provide such to consumers because they are circumventing the laws in place to protect the consumers and/or are manipulators by proxies. Or can consumers know and/or or request what those methods are because there is hundreds \" of them. \nThis is a clear violation of consumers rights and protections laws under many areas and we are notifying you so you can fix this and/or send to those who can. \nIn the past we asked reporting agencies in writing witnesses by this consumer protection agency about this and/or their processes and they alluded time and time again and/or play a game of words that cleverly talks their way around it in writing. Lack of action made it so I have to pay a higher interest rate then what my actual rate should have been all because of the Unfair Credit Score Shell Game Scam. \nWe remind everyone of them that doesn't elevate their having to complying with the laws. Or is it an acceptable excuse in having not too. That these reporting agencies have discriminated against me and its costing me money as well as making it difficult to do anything in an ecconmy that needs stimulus packages. It also forces people to have higher payments and rates that all of whom qualify for such and again the reason being the Unfair Credit Score Shell Scam. \nFrom the beginning they played coy ; We had no choice except to file complaints that in the prior administration fell on death ears we hope and pray this will not be the case with the current administration we dont need free credit reports every moth we need an overhaul of the processes we are reporting on. \n( Those report case numbers can be provided at request you will note everything we are reporting now ). You already had them and the record of actions are very clear to anyone who wants to do the proper credit analyses.\n\nWhen inquiries were generated, they would tell us about financial agencies FICO score models or any non-pertinent information about themselves are part of the process or summarizing consumers reports. \n\nThey were also well versed on them we continued and/or are repeating that request and/or results of such investigations into those previous requests made in writing or investigations of all of which they alluded to. They also play the blame game or the loop hole well we are just reporting what the 100s of models that are used to give a credit score so therefore we are not responsible for them and/or either are they and good luck trying to dispute it and/or request accuracies. \nSo even though you may get that from them or some entity or one of the 100 's of models used and report it to anybody its not their ( The 3 credit reporting agencies ) responsibility if its wronged its theirs ( the 100s of models being used ) and/or because there are 100s of ways scores can be determined and/or models used all which can vary. When in fact they are charging for such reports? \nFor example, for vehicle purchases a different model is used then for a Mortgage the so-called credit Karma and others Credit Score Shell Scam can be different so there is no way for any consumer to get a report thats applicable to any given instance and/or accurate. You can pay for one but it may not serve the purpose of why you paid to know it because it may not be used by the lender. Lenders dont have to tell you what one they will use and you have to let them do a hard inquiry which drops your Credit Score Shell Scam.\n\nOr is it that consumers aren't allowed to know by whomever what methods were used or is there any regulatory guidelines standards and/or any way to dispute them. Because the way to circumvent and/or manipulate such protections is to scapegoat the topic by saying we just report information provided by creditors and/or or FICO Credit Scores and/or one of the hundreds of models used ''.\n\nAnd consumers can just dispute anything except FICO or credit scores which is the most important part of your credit report. \nAnd just those who produce credit scores and/or credit reports know those processes and/or the 3 credit reporting agencies just have to give consumers information on those things that they are willing to and/or they dont have to verify the validity of it? As well as address disputes related to them and/or methods used during such processes based on their reporting? Does not seem like a Fair Credit Act to me. \nSome if you do their jobs and/or give them information thats not included will boost your scores while others will charge you to do so. Experian is a perfect example of that Credit Score Shell Scam.\n\nThe scores for sale trend and good luck with that one because even if you use it the creditor can use any model they want and/or make a new one. All of it is allowed and there is no oversite and the Fair Credit Act is circumvented once again. \n\nWhen you address it, they respond by shifting the blame to FICO and/or the credit scores and/or 100s of models used. \nWhich again we ask all involved in this report we are generating. What are the processes to dispute that aspect of consumers reports ( credit scores and with whom? And/or how ) which determines what consumers interest rates will be at any given point of time and/or consumer 's credibility rating is?\n\nIts the most important part of your credit reports and its not covered in the Fair Credit Act and is a way to circumvent it.\n\nWe also became aware of another violation if you try to get pre approvals and make any statement on such requests that is supposed to be a soft inquiry that information is used to lower your Unfair Credit Score Shell Scam. \nI was discriminated during such a process and as well as became aware of an error that was put on my account as well as to how they discriminate against anyone who retires. If you retire you Credit Score Shell Scam drops. It doesnt matter what your actual status is. \nThat is discriminatory most people who retire their homes and cars are paid off they have a pension and/or social security which is a violation The Fair Credit Act. However, it is allowed to occur because of the Unfair Credit Score Shell Scam. \nAnd which we remind the reporting agencies of your purpose for generating reports are based on which your companies are profiting from. And the law is they must be accurate which they are not because of the Unfair Credit Score Shell Game Scam. \nWhat are the consumer protections requirements etc.? What are the consumers rights protection laws dispute processes or governing processes for those matter 's? Why is there no required information that must be given to consumers during such processes about it? Or is it that those requirements have been willfully circumvented? \nBe forewarned the 3 reporting agencies are directly involved in these proceedings and should be held accountable no matter how it chooses to try to scapegoat its responsibilities under the law. \n\nAnd as you are witnessing it will be addressed and/or reported too and/or by the proper authorities and us as well as legislative branches when applicable and as per our request during filing this report. \nWe also now request that an analysis of the markets be done by an independent consumers rights agency since the introduction of FICO and/or Credit Scores to determine what extent its effects are and/or what the impact is. \nWe will not tolerate such activities from anyone who is engaging in such practices as the mentioned appearances are apparent. \nAnd we will work together with anyone who wants to comply and conform and/or address any pending matters and/or shortfalls of consumer protections and rights as well as the reporting agencies and everyone else 's rights in an applicable manner. \nTogether we should all be concerned about the heartbeat of the financial economics mentioned above together we stand divided we fall. If the stability of economics crashes all will suffer including those worldwide. \nLets get to the meat and potatoes of things and review this topic. \n\nFrom our research and/or looking into the ongoing matters and/or correspondences and/or informations obtained from others and/or our correspondences it appears that FICO and/or Credit Scores is a way to circumvent credit protection laws in place and/or are a model thats used to manipulate the outcomes of percentage rates given to consumers. \n\nAnd it's being communicated and/or represented appearances are itself is without any rules or regulations or oversight and/or is there any dispute processes available in relation to the same. And its in non-compliances and/or appearances are its circumventing SUBCHAPTER IIICREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES 1681. \n\nCongressional findings and statement of purpose as it pertains to Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting and also Reasonable procedures ( b ) ( a ) 1-4 specifically in references to consideration or lack of consideration of certain factors by credit scoring systems resulting in negative or differential treatment of protected classes under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as many others. ( Note we are not going to list through all the codes and/or infractions at this time and they are very clear and obligatory. ) That it is adversely effecting economics and the wellbeing of all entities as well as consumers and/or is part of the economic system collapses, past and future, affecting financing, businesses, households as well as the average persons etc. It appears it is controlled by the creditors & credit reporting agencies and/or others generating FICO Credit Scores models and/or entities without any compliance to consumer protections laws, and dispute processes. \n\nFor example, being able to obtain what the 3 reporting agencies are reporting at no cost within limitations in references to an consumers FICO score without being charged by in this example TransUnion and/or or the summaries they are providing to creditors and/or amongst themselves and/or FICO generating entities compliances to regulations requirements in references free reports and/or by the 3 reporting agencies ( which includes the scores and/or 100s of models scores ). In references to it pertaining to the availability being provided to consumers in references to FICO scores and/or summaries prior to and/or by the 3 reporting agencies as per known consumers protection regulations.\n\nThat making it so that requirements are being circumvented as well as a mystery with 100 's of variables in 1681c1 2 Access to free reports. And it is obvious that things 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq addresses needs to occur. Furthermore, their claims are that they dont provide credit scores to consumers yet on page 3 of their prior response ( and it appears they are trying to again elude these requests in writing and/or are circumventing them ). It clearly States if you like to receive your \" Credit Score please provide payment then it states \" score if applicable. '' Thank you for your time and reviewing this report.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-03-02T18:30:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"080XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4176876","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2021-03-02T18:15:46.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It appears it is controlled by the creditors & credit reporting agencies and/or others <em>generating</em> FICO Credit Scores models and/or entities without any <em>compliance</em> to consumer protections laws, and dispute processes."]},"sort":[10.445072,"4176876"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7980357","_score":10.080631,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX NOTICE TO DEMAND PAYMENT FOR CONTINUED VIOLATIONS BY EQUIFAX EQUIFAX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, Georgia XXXX Equifax trades and securitizes my information and claims to have a humane mission statement for caring for community and culture. However, will not do what their goals and mission states they are in existence for. \nChief Executive Financial Officer XXXX XXXX seems singularly concerned with Equifax financial goals and to keep consumers information to profit from. World wide in the markets, and with millions profited YET ; never clears the reports of inaccurate information that is not verified. Without the consumer there would not be such wealth and profit in the markets by Equifax. We are being used to generate profit as human transmitting utilities. \n\nThe vastly inaccurate information on my credit report has been a war waged monthly with Equifax since XX/XX/XXXX ; and is verified with documentation, CFPB Complaints, certified mail receipts, and pain and mental suffering. \n\nI AM NOT ASKING FOR A XXXX ADDRESS VERIFICATION. I AS A CONSUMER HAVE SUFFERRED WITH NON VERIFIED AND STALLED TACTICS, INFORMATION/INVESTIGATIONS THAT DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT EQUIFAX WAS NOT ADHERING TO FCRA GUIDELNES .... THE ACCOUNTS HAVE NEVER MATCHED- OPENING AND CLOSING DATES INCORRECT, LAST TIME USED DATES WRONG, HIGHEST BALANCE AMOUNTS, AND ABSURD DEROGATORY COMMENTS ARE ALL INCONSISTENT AND WRONG. \n\nThis notice is official documentation showing the inability of Equifax to report accurate and updated information on my credit report. This willful non compliance of Equifax to deny fair and accurate reporting violates my rights as a consumer. Furthermore, the improper and derogatory reporting from Equifax has caused thousands of dollars in loss of credit ; and my mortgage denial.\n\nEquifax continues to violate : 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater ; I prove Equifax willfully violated the act I am entitled to at least XXXX $ per violation plus any other damages I have sustained as a result of failure to follow the law. If I have to file more than XXXX complaint, willful noncompliance can easily be proven as Equifax had a full understanding of the violations after I complained the XXXX time. \n\n15 U.S. Code 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports Subject to subsection ( c ), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other ( XXXX ) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. \nEquifax needs my written consent to add anything to my consumer report if I did not give this authorization that is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act P.L 90-321 ( 82 Stat. 146 ) which is law law that backs the code is even stricter as it states that any agency can only get a consumers report in response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency ( or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency ) 15 U.S. Code 1681c - Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information : Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. No adverse item besides the conviction of crimes should be on my report any item that is a derogatory mark is not allowed into consumer reports this is another violation SEE ALL THE FLAWED AND INACCURATE ACCOUNTS REPORTING ATTACHED THAT XXXX HAS NOT HELPED WITH OR DELETED MULTIPLE MONTHS IN A ROW. \n\nATTACHMENTS POWER OF ATTRONEY XXXX ( XXXX KB ) Complete credit report XXXX XXXX ( XXXX MB ) FEE SCHEDULE PAGE XXXX ( XXXX KB ) POWER OF ATTORNEY PAGE XXXX ( XXXX KB ) FEE SCHEDULE PAGE XXXX ( XXXX KB ) View full complaint","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-11T18:09:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48329","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7980357","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-12-11T17:51:26.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This willful non <em>compliance</em> of Equifax to deny fair and accurate reporting violates my rights as a consumer. Furthermore, the improper and derogatory reporting from Equifax has caused thousands of dollars in loss of credit ; and my <em>mortgage</em> denial.\n\nEquifax continues to violate : 15 U.S."]},"sort":[10.080631,"7980357"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3476973","_score":9.954084,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and real estate licensed transactional brokers failed to perform an audit of their compliance with the VA Home Loan Guaranty VALERI system of record and have violated multiple provisions of the Servicemember Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ). The SCRA was designed to protect XXXX  XXXX  servicemembers and families, like mine, during times of service. \n\nFinancial institutions and transactional mortgage brokers that violate the law repeatedly and substantially are not making serious enough efforts to report accurate information or enforce the provisions under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ). Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper compliance systems are flawed, and generated VA backed mortgage lending account data with significant, preventable errors. Nationstar also failed to maintain detailed SCRA and VA Home Loan Guaranty data collection and validation procedures, and failed to implement adequate compliance procedures since the mortgage servicer account dispute began in XXXX. \n\n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX closed on the purchase of a residential property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OK XXXX. The loan was a Department of Veteran Affairs Home Loan Guaranty ( VA ) backed loan. XXXX and XXXX XXXX were married and both were military veterans at the time of closing on the property. The primary borrower was pre-selected as XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX co-signed as a VA Rider status on a residential mortgage originated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, serviced by MERS, also known as XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX, XXXX  f/k/a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( C.D. Cal. ). Shortly after closing XXXX services mortgage loans became a wholly owned subsidiary of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX- XXXX, Oklahoma licensed realtor and transactional broker XXXX XXXX , also doing business as XXXX XXXX failed to close on a contracted agreement ( or collect good faith funds from a no-show buyer ) on the residential property. On the same day, XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX XXXX/XXXX  XXXX offered contingency options to quit claim deed the property on the sport or have at least one owner of the property sign a 3-year rental management agreement while under financial duress. \n\nXXXX- XXXX, XXXX County , Oklahoma , a court issued divorce decree awarded the VA backed mortgaged property and its interest in the free and clear of any title or mortgage to XXXX XXXX ( ex-wife/plaintiff in court records ). The court order included a clause to which the divorce decree could be used as a conveyance tool for enforcement purposes. Notice of the awarded property interest to XXXX XXXX and a copy of the divorce decree were submitted to the mortgage servicer ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) as required for a major event update to the VA home loan guaranty VALERI system of record, and the property manager XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX operating as the mortgage servicer, required the divorce decree be submitted to the XXXX County Clerks office in order to have the awarded property equity, and successor in interest status recorded for the purposes of the deed, title, and transfer of ownership. \n\nXXXX- XXXX, XXXX XXXX re-married and provided notice with forwarding address and copies of the official legal documentation to transfer financial accounts, government identification, and property interests into the legally changed name XXXX XXXX . \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX was contacted by the residential occupants ( also known as the only other tenants or renters besides the owner ) of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The occupants disclosed XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  was in possession of several months of mail and delivery notifications sent from mortgage servicer XXXX  XXXX XXXX and the addressed financial and legal enclosures were explicitly sent to XXXX XXXX. \n\nFollow up with XXXX XXXX/XXXX  XXXX  confirmed the transactional broker XXXX XXXX had withheld mail and also disclosed a Lis Pendens petition had been filed with the XXXX County court clerk in XX/XX/XXXX. Both XXXX  XXXX XXXX and Nationstar Mortgage LLC mailed notifications enclosed with time sensitive information and privileged letters. Months of withheld notifications and mail delivery concealed the intent of the new lender/owner to foreclose on the VA backed property, which would also proceed without a successful confirmed delivery notification to either the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) or the successor in interest, XXXX XXXX in violation of Service member Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ). \n\nBy withholding of the security deposit, several months of collected rents, attempts to charge additional late rent and allegations of property damage by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX  amounted to early termination charges in violation of the SCRA. The Fair Housing Act law concludes a complaint must also state a cause of action against both the individual property manager XXXX XXXX, and his business entity doing business as XXXX XXXX. \n\n\nNationstar Mortgage LLC is a servicer of federally related mortgage loans, and at some unknown point and time, represented itself to the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) as the new mortgage servicer of the VA backed home loan. As the successor in interest, I ( XXXX XXXX ) did not receive letters in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or XX/XX/XXXX informing me the servicing rights for the loan had been transferred to Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and received no advance notice of the transfer nor an opportunity to discuss the prior ACH electronic payment arrangement with the mortgage servicer or the bank since the issuance of the divorce decree in XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAs the Department of Veteran Affairs has previously published and warned ; In some parts of the country, veterans who are not familiar with real estate transactions have been \" taken in '' by shady deals usually called \" milking '' or equity skimming. In one form of this racket, the veteran/primary borrower, who is behind in VA loan payments, is approached by unknown persons who offer to pay the delinquent installments if the veteran will \" sign on the dotted line. '' The veteran later learns that he or she has signed a deed and can get the property back only by signing another contract at a much higher price. \n\n\nNationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  violated both the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) by making unauthorized changes to the previously established ACH electronic payment transfers without providing proper notice to the VA home loan guaranty VALERI system of record, or directly to primary borrower, or myself ( as the awarded successor in interest ). 15 U.S.C. 1693e ( b ) provides that in the case of preauthorized transfers from a consumers account to the same person which may vary in amount, the financial institution or designated payee shall, prior to each transfer, provide reasonable advance notice to the consumer, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, of the amount to be transferred and the scheduled date of the transfer. \n\n\nFrom XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, other than payment delinquencies, no other unrestricted transfer reports or major event updates were filed with Department of Veterans Affairs Home Loan Guaranty division through the required VALERI ( VA Loan Electronic Reporting Interface ). The fiduciary responsibility to report a Significant Loan Event through the VALERI system falls on the mortgage servicer ( Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper ). The VA loan guaranty division can not accept a security instrument or a divorce decree from a successor in interest, therefore can not update my associated VA loan case number without the mortgage servicer disclosures and legally verified support documentation. The failure of the mortgage servicer to file the lis pendens action and non-judicial foreclosure notices with the Department of Veteran Affairs Home Loan Guaranty division in a timely manner perpetuated false information from Nationstar customer service representatives about the mitigation options available to myself ( as both successor in interest and as a Veteran who also served in the military ), the loss of equity, increased liabilities and risks associated with the disputed property. \n\nThe main Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and transactional broker violations pertain to RESPA and TILA provisions and official interpretations, which can be found in 12 CFR 1024, Regulation X, and 12 CFR 1026, Regulation Z, specifically found within : 1024.17, Escrow accounts and 1024.37, Forced placed insurance 1024.35, Error resolution procedures and 1024.36, Requests for information 1024.38, General servicing policies, procedures and requirements 1024.39, Early intervention and 1024.41, Loss mitigation procedures 1026.20, Disclosure requirements regarding post-consummation events 1026.36, Payment processing and 1026.41 Periodic statements 1026.40, Continuity of Contact Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper, XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX   also conducted an unauthorized credit inquiry that violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). It remains unclear if the mortgage was transferred, sold, or solicited by Nationstar as a high-risk loan modification offer to the primary borrower or to an undisclosed third party private investor. One of several notices withheld by the transactional broker XXXX XXXX, was titled Credit Score Disclosure, which would have shown Nationstar Mortgage LLC performed a credit check and fallen outside any use permitted under the FCRA. The credit check, previous lender ACH electronic transfers, and bank account balances along with protected personal information were shared with unauthorized 3rd parties ( specifically, the terminated property manager XXXX XXXX, the evicted occupants, and other real estate associated transactional brokers in the same office ). \n\nXXXX -Eviction of the unverified occupants and property management agreement termination were sent via certified return receipt. XXXX XXXX  transactional broker/property manager XXXX XXXX contested the transfer of ownership to XXXX XXXX and refused a broker trust account audit. XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  is in breach of contract after repeatedly refusing a broker trust account audit which denied and concealed any review of 5 years ( XXXX-XXXX  ) worth of itemized lists for repairs, receipts, occupant/renter background checks, proof of identity, or income statements. XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  and Nationstar Mortgage LLC also failed to produce any material evidence of signed lease contracts or notarized agreements between the owner or with any known verifiable renter occupants as Oklahoma state law and the real estate commission required. \n\nDuring this time, Nationstar Mortgage LLC became a designated payee as used in the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693e ( b ), in that Nationstar initiated and received electronic fund transfers from a joint account opened prior to the divorce decree, that were preauthorized or purportedly preauthorized. \n\nXXXX- I, ( XXXX XXXX ) continued the legal eviction process of the unverified John Doe occupants and made qualified written demands for origination paperwork, requested identification of any known investors, and inquired about any alternatively sourced agreements with the primary borrower ( ex-husband, XXXX XXXX ) who resided and worked within the same area as the property from XXXX through XXXX. As the successor in interest of the property, I was denied refinancing, denied loss mitigation options, and denied a loan modification because the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) refused to consent, acknowledge, or participate in any VA unrestricted transfer process, in direct contempt of the divorce decree. As the mortgage servicer, Nationstar/Mr. Cooper repeatedly dismissed and ignored the divorce decree as a legal conveyance tool and failed to report a VA Unrestricted Transfer, major loan event and declined to file a partial Release of Liability. \n\nNationstar asserted ONLY the VA backed primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) could apply or be approved for loss mitigation or loan modification services. Without the primary borrowers cooperation or written consent, my successor in-interest equity along with my current husbands ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) good name, credit, and security clearances as an XXXX XXXX service member were maliciously defamed and penalized after the property ownership was contested and driven back into delinquency due to willful negligence of Nationstar Mortgage LLC and XXXX XXXX doing business as transactional brokers. \n\nXXXX- A second lis pendens was filed against XXXX XXXX and not the primary VA loan backed borrower, XXXX XXXX . Contrary to the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act ( RESPA ), codified at 12 U.S.C. 2605, which governs the duty of loan servicers to respond to borrower inquiries it categorizes as Qualified Written Requests ( QWRs ), since XXXX, Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper customer service representatives and XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX have denied knowledge of any private investor contracts or secondary lien agreements, yet both business entities have failed to provide a complete and accurate explanation of the transfer paperwork, refused the disclosure of contact logs documenting the primary borrowers recorded statements, and remain silent on the absence of any tenant signed and notarized rental agreements from XXXX-XXXX. More concerning are the missing major loan event update reports to the VA home loan guaranty VALERI system of record, and the advanced lender expenses paid out to undisclosed property management vendors and then charged to the escrow account. \n\nXXXX - Nationstar Mortgage, LLC/dba Mr. Cooper, violated 533 when it maintained certain fees related to a rescinded Notice of Default on the disputed account while ( XXXX XXXX, also a veteran ) is the successor in interest and military spouse of a service member ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is still currently ) serving on XXXX XXXX and protected by the provisions under thee SCRA. \n\nCongress passed the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) in 1974 to protect homeowners by assisting them in becoming better educated while shopping for real estate services, and eliminating kickbacks and referral fees, which add unnecessary costs to settlement services. RESPA requires lenders and others involved in mortgage lending to provide borrowers with pertinent and timely disclosures regarding the nature and costs of a real estate settlement process. Congress has also authorized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to promulgate RESPAs implementing rules and regulations, including the rules codified in 12 C.F.R. 1024 ( Regulation X ).\n\nCongress has authorized a private right of action for violations of RESPA, including violations of Regulation X. 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( f ) ; 2605 ( k ) ( E ) ; 2614.\n\n12 U.S.C. 2605 ( k ) ( C ) states that a servicer of a federally related mortgage shall not fail to take timely action to respond to a borrowers requests to correct errors relating to allocation of payments, final balances for purposes of paying off the loan, or avoiding foreclosure, or other standard servicers duties. \n\n12 C.F.R. 1024.33 states : ( b ) Notices of transfer of loan servicing ( 1 ) Requirement for notice. Except as provided in paragraph ( b ) ( 2 ) of this section, each transferor servicer and transferee servicer of any mortgage loan shall provide to the borrower a notice of transfer for any assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan. The notice must contain the information described in paragraph ( b ) ( 4 ) of this section. Appendix MS-2 of this part contains a model form for the disclosures required under this paragraph ( b ).\n\n( 2 ) Certain transfers excluded. \n( i ) The following transfers are not assignments, sales, or transfers of mortgage loan servicing for purposes of this section if there is no change in the payee, address to which payment must be delivered, account number, or amount of payment due : ( 3 ) Time of notice ( i ) In general. Except as provided in paragraphs ( b ) ( 3 ) ( ii ) and ( iii ) of this section, the transferor servicer shall provide the notice of transfer to the borrower not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan. The transferee servicer shall provide the notice of transfer to the borrower not more than 15 days after the effective date of the transfer. The transferor and transferee servicers may provide a single notice, in which case the notice shall be provided not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan. \n\n\nXXXX The 2nd lis pendens foreclosure petition is withdrawn, only to have a 3rd lis  pendens petition filed with the XXXX County Court Clerk, listing a John Doe Occupant, along with the original primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ), and lists the successor in interest as a defendant under the former name XXXX XXXX and not legal name XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX FTC complaint filed by XXXX XXXX, regarding the disputed property, suspected identity theft, mail fraud, forgery, violations of SCRA and Privacy Act. Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper failed to check consistently for the military status of mortgagors prior to filing lis pendens petition with the clear intent to foreclose on the VA backed mortgaged property. Noted in my complaint, specific to the continued unauthorized use of my former name ( XXXX XXXX ) ; It is unlawful for any person ( s ) to use a fictitious name, give a false or fictitious address, or make any false statement in any application or affidavit required under the provisions of a stated regulatory chapter or in a bill of sale or sworn statement of ownership or otherwise commit a fraud in any application. '' As of XX/XX/XXXX, the VA Home Loan Guaranty VALERI system of records showed no major event updates on the assigned VA loan case number, no unrestricted transfers, and none of the ( 3 ) previously filed lis pendens foreclosure petitions have been reported. However, the most recent entries by a mortgage servicer reported over 50 delinquent monthly payments associated with the VA loan case number, my legal name XXXX XXXX and my social security number. Credit bureaus continue to post negative monthly credit reports to my identity as XXXX XXXX, whilst listing the unauthorized former name XXXX XXXX as seriously delinquent ( not as successor-in-interest who is not responsible for the mortgage ), as I continue to be denied a VA unrestricted transfer of ownership per the XXXX divorce decree. \n\nNationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has failed to release a communication history, ignored written requests for a contact log with the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ), and representatives have refused verbal and written demands to disclose the private investor information after listing the investor status on the most recent XXXX payoff quote. \n\nThrough the mortgage servicers relaunched website and consumer login portal, Nationstar Mortgage LLC /dba Mr. Cooper shows changed legal names and mailing addresses of the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) and myself, altered at least 12 times in the past 18 months. Representatives have recklessly conflated protected information and delivered official mail to the wrong persons. Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has shown no intention to properly disclose and explain the significant accounting discrepancies between XXXX-XXXX in third party property management vendor billable activities, or the additional thousands of dollars paid out and charged to the escrow account over the past 24 months. \n\nOn approximately XX/XX/XXXX, without my knowledge or written consent, property inspectors working on behalf of Nationstar Mortgage LLC/Mr. Cooper changed the locks on the disputed vacant property ( for at least a 3rd time  since XX/XX/XXXX ). Additional repairs for damages and maintenance were requested by the vendor due to the discovery of personal effects and hazardous cleaning materials belonging to an unknown trespasser. To date, no law enforcement report has been filed by the mortgage servicer, nor its property management or its vendor by extension. \n\nAs of present, there are no procedures or protocols made available to me on how Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper or its property management vendors by extension will communicate who is in legal possession of the VA backed property or if and how criminal breaking and entering activities by unknown trespassers will be recorded, documented, and reported to local law enforcement, or to the successor-in-interest if it happens ( yet again ) in the near future. Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has failed to disclose any conflict of interest with third party property management vendors servicing the disputed property, nor has there been any disclosures regarding the previously evicted freeloading occupants and if any claims were submitted or paid ( without a police report or authenticated receipts ) against the insurance under-writer. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, Nationstar/dba Mr. Cooper has failed to respond to my qualified written requests ( sent via certified mail, fax, and email ) for communication logs, the identity of private investor ( if any ), and an itemized breakdown and sourced identities of the XXXX erroneously Unapplied Funds transactions listed in the most recently made available Escrow Analysis, produced by Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper. \n\nUnder principles of equity and good conscience, Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  should not be permitted to retain revenue that it acquired by virtue of its unlawful conduct. \n\nNationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has acted unlawfully, unfairly, and deceptively. As a result of their unlawful, unfair, and deceptive conduct both my XXXX XXXX husband and I ( XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX ) have been faulted for unauthorized amounts of claims and denied access to the evidence of criminal trespassing on the disputed property. The privacy and the safety of our children is paramount and as a military family all of our rights have been repeatedly violated by the criminal misconduct of transactional brokers. We have been denied backed rents, legal fees, property possession, and our due process rights. Without any reasonable due diligence by the mortgage servicers, our ability as military family to protect and defend our legally vested financial interests, good name, and credit scores within a reasonable amount of time has been denied. By erroneously switching names and addresses on statements and legal notices with our duty assignments on federal military installations, Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  have violated the fundamental principles of the Privacy Act and the SCRA. \n\nIn addition to the unknown activities of the lis pendens listed John Doe occupant ( s ) and the unknown private investor noted on the XXXX payoff quote, Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has delayed time-sensitive written disclosures on the unlawful activities of the dual hatted property manager/licensed realtor at the core of the transaction dispute. \n\nTransactional Brokers and business entities acting or doing business as property managers unlawfully are required to be reported under the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 or any other law, rule or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2019-12-24T23:46:39.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"086XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3476973","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","date_received":"2019-12-24T22:50:39.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Financial institutions and transactional <em>mortgage</em> brokers that violate the law repeatedly and substantially are not making serious enough efforts to report accurate information or enforce the provisions under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ). Nationstar <em>Mortgage</em> LLC/dba Mr. Cooper <em>compliance</em> systems are <em>flawed</em>, and <em>generated</em> VA <em>backed</em> <em>mortgage</em> lending account data with significant, preventable errors."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Closing on a <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["VA <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[9.954084,"3476973"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3014286","_score":9.087216,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"RE : VP XXXX : MUFG Union BankXX/XX/XXXX MEMORANDUM Subject : Financial Elder Abuse MUFG Union Bank, XXXX XXXX CA TO : Dept of Justice Public Inquiry Unit ; XXXX XXXX File XXXX From : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX   XXXX  Introduction : A mortgage involves two parties ; a trust deed involves three parties : a Borrower ( the Trustor ), a Lender ( the Beneficiary ), and the title company, escrow company, or bank ( Trustee ) that holds title to the lien for the benefit of the lender and whose sole function is to initiate and complete the foreclosure process at the request of the lender. When the Beneficiary and the Trustor are the same, the Bank is the beneficiary. In a foreclosure process the Bank will tend to be both judge and jury. This places the Bank is a powerful position ;. Union initiates a false foreclosure and benefit from the outcomes. You are placed in a vulnerable position in relation to the Bank.This encourages the Bank to be aggressive and reluctant to negotiate billing disputes ; and encourages the pace of false billing. In our experience, Union Bank will employ extortion by false foreclosure as a more efficient solution than dispute resolution.\n\n1. A fixed rate option Plan can be either a trust deed or a mortgage ; but a mortgage is not a trust deed. It is always a mortgage. But a product called Fixed Rate Optiondoes n't even rate a passing mention. It is not a real product, but a general statement about a class of products that do appear in the Glossary. Under the Transfer Agreement the Consumer has an equitable right to choose his prefered option. But under the Banks wilful insistence to both offer and choose, there is no equitable contract. And in fact despite the illusion of Transfer, nothing is transferred. The original equity account will not be closed, but maintained and used. It order for the Transfer to be equitable, the Bank must respect the right of the Consumer to make the choice.That is the meaning of the word Option. But the Bank refuses to recognize the right of the Consumer to choose, which is inherent in the Agreement. Unfortunately, there was no identifying, recognizable label that identified it as a HELOC ; it was simply presented as a Fixed Rate Option by XXXX. He fraudulently substituted a HELOC for the mortgage. requested by Plaintiffs. The XXXX Tax Statement, ( attached ) issued by the Bank, in 2018, unambiguously depicted the Plaintiffs account as a mortgage.There 's obviously a conflict. Plaintiffs were lulled into believing they had a mortgage. But It can not be both a Mortgage and HELOC. It is one or the other. The contract is inherently flawed ; it must be considered void, for incoherent.\n\n2.FTC Act, Section 5. An agreement based on a representation, omission, or practice that misleads or is likely to mislead is unconscionable. A contract may be found to be unconscionable based on several different factors :.\n\n3.Why is the HELAOC so critical to the Banks business strategy that it will lie, cheat and misrepresent to customers? The term Fixed Rate Option, on a monthly statement title, turns out not be be an option, at all, but simply an extension of the closed equity account, something we never agreed to ; a false filing ; yet XXXX   insists that there is no other choice except to bend the knee. And while we were questioning, the account has somehow morphed into three accounts, with slightly different numbers, all variations of an equity account statement closed last year! And XXXX XXXX  in the Vice President 's office states that it is the way accounting is done by the Bank, and there's no other choice because you were fooled by XXXX.\n\nYou may never know how payments are allocated, or chopped up to create partial payments that generate penalties, interest and negative amortization ; ad infinitum. These misrepresentations are bared by California Financial Senior Abuse Codes 368, 484,482,115,487 ; 368 ( d ) and as well as Identity Theft, But apparently XXXX believes that she has impunity because the phony contract has an arbitration clause and it provides laissez faire. In a letter datedXX/XX/XXXX, she states that she is willing to correct the Bank 's false charges with a back dated fixed rate of {$800.00} ; but when Plaintiff asks to track a payment that was not due inXX/XX/XXXX, she will not respond, but states that the payment dated XX/XX/XXXXfor XXXX was not considered! ( in retaliation for having complained to the XXXX ) the lost payment has disappeared from her radar. Crimes and Criminal Procedure ; theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by Bank Officer ( US Code Title 18. ) In the capacity of Assistant to the Vice President XXXX XXXX continues to insist that the Bank has an inherent right to fabricate accounts.\n\nXXXX XXXX, their accountant, creates new rules for the benefit of the Bank, and is a valued employee. She writes in her letter of XX/XX/XXXX, When we transfer balance ... we transfer the principal balance only and any unpaid interest remains on the principal balance. False fact! The Disclosures actually state, when your line of credit draw period ends your monthly payments ... will consist of principal and interest to fully amortize the outstanding balance ( XXXX  ). And contrary to US Code Title 18 Although many of the Banks accounting practices are contrary to GAAP, the standard, as well as the Banks Disclosures, XXXX states that..the Bank doesn't accept current payments if past disputed interest payments are still due. A rule invented by XXXX, to facilitate splitting payments among several fabricated accounts in order to charge penalty and interest. Several fabricated accounts which shuffle credits and payments, hide charges and confuse customers with unprecedented accounting fraud. Blatant violations of PC 115 ; 115.5 ; PC 950 ( grand theft via false foreclosure ) ; PC 368 ( senior abuse ), and equitable estoppel, to prevent the Bank from taking unfair advantage of seniors when through false language or conduct ; the person to be stopped has induced another person to act in a certain way, which resulted in the other person injured in some way.\n\nThe criminal actions of the bank are an undue burden. They will do anything that they can get away with.\n\n. Undue Influence : VP XXXX  abused our trust while he exercised unreasonable pressure, and the threat of rising interest rates to obtain Agreement. He misinformed Plaintiffs, did not provide a meaningful disclosure of various other credit terms ; so that the Plaintiffs were not able to compare more readily the various available credit terms and loan options.\n\n.Duress : VP XXXX used the threats of pending interest rate increases, he stressed that time was of the essence, in order to obtain agreement XXXX insisted that it was a traditional mortgage.. The wolf comes dressed as a wolf.\n\nC.Unequal Bargaining Power : VP XXXX took unreasonable advantage of the Plaintiffs. XXXX was aware that they obviously did not understand the contract terms, and that the contract represented a HELOC, not a traditional mortgage.\n\nD.Unfair Surprise : XXXX falsely claimed that the term, Fixed Rate Option Plan, was the term the Bank used to describe a traditional mortgage. It was bait and switch to a HELOC. He made material misrepresentations in bad faith.The choice of account is designed and orchestrated by the Bank to keep customers in a state of high anxiety so that they become prey to false billing, which generates penalty and interest charges to the consumer and benefits to the Bank. The false charges begin with questionable small amounts that would have ordinarily gone to Small Claims Court for disposition. For example, Plaintiffs closed the Equity account onXX/XX/XXXX, nevertheless the Bank would not process the closure date until the end of XX/XX/XXXX. When queried, the Bank replied because that's the Bank policy, period. Although the Transfer Agreement states, Any day that a portion of your account balance is transferred to a new ... Fixed Rate Option Plan is a fixed rate option transfer date. The Bank tried to keep the customer in a state of anxiety. The use of non-judicial foreclosure notices to resolve disputes about false billings was particularly effective. It was used to extort unverified charges. It is fraud in the factum, The Bank must have strategized that by increasing the anxiety level of elders, it would train them, eventually, to pay without question to avoid harassment. A brainwashing to achieve the conditioned response leading to total compliance.\n\nE.Misrepresentation : VPXXXX XXXX   knew that his statements were false ; but he intended to have the Plaintiffs rely on his statements ; and after several high pressure sessions, by raising the Plaintiff 's levels of anxiety ; he achieved the result : the Plaintiffs did rely on the misrepresentations.\n\nThe Bank further clouded the issue by misrepresenting the account as a mortgage. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the Plaint believed that he had a mortgage. Until in XX/XX/XXXX, when he received a foreclosure notice as result of a dispute over a false charge. The Bank could have gone to arbitration, but elected instead for file for foreclosure to steal the house. The Notice alerted Plaintiffs that they had been misinformed ; that the account a HELOC. It lacked judicial safeguards.They were extorted, harmed by this imposition. It was a timed technique, beginning with false charges too small to pursue they would soon snowball into substantial claims. Plaintiffs queries were ignored until the Bank apparently believed that the dollar amount had reached the level of enlightenment.\n\nF. Undue Influence : This is where the Bank exercised unreasonable pressure in order to press the Plaintiffs to sign the contract.Where VP XXXX took advantage of the Plaintiffs age, and vulnerability. The regime of Identity Theft and false filings kicked in. For example, although the Bank had a direct draw agreement on Plaintiffs checking account to pay monthly bills, the Bank maliciously neglected and finally refused to do so. This enabled the Bank to dun for late payments and penalties enriching the Bank further still. In retrospect the foreclosure notice is seen as malicious prosecution for a wrongful purpose ; clearly meant to intentionally inflict emotional and financial distress.\n\nG. Illegal practices : Elder Abuse statutes and US Code Title 18 Sec.1005 ; As noted, Plaintiffs had been led astray by the yearly tax statement of the Bank , that identified the account as a Mortgage. Plaintiffs now recognize that they were victims of a bait and switch.Nothing prepared the Plaintiffs shock when learning that they were caught in a HELOC. The Bank had revived the closed equity account, for billing purposes, and added two more fictional, unpurposed accounts, with which to play their game of Whack the Mole with payments that were only partially credited, the balance placed in the fictitious accounts in order to generate further penalties and interest.. An abuse specifically targeted by Title 18. This is similar to the XXXX XXXX smackdown. Where redress is a matter of public policy, H.Unfair Surprise : When the party who creates the contract includes a term in the contract without the other parties knowledge and is not within the other parties expectations ; as the term, Fixed Rate Option Plan was falsely represented by XXXX as a Traditional Mortgage. it is axiomatic that no offer can be accepted unless offeree knows what he has accepted. Although the Plaintiffs requested clarification several times after signing, none was forthcoming until the filing of the Foreclosure. Plaintiffs were unlawfully unaware that the switch was made by XXXX. ( Article 2 Uniform Commercial Code. ( UCC 2-209. ) I.Unequal Bargaining Power : This occurs where one party has an unreasonable advantage of the other. It was not until five months later that Plaintiffs became aware of the switch. The Bank is aware that the Plaintiffs did not understand the contract terms. Because the XXXX  Tax Statement sent by the Bank unambiguously depicts the account as a mortgage, this had led us to believe that our instructions had been duly noted and followed. A Fixed Rate Option Plan, mischaracterized by XXXX is a general term for all available options. One of which is the traditional mortgage, which XXXX  concealed. XXXX  falsely represented and omitted to disclose a material fact : the switch was actually.\n\nJ.Acting with the intent to deceive and defraud, XXXX mis-stated the meaning of the term Fixed Rate Option. He failed to state that the Bank does not even use this term in its glossary of products, because it is categorical, not a specific product. XXXX falsely claimed that it was how the Bank referred to a mortgage. In fact, it can represent anything all or nothing at all. XXXX took advantage of our age and our trust ( after many years of business banking there ) to deceive Plaintiffs.\n\n1.Federal Felonies : The Bank manufactured several fictitious account numbers, in our names, to facilitate the illegal practice of chopping designated payments into several pieces, instead of crediting them to the proper account. A felony violation of 18 U.S.Code 1005. The so-called segments were employed to extort undocumented payments as the basis of false foreclosure.The false account numbers opened in behalf of Plaintiffs enabled the game of Whack the Mole, as they shifted money around with the intention to stuff the false filings with mis-directed cash ; to be added to profit.\n\n( Bank entries, reports and transactions ; covered felonies under 18 US Code ) .Whoever makes any false entry in any book, report, or statement of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization with intent to injure or defraud such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization or any other company, body politic or corporate, or any individual person, or to deceive any officer of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization, or the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation , or any agent or examiner appointed to examine the affairs of such bank, company, branch, agency, or organization or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ... [ is in breach of federal regulations ] See also XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX) ( debtor awarded punitive damages of {$3.00} million against Wells Fargo for servicing abuses. Court declared that Wells Fargo exhibited reprehensible actions. The court had previously found that the bank improperly applied payments to interest and fees, instead of principal and improperly charged the debtor more than {$24000.00} in fees. ) ( XXXX v. XXXX XXXX ) 2.California felony statutes : In XX/XX/XXXX the California Legislature required employees of banks to report suspected suspected financial elder abuse. This law was based on the fact that financial institutions typically have the first opportunity to recognize signs of senior fraud. The failure to report suspected abuse subjects the offender to a maximum of {$5000.00} fine. To the contrary, MUFG Union Bank employs elder abuse with hubris, as a policy.\n\nPenal Codes 115 and 115.5 prohibits the filing of false documents, manufacturing alternate accounts cited by XXXX XXXX  as company policy ; Penal Code 950 is grand theft, which the Bank violates in its use of false foreclosure ; Penal Code 368 is especially protective of seniors by mandating triple damages for abuse, a population targeted by the Bank in their advertisements searching for prey. XXXX should be aware that Identity Theft, which she approves of and justifies as Bank policy, now carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment and substantial fines.The statutes allow for triple damages in order to discourage elder abuse. XXXX XXXX, Supervisor in Consumer Lending, in response to my complaint exclaimed that it was impossible in a telephone conversation in XX/XX/XXXX ; if the Bank changed its procedures there are over 1000 accounts that would have to be changed.\n\n3.Despite these State and Federal prohibitions, despite Cease and Desist Notices from the Plaintiffs, these practices continue to be standard operating procedures ; with the Bank refusing to cease and desist. Decisions by the Bank which are utterly unreviewable, must be vacated as arbitrary and capricious. The abuse is widespread, acknowledged and approved of ; it is the MUFG Union Bank policy.\n\nUnder California Welfare and Institutions Code 15610.30, plaintiffs must prove several things to show that an older person was exploited. The defendant retained, appropriated, hid or took the property or money of the elderly person or helped someone else with doing so.The older adult was either XXXX or older or was a dependent adult at the time and that the person who took, retained, appropriated or hid the property did so for an unlawful purpose or with the intent to defraud the victim. Finally, the victim suffered harm that was caused by the defendants actions.\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2018-09-09T23:34:00.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"90291","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3014286","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - SAN FRANCISCO MAIN BRANCH","date_received":"2018-09-09T23:26:09.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["He fraudulently substituted a HELOC for the <em>mortgage</em>. requested by Plaintiffs. The XXXX Tax Statement, ( attached ) issued by the Bank, in 2018, unambiguously depicted the Plaintiffs account as a <em>mortgage</em>.There 's obviously a conflict. Plaintiffs were lulled into believing they had a <em>mortgage</em>. But It can not be both a <em>Mortgage</em> and HELOC. It is one or the other. The contract is inherently <em>flawed</em> ; it must be considered void, for incoherent.\n\n2.FTC Act, Section 5."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[9.087216,"3014286"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18434104","_score":8.110522,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX in Mortgage Tax Servicing : The CoreLogic-BAC Nexus Executive Summary : Strategic Context and Definitive Findings The structural transformation of the United States mortgage servicing landscape over the past XXXX decades is epitomized by the strategic nexus formed between XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) and CoreLogic. This relationship, fundamentally cemented through a landmark asset divestiture in XX/XX/XXXX, represents a profound shift in the operational philosophy of systemically important financial institutions ( SIFIs ). The identification of \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' unequivocally points to a former operational unit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose common shares trade under the XXXX symbol \" BAC ''. This corporate linkage is the cornerstone for understanding a transactional framework that moved from internal bank management to a highly specialized, scaled third-party processing ( TPP ) model. \nThe relationship is not competitive or transactional on a spot-market basis, but rather an established, long-term outsourcing arrangement born from necessity. This arrangement was formalized when XXXX acquired XXXX property tax processing and flood zone determination assets, along with their corresponding operating platforms. Post-acquisition, XXXX rebranded as Cotality in XXXXassumed the primary responsibility as the operational payer to more than XXXX municipal tax authorities. In this capacity, XXXX functions as a specialized TPP, executing the fiduciary property tax obligations retained by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX for its massive residential loan portfolio. \nThe transaction data reflects the execution of mortgage servicing obligations through XXXX primary capital flows. The most visible flow consists of large, bundled disbursements directed toward specific taxing jurisdictions, such as county treasurers, derived from accumulated homeowner escrow funds. The second, less visible flow involves the internal transfer of fiduciary capital and contractual servicing fees from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to XXXX under the specific XXXX services agreement established during the XXXX asset purchase. This strategic outsourcing decision was fundamentally driven by the need to streamline operations, reduce inherent litigation exposure associated with high-volume tasks, and optimize regulatory capital utilization under the XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nCorporate Identity Disambiguation and the XXXX XXXX XXXX The precise nature of the CoreLogic and BAC relationship is anchored in a definitive strategic transaction that occurred in XXXX. To analyze this relationship, it is first necessary to disambiguate the corporate entities involved. The nomenclature \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' strongly correlates with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, as \" BAC '' is the definitive organizational identifier used on the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. This massive financial services unit must be distinguished from smaller, unrelated entities like \" XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' which specializes in individual tax returns. \nThe transactional relationship began with a major strategic divestiture. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX publicly announced the acquisition of flood zone determination and property tax processing services assets from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. This deal, which closed on XX/XX/XXXX, was funded by cash on hand and accompanied by a long-term services agreement. \nTable XXXX : XXXX Acquisition of XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) | Asset/Function | Seller ( BAC Operational Unit ) | Acquirer ( CoreLogic ) | Resultant Payer Status | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | Tax Processing Platforms | Internal Servicing Infrastructure | Services Segment Operations | CoreLogic became operational payer to municipalities | | Flood Zone Determination | Internal Compliance Unit | Specialized CoreLogic Unit | CoreLogic became contracted provider for compliance | | Servicing Obligation | Remains with XXXX ( MSRs retained ) | Operational Execution Outsourced | XXXX is the funder ; CoreLogic is the executor | | | Fiduciary Duty | Retained by XXXX | Managed via Agreement | The strategic rationale for Bank of Americas divestiture was rooted in the post-XXXX economic crisis environment. By XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX was grappling with intense regulatory scrutiny concerning its past origination and servicing activities, including extensive litigation related to foreclosure documentation. Divesting complex, high-risk operational business lines was a key component of XXXX 's XXXX to reduce its involvement in non-core functions and mitigate the massive legal fees associated with managing a distressed loan portfolio. \nFor XXXX, the acquisition was a move to achieve scale and expand profitability. XXXX XXXX, then XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, stated the deal aligned with the companys imperative of driving scale and operating leverage in its mortgage origination services segment. The integration of XXXX 's operations was expected to create significant revenue growth and margin expansion, effectively making XXXX the \" utility '' for XXXX 's tax compliance. \nThe Macroeconomic and Regulatory Catalyst : XXXX XXXX and De-Risking The broader strategic implication of this payer relationship serves as a primary case study of the structural changes within the XXXX XXXX services sector following the XXXX crisis. The decision to outsource was not merely operational ; it was a response to the punitive regulatory capital requirements introduced by the XXXX XXXX framework. \nXXXX XXXX and MSR Risk Weighting XXXX XXXX, as implemented by XXXX federal regulators, placed restrictive limits on the amount of Mortgage Servicing Rights ( MSRs ) that could be held by federally regulated financial institutions. Under pre-crisis rules, bank MSR investments were limited to XXXX  % of the common equity component of tier XXXX capital. XXXX XXXX reduced this cap to XXXX %. Furthermore, the implementation significantly increased the risk-weighting of MSRs from XXXX % to XXXX %. \nThis regulatory environment transformed MSRs into an exceptionally costly asset class. The \" gold plating '' of XXXX risk weights in the XXXX added XXXX percentage points across the board, further incentivizing banks to sell MSRs or, at the very least, outsource the operational mechanics to reduce the overhead and potential for regulatory failure. By transferring the property tax processing function to a non-bank entity like XXXX, Bank XXXX XXXX effectively shifted the operational and compliance burden, paying XXXX to manage the risk while optimizing its own balance sheet. \nXXXX XXXX and Structural Simplification Simultaneously, Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act required large financial institutions to develop resolution plans, or \" living wills ''. These plans are intended to ensure that a large bank can be resolved in a rapid and orderly fashion without a taxpayer bailout. Part of this process involves rationalizing and simplifying the company 's legal entity structure by eliminating non-essential internal units. Divesting the tax servicing operations into a contractual XXXX relationship with XXXX supported XXXX 's goal of \" Responsible Growth '' by reducing internal complexity and aligning with their risk framework. \nOperational Framework of Mortgage Escrow and Third-Party Processing To interpret the transactional data between BAC and CoreLogic, one must understand the technical mechanism of property tax escrow, commonly known as XXXX ( Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance ). For most residential mortgages, the servicerXXXX XXXX XXXXcollects a portion of the annual property taxes and insurance premiums each month, holding them in a segregated, fiduciary escrow account. \nThe Mechanism of Property Tax Escrow The mortgage servicer accepts a fiduciary duty to accurately collect, hold, and disburse these funds to governmental tax authorities and insurance carriers. This duty involves three key components : * Duty of Loyalty : Managing assets solely in the interests of the beneficiaries ( the homeowners and investors ).\n\n* Duty of Care : Exercising a high degree of skill to ensure timely and accurate payments. \n* Duty of Disclosure : Providing complete and accurate information about escrow balances and transactions.\n\nBecause property taxes are managed by thousands of highly fragmented local jurisdictions, the process of disbursement is exceptionally complex and prone to error. CoreLogic fills this gap as a specialized TPP, providing a centralized data infrastructure that tracks jurisdictional tax rates, payment dates, and parcel-level property data.\n\nOperational Payer Hierarchy in the Outsourced Model In this outsourced model, the operational hierarchy dictates the nature of the observed payments. Each year, typically around XXXX, the servicer ( BofA ) provides CoreLogic with a list of properties for which taxes are due. The servicer then remits the accumulated escrow capital to CoreLogic. CoreLogic then assumes the role of the physical disburser, sending bulk payments to municipal tax authorities. \nA local government office, such as the XXXX XXXX XXXX, receives the tax payment from CoreLogic, not directly from XXXX XXXX XXXX This transfer of operational liability ensures continuity of service for the bank while achieving risk isolation. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX retains the regulatory oversight of the service contract but offloads the manual, error-prone task of tracking thousands of individual tax bills. \nDetailed Analysis of Transactional Flow and Payer Dynamics The payment history data reflects a sophisticated two-way flow of capital governed by the XXXX services agreement. Dissecting this flow clarifies the distinct financial responsibilities of XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. \nObserved Payments ( CoreLogic as Payer ) When CoreLogic is the originating Payer, the transaction represents a XXXX XXXX XXXX aimed at satisfying local government obligations. These are the final payments in the escrow cycle. CoreLogic aggregates funds for thousands of properties and sends consolidated payments to taxing jurisdictions. The timing of these disbursements is critical, aligning with local due dates and \" Economic Loss Dates '' ( ELDs ). CoreLogics proprietary data systems track these localized variances to ensure accuracy. \nUnseen Transactional Flow ( BAC as Payer ) While CoreLogic is the visible payer to the municipality, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX acts as the payer in the internal XXXX transactions necessary to fund the operation. This flow has XXXX components : * Escrow Fund Remittance : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX transfers the accumulated homeowner escrow capital ( the XXXX & I portion of XXXX ) to CoreLogic. This is a transfer of trust funds, where XXXX takes temporary custody of the funds needed for the tax bill. \n* Servicing Fee Payments : XXXX XXXX  XXXX pays contractual service fees to CoreLogic. This payment stream is CoreLogics compensation for operational administration, compliance management, and platform usage. This component generates the actual revenue and margin expansion anticipated during the XXXX acquisition. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX The asset transfer introduced considerable accounting complexity, particularly in managing fiduciary capital. For CoreLogic, the acquisition necessitated adjustments to its cash flow reporting, as its operating activities became linked to managing high-volume escrow accounts. While escrow funds are not revenue, their management requires meticulous reconciliation. \nA key financial mechanism in this model is optimizing the \" velocity of money '' or \" float ''. Escrow accounts represent a massive, short-term pool of liquid capital. If CoreLogic receives funds from XXXX XXXX XXXX well in advance of the municipal due dates, it gains control over significant working capital for the intervening period. CoreLogics ability to achieve \" margin expansion '' is tied to managing this float efficiently, ensuring capital is deployed advantageously before final disbursement.\n\nTechnology and Integration : The Digital Tax Portal The relationships sustainability is driven by CoreLogics significant investment in compliance technology. Traditionally, property tax processing relied on manual data handling and XXXX databases. CoreLogic transformed this process by building a Digital Tax Portal delivered to local municipalities.\n\nFeatures of the Digital Tax Portal The portal centralizes loan and property tax data, providing real-time visibility into tax deadlines and payment status. It allows for : * Near Real-time Agency Connections : Access to data from XXXX agencies, including collector details and payment instructions. \n* Delinquency Risk Tracking : Tracking cut-off dates and collections to ensure correct payments.\n\n* Self-Serve Features : Allowing servicers to update contracts, tax IDs, and legal documents in a few clicks.\n\n* Automated Verification : Tools like Digital tax Connect provide instant access to property tax data through APIs, reducing manual processes and improving customer satisfaction. \nBy XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX % of client decisions were being performed through the portal rather than traditional methods. This digital transformation provides a layer of operational assurance and risk mitigation that XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX could not achieve with its fragmented legacy internal systems. \nTable 2 : Digital Tax Portal Capabilities and Impact | Feature | Functionality | Strategic Benefit | | -- -| -- -| -- -| | Collector Portal | Electronic viewing and download of payment packages | Transparency and speed of reconciliation | | Tru-Pay Certification | Identifies shortages, overages, and duplicate payments | Mitigation of refund requests and errors | | API Integration | Seamless connection to servicer websites and apps | Reduced call center volume and cost | | Delinquency Monitoring | Real-time tracking of unpaid taxes and tax sales | Protection of the bank 's first-lien position | Operational and Consumer Impact of the Servicing Transition The corporate restructuring between CoreLogic and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX had tangible operational consequences, particularly during the transition period of XXXX. Moving massive volumes of data from legacy XXXX systems to XXXX platforms introduced friction points in data fidelity. \nImpact on Escrow Analysis Mortgage servicers are legally required to conduct an annual escrow analysis to ensure sufficient funds are collected. Discrepancies arising from data migrationsuch as inaccurate tracking of local property valuations or delayed recognition of tax increasescan lead directly to flawed analyses. \nConsequences for Homeowners ( XXXX ) A common consequence of operational friction during a servicing overhaul is the occurrence of an escrow shortage. A shortage occurs when the amount collected in the homeowners account is insufficient to cover the actual tax bill paid by CoreLogic. In XXXX and XXXX, former XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX customers reported significant increases in their monthly payments as the servicer attempted to \" catch up '' on these shortages. \nIn some cases, homeowners discovered that funds intended for escrow were being incorrectly applied to the mortgage principal, creating a shortage in the tax account. These issues highlight the critical need for high-accuracy processing and the forensic accounting oversight that specialized entities like CoreLogic provide.\n\nRisk and Litigation Context : The Post-Crisis Clean-Up The divestiture of tax servicing was part of a larger effort by Bank of XXXX to resolve the legal overhang of the financial crisis. In XXXX, the bank agreed to a record {$16.00} billion settlement with the Department of Justice to resolve claims related to the packaging and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities ( RMBS ). \nLitigation Pressures and Regulatory Settlements XXXX XXXX XXXX faced numerous lawsuits from state attorneys general and federal agencies like the XXXX. These settlements addressed systemic failures in mortgage origination and servicing, including misrepresentations made to investors and government entities like XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX. \nBy outsourcing tax servicing to CoreLogic, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX reduced its exposure to future litigation related to property tax errors, which had become a significant source of liability for the bank. This shift allowed XXXX to focus on its \" Responsible Growth '' tenets, growing within its risk framework and driving operational excellence. \nTable 3 : Major XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Regulatory Settlements ( XXXX ) | Date | Settlement Entity | Amount | Focus Area | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX$11.00} XXXX XXXX Repurchase and servicing claims | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX | {$6.00} XXXX | XXXX litigation and contract claims | | XX/XX/XXXX | DOJ / SEC | {$16.00} XXXX | XXXX fraud and disclosure failures | | XX/XX/XXXX | CFPB | {$720.00} XXXX | Deceptive marketing of add-on products | The Rebranding of CoreLogic to Cotality ( XXXX ) The evolution of the relationship reached a new stage in XX/XX/XXXX when CoreLogic announced its global rebrand to Cotality. This transformation reflects the companys progression from a financial services support provider to a leader in property information and data-enabled solutions. \nStrategic Reasons for the Rebrand The transition from CoreLogic to Cotality was described by XXXX XXXX XXXX as a \" transformation with purpose ''. The new name embodies XXXX pillars : * Collaboration and Connectivity : Uniting property professionals and fostering industry relationships. \n* Totality : Delivering comprehensive data and technology across the entire property ecosystem. \n* Vitality : Human-centric innovation and a focus on helping people thrive. \nFor mortgage lenders, the rebrand signifies a partner focused on delivering enhanced, AI-driven insights to make home lending as efficient and effective as possible. \nXXXX XXXX for Mortgage XXXX XXXX vision for the future of mortgage servicing involves utilizing billions of real-time data signals to unearth hidden risks and opportunities. This includes : * XXXX XXXX Platforms : Helping institutions consolidate multiple vendor services into a single provider to cut costs and streamline workflows. \n* AI and Automation : Leveraging \" CoreAI '' to evolve with the property ecosystem and drive smarter lending decisions.\n\n* End-to-End Solutions : Providing predictive knowledge throughout the loan journey, from marketing and origination to servicing and monitoring. \nAs of XXXX, Cotality manages property tax payments for XXXX % of XXXX homes with first liens and serves XXXX of the top XXXX mortgage servicers. Its stable financial outlook is supported by XXXX growth, cost savings, and interest income on cash deposits held in its tax business. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of Cotality Despite the challenges of high interest rates, Cotality has maintained a stable financial trajectory. In the XXXX months ended XX/XX/XXXX, the company reported revenue of {$980.00} XXXX, a modest year-over-year increase. Its revenue and XXXX growth are driven by market share gains and improving efficiency through cost-cutting, including a XXXX % reduction in global office space over the past XXXX years. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Cotality faces significant debt maturities in XXXX and will likely need to refinance its {$5.00} XXXX of debt in early XXXX. XXXX & XXXX XXXX economists forecast that mortgage rates will improve in XXXX and XXXX, which would provide a favorable environment for this refinancing. The companys liquidity remains ample, and it expects to use future cash flow to repay its revolver. \nTable XXXX : Cotality XXXX XXXX and Projections | Indicator | XXXX XXXX Actual | XXXX XXXX Actual | XXXX Projection | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | Revenue | {$980.00} XXXX | {$980.00} XXXX | Growth via non-mortgage biz | | Debt to XXXX | N/A | XXXX | XXXX ( Improving ) | | Free Operating Cash Flow | Negative | Improving | Positive | | Mortgage Origination Volume | Baseline | XXXX % ( Expected ) | XXXX % ( XXXX XXXX Unknown","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-03T00:05:49.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"30331","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18434104","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CORELOGIC INC","date_received":"2026-01-02T23:32:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This payment stream is CoreLogics compensation for operational administration, <em>compliance</em> management, and platform usage. This component <em>generates</em> the actual revenue and margin expansion anticipated during the XXXX acquisition. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX The asset transfer introduced considerable accounting complexity, particularly in managing fiduciary capital."],"sub_product":["<em>Mortgage</em> debt"]},"sort":[8.110522,"18434104"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2970505","_score":7.9149837,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"We, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, signed a Mortgage and a Promissory Note with XXXX XXXX XXXX. The purported loan closing date was XX/XX/XXXX with a XXXX # of XXXX. APN/Parcel/PIN : XXXX. The Subservicer of the Loan was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the Master Servicer was XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The alleged Loan Originator was XXXX XXXX XXXX. It has come to our attention that the named Payee on our Note was neither a source nor a conduit for funds. The naming of a Payee who is not the source of funding prevents merger of the debt with the note, which can only occur when the Payee and creditor are the same.\n\nIn most cases, the named Payee is different from the creditor ( s ) who funded the loan, intentionally or otherwise, and in our case, the recorded Mortgage names XXXX XXXX XXXX as the purported Lender who is different from the creditor who actually funded the loan - whoever that might be. The named Payee on the note and mortgage were never in privity with the actual funding source. \n\nSubsequently, on XX/XX/XXXX the Mortgage was purportedly assigned by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ( MERS ) to XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX, as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Backed Certificates, Series XXXX, as nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns, although XXXX XXXX XXXX had already gone bankrupt in XXXX. The mere presence of MERS is indicative of the flaws and defects that exist in the chain of title in regard to purported transfers of the Mortgage pertaining to our family home. \n\nThe claims by MERS are false claims. MERS claims an agency relationship based upon a series of relationships. MERS has never pled or proven such relationship. There is no agency relationship. MERS has no members. MERS makes the False Claim that they are a Mortgagee. MERS has not shown any prima facie evidence or proven that the person who signed the Assignment of Mortgage for MERS was an Assistant Secretary of MERS. We have never been shown any prima facie evidence that the owner of our alleged debt is held by a member of MERS. We have never been shown that the records of MERS are accurate. \n\nIn Illinois, a mortgage is considered real property. In order to have a valid and enforceable title to the mortgage contract there must be a complete WRITTEN chain of assignments from the lender to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. \n\nThe initials XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their principal place of business is in the city/state of XXXX, which is the most unregulated financial District in the world. XXXX has been prosecuted by the Department of Justice for money laundering of billions of dollars of XXXX drug cartel money and has also been prosecuted for establishing illegal tax havens for wealthy individuals in attempts to avoid paying their fair share of federal income taxes. \n\nEvidently, our loan was purportedly securitized and that is consistent with the language in the first paragraph of the Promissory Note wherein it states that the Promissory Note was for the loan that I received. So, the Note that we signed pertained to loan documents ( contracts ) that had already been entered into by undisclosed 3rd parties that we have never been made aware of and that involved loan terms that have never been disclosed to us. \n\nTherefore, it is evident that our Note is only evidence of a loan and was not the actual loan. Despite our numerous requests, it has never been disclosed to us what the terms of this loan contract were/are, who the parties were/are, or who/are the actual Lenders. This was a table funded loan and in violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) and Regulation Z and involved parties with whom we never had any privity of contract.\n\nThe term TILA means the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1601-1666j, as amended. TILA, which took effect on XX/XX/XXXX, is intended to promote the informed use of consumer credit by requiring creditors to disclose credit terms and costs, requiring additional disclosures for loans secured by consumers homes and permitting consumers to rescind certain transactions that involve their principal dwelling. \n\nThe term Regulation Z means the regulation that the FRB promulgated to implement TILA, 12 C.F.R. 226, as amended. The term also includes the FRB Official Staff Commentary on Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. 226 Supp.1, as amended.\n\nIn the course and conduct of offering and making mortgage loans, XXXX, in numerous instances, has violated and continues to violate, the requirements of TILA and Regulation Z in the following and other respects by : ( a ) failing to disclose, or accurately disclose : ( i ) the annual percentage rate, in violation of Section 129 ( a ) ( 2 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. section 1639 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 226.32 ( c ) ( 2 ) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Section 226.32 ( c ) ( 2 ) ; ( ii ) the regular payment amount, in violation of Section 129 ( a ) ( 2 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1639 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 226.32 ( c ) ( 2 ) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Section 226.32 ( c ) ( 3 ) ; ( iii ) failing to make the disclosures described above clearly and conspicuously in writing at least three business days prior to consummation of a mortgage loan transaction, in violation of Section 129 ( b ) ( 1 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1639 ( b ) ( 1 ) and Section 226.31 ( b ) and ( c ) ( 1 ) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Section 226.31 ( b ) and ( c ) ( 1 ).\n\nIn the course and conduct of offering and making mortgage loans and/or extending other consumer credit, XXXX, in numerous instances, has violated, and continues to violate, the requirements of TILA and Regulation Z, in the following and other respects by : ( a ) failing to make TILA disclosures in writing before consummation of a consumer credit transaction, in violation of Sections 121 ( a ) and 128 ( b ) ( 1 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1631 ( a ) and 1638 ( b ) ( 1 ) and Sections 226.17 ( a ) and ( b ) and Section 226.18 ( a ) of Regulation Z ; ( b ) failing to disclose, or accurately disclose, the following information : ( i ) the identity of the creditor making the disclosures, in violation of Section 128 ( a ) ( 1 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1638 ( a ) ( 1 ) and Section 226.18 ( a ) of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Section 226.18 ( a ) ; ( ii ) the amount financed, in violation of Section 128 ( a ) ( 2 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1638 ( a ) ( 2 ) and Section 226.18 ( b ) of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Section 2\n26.18 ( b ) ; ( iii ) the finance charge, in violation of Sections 106 and 128 ( a ) ( 3 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1605 and 1638 ( a ) ( 3 ) and Sections 226.4 and 226.18 ( d ) of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Sections 226.4 and 226.18 ( d ) ; ( iv ) the annual percentage rate, in violation of Sections 107 and 128 ( a ) ( 4 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1606 and 1638 ( a ) ( 4 ) and Sections 226.18 ( e ) and 226.22 of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Sections 226.18 ( e ) and 226.22 ; ( v ) the payment schedule, in violation of Section 128 ( a ) ( 6 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1638 ( a ) ( 6 ) and Section 226.18 ( g ) of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Sections 226.18 ( g ) ; ( vi ) the total of payments, in violation of Section 128 ( a ) ( 5 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1638 ( a ) ( 5 ) and Section 226.18 ( h ) of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Section 226.18 ( h ) ; ( vii ) whether or not a penalty may be imposed if the obligation is prepaid in full, in violation of Section 128 ( a ) ( 11 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1638 ( a ) ( 11 ) and Section 226.18 ( k ) ( 1 ) of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Section 226.18 ( k ) ( 1 ) ; ( viii ) any dollar percentage charge that may be imposed before maturity due to a late payment, other than a deferral or extension charge, in violation of Section 128 ( a ) ( 10 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1638 ( a ) ( 10 ) and Section 226.18 ( l ) of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Section 226.18 ( l ) ; and, ( ix ) the fact that the creditor has or will acquire a security in the consumers principal dwelling, in violation of Section 128 ( a ) ( 9 ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1638 ( a ) ( 9 ) and Section 226.18 ( m ) of Regulation Z, C.F.R. Section 226.18 ( m ) ; and, ( c ) making consumer credit disclosures that do not reflect the terms of the legal obligation between the parties, in violation of Section 226.17 ( c ) ( 1 ) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Section 226.17 ( c ) ( 1 ).\n\nBy failing to disclose, or accurately disclose, material credit information, as described above, XXXX has engaged, and continues to engage, in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section XXXX ( a ) of the FTC Act 15, 15 U.S.C. Section 45 ( a ). \n\nIn the course and conduct of offering mortgage loans and/or extending other consumer credit, XXXX in numerous instances has violated, and continues to violate, the requirements of TILA and Regulation Z in the following and other respects by : ( a ) failing to deliver the required notice of the right to rescind consumer credit transactions in which security interest are or will be retained or acquired in consumers principal dwelling, in violation of Section 125 ( a ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1635 ( a ) and Section 226.23 ( b ) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Section 226.23 ( b ) ; ( b ) engaging in the practices described above, thereby depriving consumers of the right to rescind, in violation of Section 125 ( a ) of TILA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1635 ( a ) and Section 226.23 ( a ) of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Section 226.23 ( a ) ; ( c ) by failing to disclose, or accurately disclose, material information relating to, or  making misrepresentations regarding the TILA right of rescission, as described above, XXXX has engaged, and continues to engage, in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 45 ( a ).\n\nConsumers have suffered, and will continue to suffer substantially as a result of XXXX violations of TILA and Section 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act, as set forth above.\n\nDespite our numerous requests, it has never been shown to us who the real parties in interest are and/or the identiy ( ies ) of the true creditors in regard to our Promissory Note. Therefore, no true creditor has been brought before us who can state a cause of action,  provide proof of an injury and/or direct causation that can be redressed by a Court with jurisdiction. We can not be in default when we do not know who is owed and for how much, if any. \n\nThere appears to be no evidence in any jurisdiction that the named trust exists, or was organized within any jurisdiction. We can find no evidence of an original document organizing the trust, nor that the trust document ( Pooling and Servicing Agreement ) was ever completed as a written instrument with exhibits. We can no find no evidence or even suggestion in any document that the named trust entity was utilized by anyone in any financial transaction ( one in which money exchanged hands ) or business activity. Specifically, other than self-serving and apparently self-generated documents, there has been no evidence presented to us that would corroborate a claim that the Trust ever conducted business and more specifically ever acquired the debt. \n\nIn the absence of any evidence to the contrary, including evidence of an actual financial transaction in which the loan was originally funded or purchased, none of the parties named in any of the recorded instruments, including XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX, As Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage Backed Certificates, XXXX XXXX, is either the obligee of the debt nor a person legally empowered to collect the debt on behalf of the obligee based upon long-standing guidelines published by the XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the XXXX, and statutory law ( UCC- Uniform Commercial Code ) enacted as law in all 50 states.\n\nThe authenticity and authority of all signatures on our note are denied specifically ( see UCC 3-308 ). We are not expert document examiners. We understood that we were receiving a loan from the lender named within the four corners of the document. The substance of the transaction, however, was that the money used to fund the transaction came from the  proceeds of the sale of unknown third parties. \n\nBecause the law regards substance over form, we take it to mean that we were deceived ( by fraud ) into signing a document when we were unaware, by reason of such fraud, that we were executing a document of that nature. We intended to sign up for a loan, however, the substance of the document we actually executed was quite different. Our lender was a stand in and never loaned their capital at risk of loss. The money was advanced by an undisclosed third party. While other forms of fraud make a note voidable, fraud in the factum makes a note void ab initio. \n\nAs evidence that the Trust is empty is the fact that New York Trust law prohibits a Trustee of a Trust from accepting a late assignment to the Trust because it could cause the Trust to lose all of its tax benefits and cause a great loss to the Trust beneficiaries. So did the Trust actually accept the late assignment which the PSA says is an ultra vires act? We think not. \n\nFurther, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC claims to be the current servicer of our purported loan. Despite numerous inquiries, Ocwen has failed/refused to provide evidence that an initial power of attorney exists wherein the alleged named Trustee, XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX authorized Ocwen to act and sign for the loans allegedly held in the mortgage-backed securitized trust on behalf of said mortgage-backed securitized trust, to demonstrate manifestation of the principals intent to enter into a fiduciary relationship with Ocwen where Ocwen acts on the principals behalf and subject to the principals control. \n\nDespite our timely Notice of Rescission of the Loan in accordance with the United States Supreme Court decision of XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX, we attempted to obtain a Modification Agreement and made numerous and timely trial payments to Ocwen, who purported to be the Servicer, at the time, for XXXX as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Despite our full compliance with the terms of the modification agreement, and Ocwen/XXXX acceptance of our timely loan modification payments, Ocwen/XXXX has failed/refused to honor the modification agreement. Again, despite our numerous and repeated efforts to amicably resolve these issues, XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX has wrongfully scheduled a foreclosure sale set for XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX ( 15 CH 12854, Calendar 57 ), Circuit Court of XXXX County, Illinois. \n\nIt should be noted that XXXX has been fined billions of dollars for their egregious actions, many of which are very similar to our case, and have entered into numerous Deferred Prosecution Agreements ( DPAs ). The Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, along with 49 State Attorney Generals and the District of Columbias Attorney General, have reached a {$470.00} XXXX agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its affiliates ( collectively XXXX ) to address mortgage origination, servicing and foreclosure abuses. Also, Ocwen has entered into a {$2.00} XXXX settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to address allegations of robo-signing of foreclosure documents and other fraudulent practices while servicing loans for over XXXX struggling homeowners. In Illinois, alone, Ocwen is providing troubled borrowers with more than {$91.00} XXXX in first lien principal reductions and more that XXXX will be eligible for a direct cash payments. \n\nIn conclusion, it is evident that the many egregious and fraudulent actions that XXXX and Ocwen have been fined and prosecuted for, are also prevalent in their handling of our Mortgage and wrongful pursuance of this foreclosure action regarding our family home. \n\nTherefore, we respectfully request that an investigation be conducted against XXXX and Ocwen pursuant to the issues raised in this Complaint as well as violations of TILA, Regulation Z, and/or Section 5 ( a ) of the FTC Act including, but not limited to, rescission or reformation of contracts, refund of monies paid, and/or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. We also respectfully request that we be awarded such relief as this Honorable Office deems  reasonable as a result of XXXX and Ocwens illegal and egregious actions and to prevent unjust enrichment.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-07-24T06:07:05.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"604XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2970505","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2018-07-24T01:42:53.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Subsequently, on XX/XX/XXXX the <em>Mortgage</em> was purportedly assigned by <em>Mortgage</em> Electronic Registration Systems ( MERS ) to XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX, as Trustee for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>Mortgage</em> <em>Backed</em> Certificates, Series XXXX, as nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns, although XXXX XXXX XXXX had already gone bankrupt in XXXX."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Struggling to pay <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Conventional home <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[7.9149837,"2970505"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5830796","_score":6.7609024,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint ID # XXXX What date did the federal government, ( using tax payers dollars ), bailout the banks in the great housing market fraud crash of XXXX, including Bank of America , fka Countrywide Home Loans? \n\nThe Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of XXXX, often called the \" bank bailout of XXXX  '', was proposed by Treasury Secretary XXXX XXXX, passed by the 110th United States Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush. It became law as part of Public Law 110-343 on XX/XX/XXXX, in the midst of the financial crisis of XXXX. It created the {$900.00} billion Troubled Asset Relief Program ( TARP ) to purchase toxic assets from banks. The funds were mostly redirected to inject capital into banks and other financial institutions while the Treasury continued to examine the usefulness of targeted asset purchases. \n\nThe glaring problem? In their rush to, so-call Save the Banks- the Federal Government ignored the largely innocent, completely unaware and disadvantaged homeowners, ( whos backs, - lets face it this bailout fell on and injured the most ). \n\nAll as a result of the devastation caused by the deceptive fraud and greed in lending, appraisal, as well as servicing practices committed by gigantic financial institutions such as Countrywide Home Loans, currently known as Bank of America N.A. Home Loans. \n\nWednesday, XX/XX/XXXX Contact : ( XXXX ) XXXX, XXXX https : //oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/brown-sues-countrywide-mortgage-deception On XX/XX/XXXX, California Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX sues XXXX XXXXXXXX, its chief XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, for engaging in deceptive advertising and unfair competition. \n\nEVIDENCE : * * * 1 ) The lawsuits described a vast \" conspiracy '' in which Countrywide provided financial incentives to large networks of brokers in exchange for their duping borrowers into taking out toxic loans. \n\n2 ) For several years, the scam worked. Countrywide grew from originating {$62.00} billion in loans in XXXX  to more than {$460.00} billion in XXXX, 3 ) while the lenders securities trading volume more than quintupled, from {$640.00} billion in XXXX  to {$3.00} trillion in XXXX.\n\n4 ) The companys CEO, the flashily dressed and perma-tanned XXXX XXXX XXXX became one of the highest-paid executives in the nation, with an influence on markets approaching that of XXXX XXXX. \n\n5 ) The state lawsuits expose just how Countrywide built its sprawling empire.\n\n6 ) One common loan product that came under harsh criticism in the lawsuit was the hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage, or ARM, in which mortgage rates were fixed for two to three years while borrowers made interest-only payments.\n\n7 ) Afterward borrowers got hit with \" payment shock '' when mortgage principal was added onto their monthly payments just as the starter interest rate converted to a variable rate that could shoot up to as high as 15 percent. \n\n8 ) XXXX lawsuit charges that Countrywides goal was to generate loans that paid the highest possible interest ratenot loans that offered the best deal for their customers. \n9 ) Low-income, first-time homebuyers became some of the best targets : the riskier the loan, the higher the interest rate. \n10 ) Countrywide packaged many of these loans into mortgage-backed securities and sold them to XXXX XXXX for windfall profits. \nXXXX ) Securities comprising Countrywide loans were in turn used to structure collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, the implosion of which almost brought down the US financial system.\n\n12 ) Risky Countrywide loans were linked to some of the most toxic CDOs. \n\n13 ) On XX/XX/XXXX, when XXXX announced in a call with XXXX XXXX bankers that housing prices would collapse on a scale not seen since the Depression, widespread panic ensued. By the end of XXXX, according to Countrywides own estimates, a staggering 27 percent of the lenders subprime loans were delinquent.\n\n14 ) Once disaster struck, a quick settlement with the state attorneys general, under which Countrywide accepted no guilt and faced little financial liability, was not such a bad deal for the company. \n\n15 ) The settlement required Countrywide to make only XXXX loan modifications nationwide and did not set a dollar amount on how much these modifications had to save borrowers. \n16 ) Most of the loans covered by the settlement fell into one of two major types issued between XXXX and XXXX, at the height of the housing boom. \n17 ) One was the notorious pay-option ARM, in which the loan balance increased each month for borrowers who made only the minimum payment. \n17A ) Countrywide absurdly classified these loans as \" prime '' productseven though many of them went to borrowers with very low credit scoresmaking it easier to sell them on the secondary market. \n18 ) The other was the subprime ARM, which had a fixed interest rate for a set period and then an adjustable rate for the remainder of the term. \n* * * 19 ) To comply with the settlement, Bank of America set up the Countrywide XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as a vehicle for providing relief. \n20 ) And the deal appeared, at first, to provide it. \n21 ) Eligible borrowers, according to XXXX analysis of the deal, may be considered for a range of modifications. \n22 ) Those with pay-option ARMs can reduce their outstanding balance to 95 percent of their homes current value, getting them out from under water.\n\n23 ) 24 ) But Countrywide has no obligation to offer these terms to any particular eligible borrower. \n\n\nCOMPLICIT GOVERMENTAL CORRUPTION : 25 ) A key weapon in BofAs arsenal is something called a foreclosure avoidance budget, which gives the bank the option of foreclosing on homeowners whenever, in the judgment of the banks analysts, more money can be recouped by foreclosing than by modifying the loan. \n26 ) Housing advocates speak with frustration of how BofA often refuses to grant modifications to eligible borrowers, based solely on the banks analysis of its foreclosure avoidance budget. \n27 ) Yet bank officials have refused to make public how they calculate that budget. \nXXXX ) XXXX XXXX, a lawyer with XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, an XXXX nonprofit, says she repeatedly attempted to obtain that information from BofA. \" One of the things we kept asking, '' she says, \" is, Can we see those analyses? Can we see the foreclosure avoidance budget? \n29 ) The answer was always no. '' In the end, she simply gave up on using the Countrywide settlement as a means of helping borrowers. \n30 ) Even information on how many homeowners are facing foreclosure under the foreclosure avoidance budget is not publicly available. \n31 ) I requested these numbers from the California attorney generals office, which directed me to Bank of America, which refused to divulge the data. \n\n32 ) Last XXXX I interviewed XXXX XXXX, Bank of Americas senior vice president for public relations and communications, at a meeting between BofA executives and distraught homeowners in a church in XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ) he said something telling : \" We dont call it a settlement, but our agreement with the attorneys general. '' Apparently BofA doesnt believe it owes anybody anything. \n\n34 ) Despite XXXX  XXXX XXXX failure to help hundreds of thousands of homeowners ruined by Countrywide, 35 ) the bank claims it is on track to fulfill its obligations under the settlement. \n36 ) According to the one publicly available page of a quarterly compliance report the bank is required to file with the state attorneys general, as of the end of the second quarter of XXXX, BofA had modified a total of XXXX loans under the settlement, achieved an expected interest and principal savings for borrowers of {$3.00} XXXX and provided {$170.00} XXXX in relief to people who had lost their homes to foreclosure. \n\nXXXX ) These numbers look impressive, at first glance. \nXXXX ) But a XX/XX/XXXX study by XXXX of the loans covered by the settlement projected that 50 percent of the modified loans are so untenable they will re-default within a year. \nXXXX ) The terms being offered are so bad that many lawyers are not bothering to seek relief, says XXXX XXXX, an attorney representing underwater borrowers northeast of XXXX XXXX. \n40 ) XXXX estimates that in the past three years he has worked with about 1,000 clients seeking modifications, half of them from Countrywide. \n41 ) He projects that for borrowers who get the five-year, interest-only payments, there is going to be major trouble down the line. \" We havent seen the effect yet, '' he says. \" They took them out of one loan that was a ticking time bomb and put them into another loan with ticking time bomb features. '' 42 ) Bank of America officials concede that re-default is a major threat, projecting a rate of XXXX percent. \n43 ) But they claim most of these defaults will be a product of growing unemployment, not unfair loan modifications. \n44 ) Housing counselors and attorneys tell a different story. \nXXXX ) They say the modifications BofA is offering under the settlement are not sustainable even for many borrowers with jobs. \n46 ) \" As far as I know, none of our clients have gotten a modification under this program, '' says XXXX XXXX, an attorney and director of the XXXX XXXX, a nonprofit community development corporation based in XXXX. \n47 ) \" The offers I have seen so far are basically a low-interest-only, fixed rate for five years, and then the loan converts to a principal and interest, which of course, depending on the total amount due, could be a huge jump in the persons total monthly payment ''. \n\n* * * PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION FUNDS INVESTED HEAVILY IN COUNTRYWIDES CDOs : 48 ) As it turns out, BofA has had good reason not to make its modifications affordable for mortgages now owned by a third party, such as the public employee pension funds that invested heavily, and disastrously, in Countrywides mortgage-backed securities. \n49 ) From XXXX to XXXX, the years covered by the settlement, Countrywide sold most of its first-lien subprime loans as mortgage-backed securities or loan packages, 50 ) but it generally kept the lucrative servicing contracts. \n51 ) BAC Home Loan Servicing ( formerly Countrywide Home Loans Inc. ), Countrywides servicing arm, acts as a bill collector, gathering mortgage payments from borrowers and distributing these payments to the investors who actually own the mortgages. \n52 ) Servicers earn a small percentage of mortgage payments, but what has made the business especially profitable are late fees and other ancillary costs such as property inspections, collected from borrowers in delinquency and in default. \n\n53 ) Those revenues will be lost through the settlement with the state attorneys general, 54 ) which requires BofA to waive outstanding late fees for delinquent Countrywide borrowers who receive a modification. \n55 ) But BofA can start the lucrative late-fee gravy train all over for all the borrowers who re-default on modified loansa staggering number, if the XXXX projections prove to be accurate. \n56 ) When these financially exhausted borrowers finally go into foreclosure, any outstanding late fees can be tacked onto the bill BofA submits to investors. \n\n57 ) Only about 12 percent of the first-lien loans initiated by Countrywide remain on BofAs books 58 ) Investors in mortgage-backed securities, including major pension funds like XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX own the other 88 percent, 59 ) and it is these investors who will bear most of the expense of complying with the settlement, in the form of permanently reduced principal and interest payments on their bond holdings. \n60 ) Believe it or not, this aspect of the deal was overlooked by the settlement. \n61 ) XXXX XXXX, attorney general of Connecticut, one of the original parties to the suit, seems to have missed it entirely, claiming in his XX/XX/XXXX announcement, \" This settlement will cost BofA as much as {$8.00} XXXX, but no cost, not a dime, to taxpayers.? '' 62 ) In fact, as it turned out later, much of the settlements cost would be covered by taxpayers. \n63 ) Bank of America is allowed to use federal incentives under President Obamas {$75.00} XXXX Home Affordable Modification Program ( HAMP ) toward the loan modifications it is required to make as the mortgage servicer for the Countrywide portfolio. \n64 ) In total, of its entire Countrywide financial servicing portfoliowhich goes beyond the loans covered by the settlementBofA is eligible for as much as {$4.00} XXXX in federal incentives for completed modifications, according to an analysis by the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as reported in XXXX XXXX. Thats a hefty government rebate. \n\n65 ) There are indications that Bank of Americas slow progress on loan modifications is intentional. \n66 ) Many service providers on the front lines of the crisis were unaware of the settlement more than a year after it took effect. \n67 ) Take XXXX XXXX, a team leader in the housing department of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a HUD-approved counseling agency in XXXX XXXX XXXX Of the hundreds of Countrywide borrowers, hes tried to obtain loan modifications for, \" not one of them has mentioned anything regarding the attorneys general modification, '' he says. \n\n68 ) Why dont borrowers know about the settlement?\n\n69 ) If they received a notification letter like the one Bank of America officials gave me after weeks of prodding, they would have no clue they were one of the covered homeowners. \n\n70 ) Nowhere in the letter is there explicit mention of the settlement. Theres no mention of borrowers rights, such as waiving of late fees for those who qualify for modification.\n\n71 ) And the letter fails to mention the settlements most attractive modification option : principal write-down, the only measure that could make a significant difference to borrowers who have seen the value of their homes decline by 50 percent or more. \n\n\n71 ) Bank of Americas opaque public outreach apparently passes muster with the California attorney general. \n\n72 ) An official in the AGs office who declined to be named told me the notification letter \" is not necessarily going to reference the settlement. '' 73 ) He went on to express concern about the plaintiffs themselves, the very people the settlement was designed to protect. \n\nNOW WHEN IT COMES TO HOMEOWNRES - THEIR WORRIED ABOUT MORAL HAZARD? \nIN THE FACE OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF SWINDELED LOSSES COMMITTED BY CORRUPT BANKING AND MORTGAGE INSTITUTIONS, AS WELL AS CORRUPT GOVERNMENATL REGULATION AND SO-CALLED OVERSIGHT! \nALL - AT THE ULTIMATE EXPENSE OF HOMEOWNERS AND INVESTORS 74 ) \" There is a moral hazard problem with all of this, which is that you dont want to encourage borrowers who can afford their loans to default, or borrowers who dont believe they were victims of fraud to default, '' he says. \n75 ) \" So, there is a fine line that had to be walked in figuring out how to publicize, announce and communicate with borrowers. '' * * * 76 ) The settlements most fatal flaw may be its failure to cover second liens. Bank of America still owns a large number of Countrywides second liens outright, including its once popular Home Equity Lines of Credit ( HELOCs ). \n\n77 ) Today the bank is the largest holder of second-lien loans in the country, which are valued at {$140.00} XXXX. ( Second-lien loans, which are tacked onto the original first-lien mortgage, include home-equity loans used to finance everything from home improvements to hospitalization to coverage of 1520 percent of the purchase price of a house. ) 78 ) XXXX alleges that Countrywide employees broke the same laws in selling those loans as they did in selling first liens. \n79 ) According to the XXXX lawsuit, Countrywide loan officers \" further [ ed ] their deceptive scheme '' by \" urging borrowers to encumber their homes up to 100 % ( or more ) of the assessed value ; and placing borrowers in piggyback second mortgages in the form of higher interest HELOCs while obscuring their monthly payment obligations. '' 80 ) A settlement that covered second liens would have improved the prospects for victims of Countrywides predations. \n81 ) Federal officials and mortgage analysts have identified second liens as a major factor in at least half the mortgages in danger of default. Such a loan works against borrowers in several ways. \n\n82 ) Not only does it stick them with a greater debt burden ; it also stands in the way of principal reduction on the first mortgage, since a second lien must usually be wiped out before principal can be written down on the first loan. \n\n83 ) The attorneys general seem to have left this gaping loophole for pure expediency. \n84 ) \" We do allege misconduct related to the origination of second liens and HELOCs, '' says the XXXX AG official. \" However, for purposes of settling the case, we wanted to craft a settlement that, while not perfect, would have the most effective chance of saving homeowners as quickly as possible. We were in a situation where the housing crisis was expanding by the moment. They [ Bank of America ] could have dragged out the negotiations for two years, during which time innumerable residents of California and other states could have lost their homes to foreclosure. '' 85 ) Earlier this year Bank of America finally indicated some willingness to address the second-lien issue XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX the bank announced to much positive press that it was the first servicer to sign up for a resuscitated federal effort known as the Second Lien Modification Program, which the Obama administration had been trying to get off the ground since spring XXXX. \n\n86 ) In XXXX, facing additional legal action over Countrywides predatory lending practices, Bank of America reached another settlement, this one with Massachusetts. \n87 ) Under that deal, the settlement XXXX negotiated was expandedBank of America would now offer principal reductions to about 45,000 severely underwater Countrywide borrowers. Notably, BofA will offer these principal reductions only to borrowers who qualify for HAMP, under which the bank gets bailed out by taxpayers. \n\n\n88 ) The Countrywide settlement, says XXXX XXXX, associate director of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, a statewide organization that advocates for low-income communities, has failed to protect homeowners who were the victims of predatory lending on an epidemic scale. \n89 ) \" Fraud and predatory lending really created this crisis we are in, and nobody is taking that into account, '' says XXXX. \" That was a concern we had with the original settlement. They dont admit any fraud. \"? \n\n\n90 ) Now state attorneys general might finally have an opportunity to help the thousands of defrauded Countrywide borrowers who have fallen through the cracks. \n91 ) On XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America announced that it was temporarily suspending foreclosures in all fifty states in response to revelations of false or fraudulent documentation and at least one BofA \" robo-signer '' who approved thousands of foreclosure papers without proper review. \n92 ) Even so, BofA appears confident that it has done nothing wrong. \" We will stop foreclosure sales until our assessment has been satisfactorily completed, '' states a BofA press release. \n93 ) \" Our ongoing assessment shows the basis for our past foreclosure decisions is accurate. We continue to serve the interests of our customers, investors and communities. Providing solutions for distressed homeowners remains our primary focus. '' Its up to the attorneys general, in their newly announced investigation, to hold BofA to its word. \n\n\nCountrywide exploited the American dream of homeownership and then sold its mortgages for huge profits on the secondary market, Attorney General XXXX said. The company sold ever-increasing numbers of complex and risky home loans, as quickly as possible. Countrywide was, in essence, a mass-production loan factory, producing ever-increasing streams of debt without regard for borrowers who were ripped off by Countrywides deceptive scheme.\n\nDespite receiving numerous complaints from borrowers claiming that they did not understand their loan terms, Countrywide ignored loan officers deceptive practices and loose underwriting standards. Countrywide also pushed its borrowers to serially refinance, repeatedly urging borrowers to obtain home loans to pay off their current debt. \n\nhttp : //ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php? cmplt=CL People v. Countrywide XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n\nIntentional Misrepresentations : ( Appraisal Process ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , thXXXX appraisal company used by Countrywide in my XXXX loan origination, - settled class action lawsuit accusing them of illegal appraisals regarding title and collateral valuation within their loan origination operational practices. \n\nCountrywides Mandate for Growth - Countrywide ceased acting as a conventional money lender, but instead morphed into an enterprise engaged in systematic fraud. This systematic fraud extended to the fraudulent appraisal process of a silent market fixing scheme through a policy of exercising control over appraisers including their loan origination values. \n\n1A ) Countrywides massive scheme to artificially inflate property values and fix the Real Estate Market through its wholly-owned subsidiary, XXXX XXXX authority to bind, meant to difference between being qualified for a home loan and being able to afford a home loan. \n\n1B ) Countrywide turned substantial profit through their borrowers default, - furthering their incentive to intentionally place borrowers into impossible and unaffordable home loans. \n\n1C ) Countrywide misled public and were well aware of their fraud. Countrywide intentionally misrepresented, and concealed information which they knew was highly material to the decision for a prospective customer to enter into a loan with Countrywide. \n\n1D ) Countrywides improper securitization, the foreclosing trusts had no ownership interest in homeowner Notes or Deeds of Trust under the explicit terms of their own Pooling and Service Agreements. There is no Chain of Title. Understanding MERS, - and its role in Countrywides wrongful foreclosure process. \n\n1E ) Countrywides violation of numerous other laws, and pervasive schemes of fraud and deception, ( along with many other financial institutions, such as Bank of America ), substantially contributed to the United States national housing market crash of XXXX, essentially, overnight wiping out the home values of millions of America homeowners nationwide, who were otherwise completely innocent of these events! Triggering the overnight catastrophe that resulted in the substantial devaluing of millions of American homeowner properties, which directly lead to millions of American homeowners losing their properties through foreclosure nationwide! \n\nRelationship of Bank of America to Countrywide 63. BofAs public disclosures, as reflected in its filings with the SEC, make clear that BofA considers itself both a common enterprise operating as a greater whole and without meaningful distinctions as to its operating units, and the successor to Countrywide and its subsidiaries. As stated in BofAs Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended XX/XX/XXXX ( BofA XXXX XXXX K ), [ i ] n XXXX of XXXX, we made a {$2.00} XXXX investment in Countrywide Financial Corporation ( Countrywide ), the largest mortgage lender in the U.S. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, we announced a definitive agreement to purchase all outstanding shares of Countrywide... The acquisition would make us the nations leading mortgage lender and loan servicer. BofA XXXX 10-K, at XXXX. \n64. Thereafter, as stated in BofAs Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended XX/XX/XXXX ( BofA XX/XX/XXXX 10-Q ), On XX/XX/XXXX, the Corporation acquired Countrywide through its merger XXXX a subsidiary of the Corporation. BofA XX/XX/XXXX 10-Q at XXXX. \n\n- 17 XX/XX/XXXX the extent that certain Plaintiffs herein become aware of information that provides a basis for asserting the Defendants herein are liable for the origination of their loans, those Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek leave of this Court to re-assert the appropriate claims herein. \n\nCOMPLAINT Lawley, et. al. v. Bank of America, et. al. \nAgain, BofA boasts in the BofA XX/XX/XXXX 10-Q that The acquisition of Countrywide significantly improved our mortgage originating and servicing capabilities, while making us the nations leading mortgage originator and servicer. BofA XX/XX/XXXX 10-Q at XXXX. \n65. BofA further makes clear the commonality of its business enterprise with that of Countrywide, and the greater whole of its various subsidiaries and operating units, by stating again that On XX/XX/XXXX, the Corporation acquired Countrywide... creating the nations largest mortgage originator and servicer. BofA XX/XX/XXXX 10-Q at XXXX. \n66. Countrywides remaining operations and employees have been transferred to Bank of America, and Bank of America ceased using the Countrywide name in XX/XX/XXXX. \n# 6 Specific Bank of America Violations On XX/XX/XXXX, a XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Form 25 was utilized to deregister and delist Countrywides common stock, and on XX/XX/XXXX Countrywide filed Securities and Exchange Commission Form 15 deregistering its common stock under Section 12 ( b ) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.\n\n67. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that : ( 1 ) BofA and its wholly- owned and controlled subsidiaries are liable for all wrongful acts of Countrywide prior to the date thereof as the successor-in-interest to Countrywide ; ( 2 ) BofA directly and through its subsidiaries and other agents sued herein as Does have continued the unlawful practices of Countrywide since XX/XX/XXXX, including, without limitation thereof : 1 ) writing fraudulent mortgages as set forth above 2 ) concealing wrongful acts that occurred in whole or in part prior thereto, 3 ) BofA and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally liable as alter egos and as a single, greater unified whole. \n\nBank of America N.A. Successor by Merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, its Assignees and Successors.\n\nIf a Trustee, Paying Agent or Registrar consolidates with, merges or converts into, or transfers all or substantially all of its corporate trust assets to another corporation, the resulting, surviving or transferee corporation without any further act shall be the successor. \n\n\n\n\n\nDear Bank of America N.A. Home Loans, - according to your own research per Department of Justice notice dated XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America N.A. Home Loans, fka Countrywide Home Loans, my Home Equity Line of Credit, ( HELOC ), account ending in XXXX was approved for participation in a principal forgiveness program offered as a result of the Department of Justice and State Attorneys General national settlement with major mortgage services, including Bank of America. \n\nI stated, I received a full forgiveness not because of some random form of charity, or anonymous altruism, because my family is just one of literally millions of unsuspecting, Innocent homeowners who fell prey to the unbelievable scale of fraud, especially within the appraisal process engaged in by Countrywide Home Loans, currently Bank of America N.A. \n\nI am again requesting that Bank of America return in full all payments made between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, approximately, {$5000.00}. \n\nAlso, the fraudulent reverse mortgage my mother entered into with Financial Freedom Senior Funding in December 2004, is a subsidiary of Countrywide Home Loans, and therefore with the purview and responsibility of Bank of America N.A. as successor by merger to Countrywide Home Loans LP. \n\nAlso, as I have repeatedly complained, my refinance of my parents home is riddled with fraud and abuse, especially within the XXXX XXXX process as I have repeatedly tried to draw your attention to? \n\nNot only was I at a complete disadvantage dealing with the predatory refinance department at Countrywide, but I was devastated and in severe mourning at the death of my dear and sweet mother. The refinance department at countrywide saw me coming, and took complete advantage of me, having me assume not only a {$54000.00} plus reverse mortgage that my mother had unknowing entered just 2 years prior, but also the mind numbing fact that despite my parents having paid approximately {$82000.00} from the period between XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX in mostly interest only payments, and an additional {$54000.00}, with Countrywide charging a closing fee of {$10.00}, XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX to the time of my mothers death on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI am requesting that my complaint be immediately reconsidered with a positive resolution in the favor of myself and my family for we are the horrible victims of extremely documented fraud, misrepresentation and homeowner abuse.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-08-03T16:59:26.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"89106","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5830796","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-08-01T05:53:37.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["* * * PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PENSION FUNDS INVESTED HEAVILY IN COUNTRYWIDES CDOs : 48 ) As it turns out, BofA has had good reason not to make its modifications affordable for <em>mortgages</em> now owned by a third party, such as the public employee pension funds that invested heavily, and disastrously, in Countrywides <em>mortgage</em>-<em>backed</em> securities. \n49 ) From XXXX to XXXX, the years covered by the settlement, Countrywide sold most of its first-lien subprime loans as <em>mortgage</em>-<em>backed</em> securities or loan packages,"],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Struggling to pay <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Conventional home <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[6.7609024,"5830796"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2578139","_score":5.7546306,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I was given a mortgage I did not qualify nor understand. I was made to move my securities from   XXXX   XXXX   to Merrill lynch/ Boa. My urla was fabricated to make me qualify. I suspect I was a victim of robo signing.\nI was too ill from all the stresses to understand, I was unsophisticated and not an investor and did not ever get a mortgage myself ( my x did all our financial dealings ). I went to professionals and expected them to be honest and take care of their fiduciary responsible it me and my children. THEY DID NOT!\nThey gave me a jumbo interest only 6.75 % mortgage, AND I paid the insurance and taxes!!\nNo government program would help me for the parameters they had me placed into!\nI could get no one to help!\nMy children 's account are lost. My IRA. My only securities!\nI WAS TOLD TO SIGN A PAPER, THE FOLLOWING YEAR AFTER THE MORTGAGE WAS CREATED, A PAPER THAT SAID I UNDERSTOOD MORTGAGING MY HOME AND INVESTING THE MONEY IN THE MARKET WA NOT ADVISED!! I UNDERSTOOD NONE OF THIS AND WAS NOT TOLD THIS, THIS DOCUMENT HAD TO BE EXPLAINED TO ME YEARS LATER. I JUST SIGNED WHAT THEY TOLD ME TO SIGN BACK THEN, I WAS TOO ILL TO KNOW BETTER.\nI DID WHAT THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED TO DO.\nI HAD TOTALLY TRUSTED THE MORTGAGE PERSONS, AND THE INVESTORS!\nI UNDERSTOOD NOTHING AT THIS TIME, AND RELIED ON THESE PROFESSIONALS!\nEVERYTHING DONE TO ME HAD THE OPPOSITE AND WORST EFFECTS POSSIBLE.\nI made it known I never worked, was 3 times abused and hospitalized, in a violent divorce, and under counseling AND GOT A  XXXX  WAS ON MEDICATION AND HAD TO WEAR BRACES ON MY TEETH FOR THE LAST BATTERY. I had   XXXX    small children at the time that I had to take care of by myself. I was told the female mortgage person that was helping me, and also divorcing that she totally understood my situation. I never worked and had no income. My x was mostly not paying, and hardly did.\nI had a judgment, I could never collect. HE STILL IS NOT PAYING!\nThe boa urla person I spoke to on the phone in the mortgage person 's office, did not sign the urla and was named   XXXX   XXXX   I spoke to him only by phone once ; the bank double my securities value, my home appraisal value and said I earned $   XXXX   a month, and that i was worth {$5.00} million. All not true. They were going to create an income from the mortgage money invested by them in Merrill lynch/ BOA and my original portfolio once liquidated to have enough income to pay all my bills and mortgage. This did not work and the opposite actually occurred. And, the capital gains from the sale of my portfolio almost killed me, and I as told it was not going to be much! it took me years to pay off!\nI was never allowed to refi or modify no matter how many times I tried, they always lost my paperwork OR made me start over! And, never helped me at all.\nI got extremely ill for all the  XXXX , this financial blunder and ruination of my life.\nI eventually ran out of money for the situation I was placed into by the mortgage and liquidation of my original portfolio and the purchase of bad securities. And, my children 's accounts were used as my assets, and theirs were also lost.\nI even got a call from one of the BOA refi persons at boa that she was quitting because boa gave no one the ability to refi or modify.\nPlease, look at all my details and documents. any professional who sees my case tells me that they had never seen this much abuse before!\nI need help from this bank and the incredible abuse I have had to endure. They did performed many illegalities to have me qualify a mortgage I did not, and had me invest the proceed into the market illegally and had me liquidate my original portfolio for no reason except to be able to reinvest and make more money off of me. They front end loaded the commissions and bought me unsuitable investments. I was bankrupted with the  XXXX ,   XXXX   XXXX   and  XXXX  they purchased! They made it necessary for me to have to sell off just to be able to live and pay my bills for me and my  XXXX  children.\nI have truly lived a nightmare for all these people did to me and my children!!\nI have zero social security ad zero retirement, I made all that known, my children money is gone now too for all of this. I went to the back and securities professionals for help and has financially annulated!\nIt ruined our lives!\nI need help and these evil, greedy people need to be punished.\n-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   Claimant, v.\nBANC OF AMERICA INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #   XXXX   XXXX   ; and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) Respondents.\nSTATEMENT OF CLAIM   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , Claimant, makes this claim for compensation for losses arising from the Respondents recommendations of unsuitable securities transactions. Respondents breached their respective fiduciary duties, committed acts of securities fraud, negligence and misrepresentation by recommending and executing an investment strategy in which the Respondents arranged for the claimant, an unemployed mother of   XXXX   minor children, to take out a {$650000.00} home equity loan and invest the proceeds, on margin, in highly speculative and unsuitable equities, causing her to suffer financial losses.\nClaimant hereby demands arbitration of her claims against Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #  XXXX  ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( CRD #   XXXX   ) ; and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . ( CRD #   XXXX   ), ( Respondents ) based upon transactions in account number   XXXX   maintained with Respondent Banc of America Investment Services , Inc. Claimant requests that the arbitration hearing be held in  XXXX , Fl.\nI. PARTIES Claimant   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    is  a   XXXX   year old unemployed, divorced mother of   XXXX   minor children living in   XXXX   XXXX  , Florida. Respondent Banc of America Investment Services , Inc. is a broker dealer member of FINRA based in  XXXX , Massachusetts. Respondents   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   are registered representatives of Respondent Banc of America Investment Services , Inc, in  XXXX , Florida. Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , at the times relevant to this Statement of Claim, was a registered representative of Respondent Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., and was also a Vice President and Client Manager with the Premier Banking and Investments program of the Bank of America, N.A. Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . is a broker dealer member of FINRA based in  XXXX , TX. Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   is a registered representative of Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ., who, at all relevant times lived and had his office in   XXXX   XXXX  , Fl.\nII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND By the summer of  XX/XX/XXXX , the Claimants protracted divorce proceedings left her with the sole ownership of an unencumbered residence on   XXXX   XXXX  , Florida, valued at about 1.2 million dollars, as well as sole ownership of a   XXXX   XXXX    investment account. The investment account contained about {$870000.00} in securities, with about {$390000.00} in margin debt, for a net value of about {$480000.00}. Each of these assets had been previously jointly owned by Claimant and her ex-husband. The Claimants ex-husband had been ordered to pay her alimony and child support and to pay off the margin debt on the investment account ; however, he was not making those payments.\nThe Claimants immediate financial problems were  XXXX fold. She had to support herself and   XXXX   minor children, but had no income other than the earning from her investment account. She was forced to make withdrawals from her available margin to meet her living expenses, a practice she knew had to stop. The Claimant had been a homemaker during most of her twenty-two year marriage and had never developed marketable job skills.\nSecondly, the Claimant had no idea how to manage the investment account ; it had been assembled and monitored during the course of her marriage by her financially sophisticated in-laws. She had no investment experience or knowledge and was desperate, even frantic, to find a solution to her financial problems.\nThe constant pressure of her financial and legal problems made her physically ill and emotionally exhausted. It was at this point that Respondent Grant presented himself as the solution to the Claimants financial woes. Describing himself to her as a financial Wizard, he asserted that his credentials and experience in the securities industry, particularly his position as Managing Director, Corporate Syndicate, Structured Products with Respondent   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , gave him the ability to assist the Claimant in dealing with her financial difficulties. He advised the Claimant that he managed the investments of a small number of people, including some relatives, with great success. Respondent Grant described the Claimants financial position to her as being too long real estate, a situation that should be corrected by mortgaging the residence and investing the proceeds in the stock market. Respondent Grant assured the Claimant that the mortgage proceeds could be invested so as to provide a return sufficient to pay all of Claimants monthly expenses, including a mortgage payment.\nClaimant met with Respondent Buchanan and opened a margin brokerage account and money manager account with Respondent Banc of America Investment Services in  XX/XX/XXXX , at their   XXXX   XXXX   office. Respondents  XXXX  and  XXXX  acted as Financial Advisor and investment consultants on the account. Claimants   XXXX   XXXX   account was then transferred to Respondent Banc of America Investment Services. At that time that account had assets of about {$810000.00}, margin debt of {$270000.00} for a net value of {$520000.00}.\nEach of the Respondents recommended that the Claimant mortgage her residence and speculate with the proceeds in a margin account. In  XX/XX/XXXX , Respondent Grant arranged with Respondent Harber for the Claimant to receive a {$650000.00} loan from the Bank of America, secured by the Claimants residence. The loan required interest-only payments of {$3700.00} for ten years before switching to a principle and interest repayment schedule. The loan proceeds were immediately deposited into the Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., brokerage account. The margin debt was paid, leaving an account value of about {>= $1,000,000} ( of course, even though the margin debt was paid, the home equity loan of {$650000.00} was still owed and demanding interest payments of {$3700.00} every month. ) Each of the respondents, either directly or vicariously, asserted to the claimant that they could engineer a rate of return in her Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., investment account sufficient repay the mortgage and to support the claimant and her children. To earn this rate of return the Respondents then recommended that the existing equities in the portfolio be liquidated and other, more speculative equities be purchased. They assured Claimant that her tax consequences from such a liquidation would be minimal. The actual tax consequences were far from minimal ; the sales caused Claimant to incur a tax liability to the IRS of almost {$45000.00}, a bill she was unable to pay and on which she continues to make monthly payments.\nThe transition to a more aggressive speculative portfolio continued, and after a period of brief success, asset value of the portfolio began a precipitous decline. Eventually the portfolio included such highly speculative investments as preferred shares of   XXXX   XXXX  e, ( {$50000.00} invested ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   ( {$50000.00} invested ), and   XXXX   XXXX   ( {$100000.00} invested ), all of which became practically worthless. Respondents misrepresented the risk associated with the   XXXX   XXXX   and   XXXX   XXXX   investments by assuring the Claimant that the Federal government would stand behind those issues. A more complete description and analysis of these and other speculative investments will be presented at the arbitration hearing. At no time did any of the Respondents explain to the Claimant the risks she was undertaking, that she was risking not only her investment account, but her home as well. Respondents misrepresented the risk associated with the Claimants investments by assuring her of the viability of their investment scheme and by continuing to recommend speculative investments to her.\nThe Respondents assurances of an investment return sufficient to support the Claimant and her children never materialized. Claimant was forced to repeatedly draw upon her margin account to meet her expenses, a predictable and disastrous consequence of the Respondents plan of action. The Claimant sank deeper into debt as her portfolio value decreased and the value of her now mortgaged house plummeted.\nClaimant recognized from the beginning that she lacked the background, experience and investment knowledge to make intelligent informed decisions about her investments. She knew she needed help with her financial affairs. She relied completely upon Respondents Grant, Gear,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    and their professed expertise. On several occasions when the Claimant asked if she should obtain other financial advice, she was assured that that was not necessary, that the Respondents would take proper care of her.\nIII. CLAIM The investment strategy crafted by the collective actions of each of the Respondents was fatally flawed on two levels.\nAll of the investments made by the Respondents are tainted with the fundamental and underlying unsuitability of using a home equity loan to fund stock market speculation. The recommendation to mortgage the house and speculate with the proceeds and the misrepresentation of the risks associated with that strategy are a breach of fiduciary duty, negligent, breach of contract, violations of state and federal law, and violations of FINRA/NASD Rules.\n  XXXX   XXXX  , then NASD Vice  XXXX , and President, Regulatory Policy and Oversight, in a speech to Security Industry Association Compliance and Legal Conference on  XX/XX/XXXX , page 7 of 8, might have had the Claimants situation in mind when she stated : \" So, I will go out on a limb here and say that 99 % of the time, a recommendation that an investor mortgage his or her home in order to speculate in the securities market- IS UNSUITABLE- and subject to potential enforcement action.\nWe brought three enforcement cases last week against individual brokers for making unsuitable recommendations that included convincing clients to mortgage their houses. '' [ Emphasis in original. ] Respondents ignored the cautions of  XX/XX/XXXX  : As noted above, investing liquefied home equity presents unique risks and also may present conflicts.  XX/XX/XXXX  believes members should ensure that their supervisory systems address these risks and conflicts.\nFirms that recommend or facilitate investments of liquefied home equity should consider the extent to which customers are adequately informed of the risks and conflicts of such a strategy.  XX/XX/XXXX  has previously developed risk disclosure statements for certain other trading strategies, such as margin and day trading accounts.\nAlthough  XX/XX/XXXX  is not proposing a specific, standardized risk disclosure document,  XX/XX/XXXX  believes members recommending investments of liquefied home equity should pay particular attention to providing investors with adequate risk disclosure. Among the risks and conflicts of investing liquefied home equity are : ( 1 ) the potential loss of ones home ; ( 2 ) the fact that unlike other potential lenders, the member has an interest in having the proceeds of the loan used for investments that may generate commissions, mark-ups of fees for the member ; ( 3 ) the member or its affiliate may earn fees in connection with originating the loan ; ( 4 ) the impact of liquefied home equity on the ability to refinance a home mortgage ; and ( 5 ) depending on the amount of home equity liquefied and any change in home value, the homeowner may have negative equity in his or her home.\nMembers should also pay particular attention to their sales materials and oral presentations concerning investments of liquefied home equity.  XX/XX/XXXX  reminds its members that the promotion of liquefying home equity must be fair and balanced, and must address the associated risks. For example is a member presents a scenario in which the investment returns from liquefied equity will be sufficient to pay the costs of accessing such capital, the member should highlight the risk that such returns may not be achieved and that the customer may have to access additional sources of funding to pay the mortgage or equity line of credit or risk foreclosure.\nRespondents repeatedly assured the claimed that if she trusted their expertise they would manage her portfolio so that it would earn enough to pay the mortgage costs and all of her living expenses. The risks described in   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    were not a real danger in the eyes of the respondents, because their expertise would lead the claimant through those risks to financial success, if only she would trust them. Of course, her trust was not rewarded with financial success, rather the portfolio lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, as will be shown at the hearing on this matter. These losses were made all the more devastating to the claimant as the value of her house plummeted to where its sale would probably not yield enough to pay off the mortgage.\nThe unsuitability of using liquefied home equity for speculation on margin was compounded when the respondents dumped the existing portfolio of dividend producing income stocks in favor of much more speculative equities, including but not limited to, the   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   and   XXXX   XXXX   issues described above. The respondents constructed a portfolio of nearly 100 % equities for the claimant, putting her entire net worth at risk in the market.\nEach respondent had non delegable fiduciary responsibilities to Claimant and each were bound by Florida and Federal law, and by   XXXX   Rules to not make unsuitable investment recommendations and to not misrepresent the risks associated with the recommended investments. The Respondents each breached this fiduciary duty and recommended unsuitable investments to an unemployed mother of two minor children so that almost all of her net worth be speculatively invested on margin ; a recommendation that caused the claimant to suffer losses.\nThe Respondents each had a fiduciary duty to exercise the utmost good faith and loyalty in their dealings with Claimant.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1987 ) ; T  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1983 ). Indeed, according to the SEC, securities brokers have a fiduciary obligation to their customers under both the common law rules of agency and the rules of the   XXXX   and  XXXX . See, In re   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   , Exchange Act Release No  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   1988-89 Transfer Binder ] Fed. Sec. L.Rep. ( CCH ) 84,303 ( XX/XX/XXXX  ) ( The concept of just and equitable principles of trade embodies basic fiduciary responsibilities .... ).\nAccording to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the fiduciary responsibilities of a broker include : 1. The duty to recommend a stock only after studying it sufficiently to become informed as to its nature, price and financial prognosis ; 2. The duty to carry out the customers orders promptly and in a manner best suited to serve the customers interests ; 3. The duty to inform the customer of the risks involved in purchasing or selling a particular security ; 4. The duty to refrain from self-dealing ; 5. The duty not to misrepresent any material fact to the transaction ; and 6. The duty to transact business only after obtaining prior authorization.\n  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  .,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1987 ) ( quoting Lieb v. Merrill Lynch,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( E.D. Mich. 1978 ) ).\nPart of that fiduciary duty is the well-recognized obligation of a broker to have a reasonable basis for each recommendation he makes. According to the SEC, the making of recommendations for the purchase of a security implies that the dealer has a reasonable basis for such recommendation, which, in turn, implies that, as a prerequisite, he shall have made a reasonable investigation. SEC Securities Act Release No.  XXXX  (  XX/XX/XXXX ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 2d Cir. 1969 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 9th Cir. 1980 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( S.D.N.Y. 1993 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( E.D. Pa. 1993 ).\nRespondents breached their fiduciary duty to the Claimant by failing to have a reasonable basis for recommending liquefying the claimants home equity, selling off her existing portfolio of blue chip securities, and using all of the proceeds to buy speculative equities. The respondents claim that they could cause the portfolio to earn enough to pay the mortgage and support the claimant and her family would have required an immediate and consistent after-tax return of more than 10 %. There was no reasonable basis for such a claim. The respondents not only claimed the ability to meet this goal, they also failed to advise the claimant that there was a high probability that they would not meet that goal, and that failure to meet the goal could cause the claimant to loss her portfolio as well as her home.\nThe rules of the self-regulatory organizations such as the   XXXX   and the   XXXX   set out general standards of industry conduct and are evidence of the standard of care by which brokers must abide in dealing with their clients. In re   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   [ 1988-89 Transfer Binder ] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. ( CCH )   XXXX    (  XX/XX/XXXX  ). See also   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 5th Cir. Unit A, 1981 ) ( industry rules are excellent tools against which to assess in part the reasonableness or excessiveness of a brokers handling of an investors account ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( N.D. Tex. 1976 ) ( violations of industry rules and practices give rise to common law claim for negligence ). Thus, violations of industry rules can be evidence of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, common law fraud, securities fraud, breach of contract, and failure to supervise.\nRespondents, as members of the  XXXX , are subject to Conduct Rules, and as such, were obligated to provide services to Claimant in conformity with those Rules. However, by the conduct outlined above, Respondents failed to abide by industry rules, including the following : a ) NASD Conduct Rule 2110 ( members shall observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade ) ; b ) NASD Conduct Rule 2310 ( suitability ) ; c ) NASD Conduct Rule 2120 ( prohibition of the use of any manipulative, deceptive or other fraudulent device or contrivance ) ; and d ) NASD Conduct Rule 3010 ( supervision ).\nRespondents had a duty to know the securities they were recommending for Claimants account and to reasonably believe that those transactions were suitable for the Claimant. According to the SEC, the making of a recommendation for the purchase of a security implies that the dealer has a reasonable basis for such recommendation, which, in turn, requires that, as a prerequisite, he shall have made a reasonable investigation.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Feb. 2, 1962 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ) ; In re   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   [ 1983-1984 Transfer Binder ] Fed . Sec. L. Rep. ( CCH ) 83,459 ( SEC 1983 ).\nWhere unsuitable recommendations are made, or unsuitable securities are purchased, this duty is breached. Likewise, making unfounded statements or failing to disclose negative material facts to a customer constitutes a violation of these industry rules. Measured against these rules as a standard of a broker dealers duty to its customer, the Respondent was at a minimum negligent in the performance of its duties to the Claimant and Claimant is entitled to damages for this negligence.\nRespondents Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ., each had a statutory and common law duty to exercise reasonable supervision over their respective registered representatives and the securities they recommended including those recommended to the Claimants. Reasonable supervision would have detected the fact that the Claimants account was 100 % invested and over-concentrated in speculative securities,\nfunded with liquefied home equity and thereby needlessly exposed to excessive and unacceptable risk. Any investigation would have revealed that the investments were sold to the claimant on the basis of misrepresentations and omissions of material facts about the risks of the investments. In addition to liability for its own failure to supervise and liability as a statutory control person of Claimants sales representative, Respondents Banc of America Investment Services , Inc., and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , are also vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of its employees and agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In the Matter of   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . ; SEC Release No.   XXXX   ; Admin. Proc. No.   XXXX   XXXX    XX/XX/XXXX ) ;    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    ( M.D. Fla. 2003 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . v.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( S.D. Fla. 1990 ).\nThe recommendation of unsuitable investments or the giving of unsuitable investment advice constitutes fraud under Florida law.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 1st DCA 1990 ). Mere negligence in the giving of investment advice constitutes both statutory and common law fraud in Florida.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 3rd DCA 2001 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1985 ). Proof of loss causation is not required in civil securities proceeding under sections 517.211 and 517.301 Florida Statutes. E.F.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , 537 So. 2d. 978 ( Fla. 1989 ).\nMisrepresenting and omitting material facts about investments also constitute violations of Chapter 517. Under Florida law, it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove scienter ( intent ), causation or reliance. Merrill Lynch v  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 3rd DCA 1975 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( S.D. Fla. 1990 ). Claimant is therefore entitled to rescind the purchases of investments from the Respondent. Section 517.211 ( 1 ) Fla. Stat.\nIV. DAMAGES The Florida Investor Protection Act, in Sections 517.211 ( 3 ) through ( 6 ), specifies the legal remedy for a violation of the investor protection provisions of Chapter 517. Where the securities have not been sold, the investor is entitled to a refund of the purchase price, plus interest at the legal rate provided in Section 55.03 Fla. Stat., less any interest received on the investment. Section 517.211 ( 3 ) ( a ) Fla. Stat.,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1990 ). Moreover, Respondent is not entitled to offset losses from transactions which violate Chapter 517 with interest, dividends or profits from other transactions in the account.   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    supra.\nWhen a Chapte r 517 vi olation is found, Florida and federal courts agree that statutory damages under Chapter 517 Section 211 are automatic and mandatory, with no discretion left to judges, jurors or arbitrators to fashion a remedy. Florida Statutes Section 517.301,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( 11th Cir. 1992 ),   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 1991 ). Likewise, a prevailing party under Chapter 517 is entitled to attorneys fees unless the awarding of fees would be unjust. Section 517.211 ( 6 ) Fla. Stat. ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , 7  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 5th DCA 1999 ) ;   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Fla. 2001 ).\nSince the Claimant still holds some of the securities in her account, she is entitled to rescind the purchase transactions and recover the purchase price paid for them less any income received on them. The Claimant is also entitled to an award of interest at the statutory rate as well as the refunding of interest that she has paid the Respondent for the margin loan. The Claimant is also entitled to an award of punitive damages under the Florida law of common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Finally, the Claimant is entitled to recover hers attorneys fees incurred in this arbitration.\nClaimant therefore requests that the panel award her the following relief : 1. statutory rescission, including the rescission of the entire {$650000.00} home equity loan deposited in her account, and the rescission of the unsuitable transactions in the account involving assets in the account other than the liquefied home equity loan proceeds. In connection with Claimants request for rescission, the Claimant hereby tenders to the Respondent all relevant investments in her account ; 2. disgorgement of all commissions and fees paid to the Respondent ; 3. other compensatory damages in such amount as the arbitrators shall determine ; 4. all of Claimants costs, expenses and disbursements in pursuing this arbitration ; 5. full reimbursement of all filing, forum fees and hearing fees ; 6. Claimants reasonable attorneys fees, with such amount to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a confirmation proceeding following an Award by the panel in this matter pursuant to the Florida Arbitration Code, Fla. Stat. Section 682.01 et. seq., and as mandated by the appellate courts of the State of Florida ; 7. a finding that the Respondent committed violations of Florida Stat. Chapter 517 ; 8. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest until any award is paid ; 9. return on Claimants account calculated as if handled with her stated investment objectives ; and 10. such other and further relief, including but not limited to punitive damages, as the arbitrators deem just and proper in the circumstances.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-07-18T18:50:42.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"32952","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2578139","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2017-07-18T17:12:27.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I JUST SIGNED WHAT THEY TOLD ME TO SIGN <em>BACK</em> THEN, I WAS TOO ILL TO KNOW BETTER.\nI DID WHAT THEY TOLD ME I NEEDED TO DO.\nI HAD TOTALLY TRUSTED THE <em>MORTGAGE</em> PERSONS, AND THE INVESTORS!\nI UNDERSTOOD NOTHING AT THIS TIME, AND RELIED ON THESE PROFESSIONALS!\nEVERYTHING DONE TO ME HAD THE OPPOSITE AND WORST EFFECTS POSSIBLE."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Closing on a <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Other type of <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[5.7546306,"2578139"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":8,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":8}]}},"product":{"doc_count":8,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":8,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":8,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":8}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":8,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":7},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":8,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":8}]}},"company":{"doc_count":8,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CORELOGIC INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - SAN FRANCISCO MAIN BRANCH","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":8,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":8,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":5}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":8,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":2},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}