{"took":215,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":33,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"1850456","_score":28.187292,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Servicer engaged in practices that harmed borrower, including but not limited to : failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements ; charging unauthorized fees for default-related services ; providing false or misleading information to borrowers regarding loans that had been transferred from other servicers ; failing to provide accurate and timely information to borrowers who sought information about loss mitigation services, including loan modifications ; misrepresenting to borrowers that loss mitigation programs would provide relief from the initiation of foreclosure or further foreclosure efforts ; improperly denying loan modification relief to eligible borrowers ; providing false or misleading reasons for denial of loan modification ( s ) ; with respect to transferred loans, failing to honor in-process trial modifications agreed to by prior servicers ; and robosigning affidavits in foreclosure proceedings. \n\nThe servicer ( ASC ) cliams the investor ( s ) will not modify/pay \" Corporate Advance Fees/RICO ) fees. However, after reconfirming eligibility and terms via REST Report/Loan Disposition Analysis/NPV, these fees should be waived, as this loan qualifies for HAMP Tier 1 & Tier 2, as it is confirmed that the investor participates ; the borrower, in good faith, paid the RICO fees of {$2300.00} on XXXX/XXXX/16. \nClaims of Improper Denial, The ASC confirmation for payment of the RICO fees was/is - XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2016-05-10T19:07:30.000Z","issue":"Loan modification,collection,foreclosure","sub_product":"Conventional fixed mortgage","zip_code":"339XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"1850456","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2016-03-25T18:21:35.000Z","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":["<em>Servicer</em> engaged in practices that harmed borrower, including but not limited to : failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements ; charging unauthorized fees for default-related <em>services</em> ; providing false or <em>misleading</em> <em>information</em> to borrowers regarding <em>loans</em> that had been <em>transferred</em> from <em>other</em> <em>servicers</em> ; failing to provide accurate and timely <em>information</em> to borrowers who sought <em>information</em> about loss mitigation <em>services</em>, including"],"issue":["<em>Loan</em> modification,collection,foreclosure"]},"sort":[28.187292,"1850456"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6920093","_score":27.893404,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"As of today XX/XX/2023, PHH Mortgage continues to mislead and prolong information needed to Apply for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Ocwen is the origin loan servicer for my loan. PHH Mortgage Services ' information regarding my loan has multiple legal violations in which my mortgage payment her not accurately reported on my statement. A letter was sent to my home on XX/XX/2023 stating that I didn't give them legal consent for my fiance to get information which is totally false. I have given them written consent to allow my fiance to have consented to the information. PHH Mortgage Service continues to use tactics to not resolve issues that are being stated. XXXX XXXX from PHH Mortgage Services continues to avoid giving me the information requested. I have contacted PHH Mortgage Services for years and the refusal of providing the information requested was not provided. PHH Mortgage Services continue to violate the federal consumer financial protection act and state laws governing unfair and deceptive business practices. As of today XX/XX/2023, PHH Mortgage Services failed to promptly and accurately apply for my loan payments, failed to maintain accurate account statements, didn't provide accurate and timely information to me who sought information about loss mitigation services, such as loan modification, provide false or misleading information to me for loan transferred from other loan servicers, improperly denied loan modification several times to me, provided false and misleading reasons for denying loan modifications, failed to honor modifications that were already in process and that had been agreed to by prior lender and servicers that had transferred loans which was Ocwen my original servicer.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-02T23:49:55.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"20772","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6920093","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2023-05-02T23:19:55.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As of today XX/XX/2023, PHH Mortgage <em>Services</em> failed to promptly and accurately apply for my <em>loan</em> payments, failed to maintain accurate account statements, didn't provide accurate and timely <em>information</em> to me who sought <em>information</em> about loss mitigation <em>services</em>, such as <em>loan</em> modification, provide false or <em>misleading</em> <em>information</em> to me for <em>loan</em> <em>transferred</em> from <em>other</em> <em>loan</em> <em>servicers</em>, <em>improperly</em> <em>denied</em> <em>loan</em> modification several times to me, provided false and <em>misleading</em> reasons for <em>denying</em> <em>loan</em> modifications"]},"sort":[27.893404,"6920093"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2167475","_score":24.195332,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My original lender was XXXX XXXX and on or about XX/XX/2012, the mortgage was transferred to Ocwen without any knowledge to us the home owners. With XXXX we were in the process of getting approved for a permanent modification and everything went down hill from there. We made the trial payments to XXXX Mortgage and I sent the 3rd, 4th, and fifth payment was not ever cashed by XXXX. As I noticed that the checks were not deposited by XXXX, I decided to call and inquire as to why they did not cash the checks. We were told that the mortgage is no longer with XXXX and that it was transferred and sold to Ocwen Mortgage company. We had not received any notices to inform us that we needed to deal with Ocwen now. I finally found Ocwen 's number and I kept calling XX/XX/2012 to see what my status was and what was going on with the modification. They did not have any information from XXXX nor did they say that I was under the modification trial and awaiting a response. I have attempted several time to modify my loan each time I was given the run around and now the debt has accumulated over time. We were given misleading information regarding the loan that had been transferred from XXXX. They have failed to provide accurate and timely information to us while we sought information about loss mitigation services, including loan modifications. They misrepresented that loss mitigation programs would provide relief from the initiation of foreclosure or further foreclosure efforts ; providing false or misleading information about the status of the loss mitigation review, including while referring loans to foreclosure, provided false or misleading information about the status of foreclosure proceedings while we were pursuing a loss mitigation alternative offered by the Servicers. I assume that they failed to properly calculate the eligibility for loan modification programs and improperly denying loan modification relief to eligible borrowers ; failing to properly process borrowers ' applications for loan modifications, including failing to account for documents submitted by borrowers and failing to respond to borrowers ' reasonable requests for information and assistance, and as a result, denying loan modifications to us thinking all that time that we were eligible, they provided false or misleading reasons for denial of loan modifications, with respect to transferred loans, failing to honor in-process trial modifications agreed to by prior servicers in this case from XXXX who was our previous servicer. It has been a difficult time for us in the past and now that we are getting to a point where we can afford payments Ocwen refuses to speak to us or return our calls and when they do, we are given to other representatives where we leave messages but never get any calls from them. I am afraid that the property may have been sold under our nose and or put in foreclosure and we were not given the opportunity to attempt any chances of saving our home. I googled the home and other owners have been named and the address for the loan is different from the address of my home. I have attached some documents for your review as well to verify our claim.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-10-19T20:38:45.000Z","issue":"Loan modification,collection,foreclosure","sub_product":"Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)","zip_code":"10950","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2167475","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2016-10-19T20:38:44.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["provided false or <em>misleading</em> reasons for denial of <em>loan</em> modifications, with respect to <em>transferred</em> <em>loans</em>, failing to honor in-process trial modifications agreed to by prior <em>servicers</em> in this case from XXXX who was our previous <em>servicer</em>."],"issue":["<em>Loan</em> modification,collection,foreclosure"]},"sort":[24.195332,"2167475"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2195107","_score":20.581984,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"We are homeowner with a mortgage serviced by Ocwen. I am a Veteran and retired from XXXX with nearly 14 years in. My story is two-fold, 1.Making payments-Loan servicing, payments, escrow accounts 2.Problems when you are unable to pay-Loan modification, foreclosure Ocwen purchased our loan from another mortgagor. At that time they constantly said our full monthly payment was short bc of fees the previous company took and so Ocwen kept taking our monthly payment and applying it to fees instead of the principal payment and told us we only made a partial payment when we would MAKE NUMEROUS calls to someone in XXXX. This cycle continued on a monthly bases without any warning that we were being set up for a foreclosure scam with XXXX of other home owners. They also had a monthly fee for coming by the house and telling us we did not live there. The kicker here was that Ocwen would never give you their email address and then tell you that they never received the fax from you with the number Ocwen would provide. \nTHE FOLLOWING PRACTICES WERE CONDUCTED BY OCWEN SERVICING OUR LOAN. \n1.Failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements ; 2. Charging unauthorized fees for default-related services ; 3. Proving false or misleading information to borrowers regarding loans that had been transferred from other servicers. \nI also went on the Ocwen website and there was a contradiction that showed payments were made in full and not late, so I printed those out. But after I tried to get a credit check to refinance the house, Ocwen then removed the payment history and changed all the information to delinquent on the website and on the credit history. This so discouraged us that when we saw what they did to my credit score and the mortgage rate we were offered we quit and were XXXX. It effected my wife XXXX and I could n't do anything to fix it. \nOcwen tried to push us into foreclosure by XXXX XXXX. \nTook advantage of us with servicing shortcuts and unauthorized fees. \nDeceived us about foreclosure alternatives and improperly denied loan modifications. \nEngaged in illegal foreclosure practices. \nThis lead to foreclosure talks and us fighting to keep our house by get up to date on our payment.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-11-05T05:43:45.000Z","issue":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","sub_product":"Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)","zip_code":"33813","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2195107","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2016-11-05T05:43:43.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES WERE CONDUCTED BY OCWEN <em>SERVICING</em> OUR <em>LOAN</em>. \n1.Failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements ; 2. Charging unauthorized fees for default-related <em>services</em> ; 3. Proving false or <em>misleading</em> <em>information</em> to borrowers regarding <em>loans</em> that had been <em>transferred</em> from <em>other</em> <em>servicers</em>."],"issue":["<em>Loan</em> servicing, payments, escrow account"]},"sort":[20.581984,"2195107"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"23298662","_score":18.731098,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX. Unsolicited Loan Modification During the XXXX Pandemic ( XX/XX/XXXX ) In or about XX/XX/XXXX, I was offered a loan modification by the mortgage servicer, NewRez/XXXX, despite the fact that I had not applied for or requested XXXX. This occurred during the earliest months of the XXXX pandemic. \n\nAt that time, I was employed in New York XXXX, but my employer was completely shut down as a result of the pandemic. I was left without income and was denied unemployment benefits. Because of those circumstances, I was unable to take advantage of the offered loan modification. \n\nIn addition, the servicer did not place the loan into any pandemic-related forbearance program. Instead, interest, late fees, and other charges continued to accrue. I only recently became aware that the loan balance may have been improperly inflated as a result. \n\nI raise this issue because, during subsequent attempts to obtain a loan modification, I was repeatedly informed that I had already used my XXXX opportunity for a loan modification. That statement is incomplete and misleading. The XXXX modification was unsolicited, was offered during a period of unprecedented economic hardship, and was not realistically available to me under the circumstances. \n\nBased upon these facts, I believe a review and adjustment of the loan balance is warranted. \n\nXXXX. CFPB Complaint, Servicer Day Modification, and XX/XX/XXXX Property Disaster In XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a complaint with the CFPB. That complaint remains open. I recently reviewed XXXX XXXX response and was surprised to see XXXX claim that it was not the proper party to address the issues raised, despite the fact that XXXX had been servicing my mortgage since approximately XXXX. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, my attorney received an unsolicited call advising that my loan had been selected for a program referred to as \" XXXX XXXX. '' During that call, representatives specifically asked what amount I could afford to pay and when I could begin making payments. \n\nI advised that I could afford approximately {$24000.00} and could begin making payments on XX/XX/XXXX, although it would be difficult to begin sooner due to my ongoing divorce proceedings. The representative responded, \" Okay, '' and no further discussion occurred. \n\nAfter that conversation, neither my attorney nor I received any further communication until XX/XX/XXXX. On that date, my attorney received a letter by email. No correspondence was sent directly to me, to the property, or to any alternate address. \n\nThe communication referenced a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating that a loan modification had been approved with a monthly payment of approximately {$2900.00} and that the first payment was due XX/XX/XXXX. However, neither my attorney nor I actually received notice of this modification until XX/XX/XXXX, after the stated due date had already passed. \n\nOnly XXXX days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, a catastrophic plumbing failure occurred at my property and throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Approximately XXXX homes were affected. Due to extremely cold temperatures, reportedly the coldest XXXX experienced in over XXXX XXXX years in this area of New York, the plumbing failure caused a pressurized sewer backup that forced sewage into my basement. \n\nThe damage was so severe that the home was effectively rendered uninhabitable. \n\nMy mother and I were forced to obtain a high-interest loan and spend approximately {$24000.00} to mitigate the damage. At the time, I believed hazard insurance was in place. However, the insurance company would not process the claim and would not clearly explain why. \n\nDespite these circumstances, I remained prepared to make the XXXX payment required under the modification. Beginning on XX/XX/XXXX, and continuing through XX/XX/XXXX, I repeatedly contacted XXXX in an effort to make payment. \n\nDuring each call, I was told that the account was not set up to receive payments. I was informed that payment could not be accepted through the website, by phone, or through ordinary servicing channels. Representatives repeatedly transferred me to various departments and indicated that the account required research. \n\nAlthough I was actively attempting to make the required payment, the servicer ultimately closed the loan modification on or about XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI do not understand how I could have complied with the modification terms when the servicer 's own systems would not accept payment. Based upon my experience, it appeared that I was placed into a modification program while simultaneously being denied a practical means of making the required payments. \n\nAdditionally, I have identified federal guidance indicating that homeowners affected by natural disasters may be entitled to forbearance or other mortgage assistance. Given the catastrophic plumbing and sewer event that rendered my home uninhabitable, I do not understand why no similar accommodation was offered or applied in my case. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Missing Insurance Coverage For many years, approximately {$4300.00} per year has been advanced through my escrow account for hazard insurance on this property. \n\nThe loan servicing has since transferred from XXXX to Shellpoint, although NewRez continues to appear throughout the account records and customer portal. I do not fully understand NewRez 's continuing role, as documents continue to appear as having been transferred or forwarded from a prior servicer. \n\nUpon reviewing the insurance records available through the customer portal, I discovered that there appear to be no hazard insurance binders or policy records after XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Shellpoint 's insurance department directly. During that conversation, I was advised that the company had confirmed there had been no active hazard insurance policy on the property since XXXX. I was further advised that Shellpoint was placing a policy effective XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe representative also advised that I should seek a balance adjustment for escrow funds that had been collected and advanced for hazard insurance during the years in which no policy appears to have existed. I was instructed to address that issue with the servicing department. \n\nBecause an auction sale is currently scheduled, I have not yet been able to fully address this issue with servicing. \n\nXXXX. Discrepancies in the Loan Balance and Foreclosure Judgment For years, XXXX represented that I owed substantially more than the amount that now appears to be reflected in the servicing records. \n\nThe amount claimed in the foreclosure action has never appeared mathematically accurate to me. As recently as approximately XXXX month ago, I was being told that more than {$570000.00} was owed. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX, I requested a payoff statement from Shellpoint. During that process, I was informed that the balance transferred from the prior servicer and reflected as the amount due in full was approximately {$290000.00}. \n\nThis discrepancy raises serious concerns. \n\nIf the actual balance is approximately {$290000.00} rather than more than {$570000.00}, then the foreclosure judgment may have been calculated using incorrect figures. It also means that substantial equity exists in the property and that refinancing opportunities may have been available long before the foreclosure reached its current stage. \n\nHad accurate balance information been provided, I would have pursued available options to resolve the default and preserve the property. \n\nI respectfully request a full accounting and reconciliation of the loan balance, the foreclosure judgment amount, escrow advances, fees, and all servicing transfers. \n\nXXXX. Active Loss Mitigation and Pending Foreclosure Sale When I log into the customer portal and navigate to the Loss Mitigation section, a prominent notice states that I have an active loan workout package in place. \n\nDespite that representation, the current servicer, Shellpoint, and the foreclosing attorneys have refused to cancel the foreclosure auction, which is currently scheduled to occur in approximately XXXX days. \n\nI have repeatedly raised concerns that this situation constitutes impermissible dual tracking. \n\nAdditionally, I have received correspondence from the prior servicer confirming that my application was accepted for review, that valuation was being ordered, and that the review process remained active. \n\nFurther supporting this point, the appraisal associated with the loss mitigation review was uploaded into the current servicer 's portal on Monday of this week. \n\nNevertheless, supervisors at Shellpoint have repeatedly stated that there is \" not enough time '' to cancel the foreclosure sale. \n\nThe continued pursuit of foreclosure while the customer portal reflects an active workout package, while loss mitigation documents remain under review, and while appraisal activity continues raises serious concerns regarding compliance with applicable mortgage servicing and loss mitigation requirements. \n\nI am requesting an immediate review of these issues and an immediate suspension of the scheduled foreclosure sale while the account is properly audited and all pending loss mitigation matters are resolved.REQUEST FOR RELIEF Based upon the facts outlined above, I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Office of the Attorney General, and any other appropriate regulatory or oversight agencies conduct a full investigation into the servicing, loss mitigation, escrow administration, insurance administration, and foreclosure practices associated with this loan. \n\nSpecifically, I request the following relief : XXXX. Immediate Suspension of Foreclosure XXXX I request the immediate postponement, cancellation, or suspension of the foreclosure auction currently scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX, pending a full review of the servicing history, loss mitigation history, escrow accounting, insurance accounting, and payoff calculations associated with this loan. \n\nGiven the existence of an active workout package reflected in the servicer 's own customer portal, the recent appraisal activity associated with loss mitigation review, and the unresolved disputes concerning the loan balance and escrow administration, allowing the foreclosure sale to proceed before these issues are investigated would create the risk of irreparable harm. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX I request a complete loan-level accounting from the date servicing began through the present, including but not limited to : - All principal balances. \n- All interest accruals. \n- All late fees. \n- All corporate advances. \n- All escrow advances. \n- All attorney fees and foreclosure costs. \n- All property inspection fees. \n- All broker price opinion fees. \n- All appraisal fees. \n- All suspense account activity. \n- All unapplied funds. \n- All servicing transfer adjustments. \n- All force-placed insurance charges. \n- All escrow analyses. \n- All loss mitigation calculations. \n\nI further request that the servicer identify every adjustment made to the account following each servicing transfer and explain any discrepancies between balances reported by prior servicers and balances reported by the current servicer. \n\nXXXX. Investigation of the XXXX Loan Modification and XXXX XXXX XXXX I request an investigation into the unsolicited loan modification offered in XX/XX/XXXX during the earliest months of the XXXX pandemic. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination as to : - Why a loan modification was offered without an application. \n- Whether any pandemic-related relief options should have been offered or applied. \n- Whether any XXXX XXXX or pandemic-era protections were available but not implemented. \n- Whether interest, fees, and charges continued to accrue in a manner inconsistent with available relief programs. \n- Whether the XXXX modification was later used improperly to deny or limit my eligibility for future loan modifications. \n\nIf errors occurred during this period, I request that the account be corrected and any improperly assessed amounts be removed. \n\nXXXX. Investigation of the XX/XX/XXXX Through XX/XX/XXXX Loss Mitigation Process I request an investigation into the loan modification process initiated after the XX/XX/XXXX \" Servicer Day '' communication. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination regarding : - Why communications were directed to my attorney rather than to me. \n- Why the XX/XX/XXXX modification notice was not received until XX/XX/XXXX, after the first payment due date had already passed. \n- Whether proper notice requirements were satisfied. \n- Whether the servicer provided a reasonable opportunity to accept and perform under the modification. \n- Why the account allegedly could not accept payments when I repeatedly attempted to make them between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n- Whether the modification was improperly terminated despite my documented attempts to perform. \n\nIf it is determined that the modification was improperly denied, improperly closed, or otherwise mishandled, I request that the servicer be required to restore the modification review process and correct any resulting damage to the account. \n\nXXXX. Investigation of XXXX XXXX XXXX Charges and Missing Coverage I request a complete investigation into the collection and disbursement of hazard insurance escrow funds. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination regarding : - Whether hazard insurance actually existed on the property between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n- What policies, if any, were in force during that period. \n- Who received the escrow disbursements collected for hazard insurance. \n- Whether premiums were paid. \n- Whether any policies were canceled, expired, or never procured. \n- Whether escrow funds were improperly collected or disbursed. \n\nIf it is determined that hazard insurance did not exist during periods in which escrow funds were collected for that purpose, I request a complete accounting and reimbursement of all improperly charged amounts, together with any corresponding interest, fees, and charges that were assessed as a result. \n\nXXXX. Investigation of the Reported Loan Balance and Foreclosure Judgment Amount I request an investigation into the substantial discrepancy between the amounts reported by the servicer over the years and the balance recently provided by the current servicer. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination regarding : - Why balances exceeding approximately {$570000.00} were repeatedly represented as owed. \n- How the current transferred balance due in full is reported as approximately {$290000.00}.\n\n- Whether errors exist in the foreclosure judgment calculations.\n\n- Whether escrow advances, fees, costs, or other charges were improperly assessed.\n\n- Whether inaccurate payoff information prevented me from pursuing available refinancing, settlement, reinstatement, or repayment options. \n\nIf errors are identified, I request that all records be corrected and that any foreclosure judgment obtained using inaccurate figures be reviewed and adjusted accordingly. \n\nXXXX Review of Potential XXXX XXXX Violations I request an investigation into whether the servicer and foreclosure counsel violated federal mortgage servicing regulations by continuing foreclosure activity while loss mitigation activity remained pending. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination regarding : - The active workout package reflected in the customer portal. \n- The recent appraisal activity associated with loss mitigation review. \n- Prior correspondence confirming that the application had been accepted for review. \n- The decision to continue foreclosure activity despite ongoing review activity. \n\nIf violations are identified, I request that all foreclosure activity be halted until the loss mitigation process is fully completed and any resulting servicing errors are corrected. \n\nXXXX Review of Disaster-Related Assistance Eligibility I request a determination as to whether the catastrophic XX/XX/XXXX sewer and plumbing event qualified me for any disaster-related mortgage relief, forbearance, loss mitigation protections, or other homeowner assistance programs. \n\nIf such protections were available and were not offered or applied, I request that the servicer be required to review and correct the account accordingly. \n\nXXXX. Preservation of Records Finally, I request that all servicing records, call recordings, account notes, payment histories, loss mitigation records, escrow records, insurance records, foreclosure records, correspondence logs, servicing transfer records, appraisal records, and internal communications relating to this loan be preserved pending investigation. \n\nGiven the number of servicing transfers, disputed balances, and unresolved issues identified above, preservation of these records is necessary to ensure a complete and accurate review.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-17T15:14:16.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"11793","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"23298662","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2026-06-17T14:53:34.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Loan sold or transferred to another company"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Because of those circumstances, I was unable to take advantage of the offered <em>loan</em> modification. \n\nIn addition, the <em>servicer</em> did not place the <em>loan</em> into any pandemic-related forbearance program. Instead, interest, late fees, and <em>other</em> charges continued to accrue. I only recently became aware that the <em>loan</em> balance may have been <em>improperly</em> inflated as a result."],"sub_issue":["<em>Loan</em> sold or <em>transferred</em> to another company"]},"sort":[18.731098,"23298662"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17145032","_score":15.96702,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint against Central Research Incorporated ( CRI ), the company that processes payments for my federal student loans, regarding improper handling of my auto-pay information, misleading assurances, and unfair damage to my credit history.\n\nI have maintained this account with CRI for approximately three years and have never missed or been late on a payment. I have always been enrolled in the automatic payment program and ensured that sufficient funds were available in my bank account each month.\n\nHowever, a few months ago, CRI switched payment processing companies for their auto-pay system. During this transition, my payment information failed to transfer correctly, even though I had taken no action to alter or cancel my auto-pay enrollment. As a result, my scheduled payments did not process. \n\nWhen I contacted CRI, I spoke with several agents including one named XXXX who all confirmed on recorded lines that this issue was not my fault. They acknowledged that this was the first time they had ever seen this type of transfer failure and that the information is supposed to carry over correctly 99.9999 % of the time. I was told directly that I was not responsible for the missed payments and that my account should not be negatively impacted. \n\nDespite this, I later discovered that my credit report reflected derogatory marks, and my credit score dropped by over XXXX points. This has had a severe impact on my ability to move forward with a pending mortgage approval. \n\nI was further advised by CRI to file a dispute with the credit bureaus, with assurances that CRI would support and approve the dispute. I followed their instructions, but to my shock, the dispute was denied.\n\nAfterward, I was told that CRI would issue letters to the credit bureaus to correct or clarify the situation. I relied on this representation, but no such letters were ever received. When I followed up, another agent informed me that they could not send any such correspondence, contradicting what their previous representatives had promised. \n\nIn summary : CRI acknowledged fault verbally, on recorded lines.\n\nThey promised corrective action that was never fulfilled.\n\nTheir failure to transfer auto-pay data correctly directly caused derogatory reporting.\n\nTheir actions ( and inactions ) have severely harmed my credit and affected my ability to secure housing.\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB review the recordings and evidence from CRIs customer service interactions with me, confirm that CRI admitted fault, and require CRI to : Remove or correct the negative marks from all credit reports. \n\nProvide written confirmation acknowledging their system error. \n\nEnsure this issue does not recur for other consumers affected by their payment processor transition. \n\nI am willing to provide bank statements demonstrating that the necessary funds were always available during the affected months, as well as dates and times of my calls with CRI agents who confirmed their error.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-10T18:34:25.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"11757","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17145032","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Central Research Inc","date_received":"2025-11-10T18:26:19.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble with how payments are being handled"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am writing to file a formal complaint against Central Research Incorporated ( CRI ), the company that processes payments for my federal student <em>loans</em>, regarding <em>improper</em> handling of my auto-pay <em>information</em>, <em>misleading</em> assurances, and unfair damage to my credit history.\n\nI have maintained this account with CRI for approximately three years and have never missed or been late on a payment."],"product":["Student <em>loan</em>"],"sub_product":["Federal student <em>loan</em> servicing"]},"sort":[15.96702,"17145032"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13221914","_score":15.868111,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am submitting this complaint regarding serious issues and potentially deceptive practices tied to a solar loan I entered into with GoodLeap ( formerly LoanPal ), arranged through the now-defunct XXXX XXXX. I reside in South Carolina and respectfully request your assistance in investigating this matter under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and applicable federal consumer protection laws. \n\nBackground : In XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a solar panel financing agreement with GoodLeap, initiated by XXXX XXXX. I was assured by both the installer and the financier that : My payments would be managed solely through GoodLeap. \n\nThe payment amount and servicing structure were fixed. \n\nI would receive federal tax refunds not credit and warranty support for 25 years. \n\nIssues and Concerns : Undisclosed Loan Ownership Transfer : I later learnedonly through my own effortsthat my loan is now allegedly owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. Neither XXXX nor GoodLeap ever disclosed this transfer to me. I have repeatedly requested documentation from both entities confirming the loans transfer, but I have received no response. \n\nNo Access or Acknowledgment by XXXX : Although XXXX appears to now own the loan, their representatives deny having any specific loan documentation or servicing knowledge. This leaves me in a difficult position as a consumer, unsure of who truly owns my loan or who is responsible for servicing it. \n\nInconsistent Credit Reporting : Despite opening the loan in XX/XX/XXXX, it does not appear on my XXXX report. However, it does show up on my XXXX XXXX app under my XXXX score. This inconsistency raises further questions about reporting and transparency. I also would like to note here that in XXXX of XXXX I reached out to XXXX to discuss the ownership of my loan etc and found out at the end of XXXX that when I connected XXXX they illegally ran and pull my credit report without my permission. \nServicing Confusion and Lack of Documentation : XXXX continues to process my payments and act as if they own the loan. They refuse to provide any documentation confirming a transfer or showing how my personal and financial data was lawfully shared with XXXX. \n\nContractual Discrepancies : On the original XXXX XXXX contract, my husband XXXX is listed as the primary signee. On the GoodLeap documentation, I am listed as the sole borrower. This inconsistency in borrower identity is deeply concerning and potentially invalidates parts of the agreement. \n\nVoid Warranties and XXXX Bankruptcy : XXXX XXXX, the installer, has gone out of business. I am now left without any warranty enforcement or service path. XXXX, the product manufacturer or affiliated entity, has also not clarified their responsibilities in the wake of XXXX  closure. \n\nIgnored Requests for Information : I have made multiple attempts to contact both GoodLeap and XXXX to obtain my loan documentation and to verify ownership. Both parties have been unresponsive and continue to deflect responsibility. XXXX has also failed to clarify their role in ongoing system support. \n\nXXXX XXXX Contract - Warranty Violations : XXXX XXXX XXXX 's contract includes a Roof XXXX Warranty ( Section XXXX ), which guarantees weather-tight roof penetrations for 25 years, provided no work is performed by third parties. However, this warranty fails to account for damages caused by XXXX XXXX own installation process or any issues resulting from their poor workmanship. The warranty also contains numerous exclusions, including leaks unrelated to the system, pre-existing roof issues, and damage from foreign objects. This raises concerns about XXXX XXXX accountability for the damage caused during installation. \nAdditionally, the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( Section XXXX ) and Damage Warranty ( Section XXXX ) offer limited coverage, with exclusions that XXXX prevent proper repairs or compensation for damages caused during the installation process. These clauses indicate a lack of sufficient consumer protection and raise questions about XXXX XXXX obligations to resolve issues in a fair and timely manner. \n\nXXXX XXXX and GoodLeap - Breach of Contract and Default : Under Section XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX contract, the company is in default if it fails to perform its obligations within 30 days of receiving written notice ( Section XXXX ). XXXX XXXX is also in default if it admits insolvency or files for bankruptcy. Despite these provisions, XXXX XXXX has failed to meet its contractual obligations, including addressing system defects and providing timely repairs or replacements. As per the contract, the remedies for default ( Section XXXX ) allow the customer to terminate the agreement and pursue legal action. \nFurther complicating the situation, GoodLeap, the financing partner for XXXX XXXX, has similarly failed to uphold its own obligations regarding warranty claims, customer service, and support. This failure to perform and the lack of accountability from both XXXX XXXX and XXXX not only constitutes breach of contract but also reflects deceptive practices. The combination of these defaults and unresolved issues, including poor workmanship, broken warranties, and financial irresponsibility, warrants the termination of the agreements and pursuit of all available legal remedies. \nApplication of XXXX XXXX of XXXX : XXXX XXXX acted as the originating party for my solar panel loan and made material misrepresentations on behalf of GoodLeap, including misleading claims about tax benefits, payment terms, and warranties. XXXX presented XXXX financing as part of a bundled offering, conducted the loan application process, and submitted my information directly to GoodLeap. \n\nBecause XXXX XXXX acted as an agent or authorized partner of XXXX  their loan product to customers and benefiting XXXX by securing loan originationsGoodLeap XXXX be legally responsible for XXXX actions under the agency theory of liability. The fact that XXXX is now defunct does not absolve GoodLeap of its duty to honor the terms and representations made by its agent. \n\nGoodLeap profited from the deal and is still processing payments, which further supports the argument that they were in a principal-agent relationship with XXXX. Therefore, they should be held accountable for any fraudulent misrepresentations and for the loss of warranty coverage and service. \n\nBroader Pattern of Misconduct : My experience appears to be part of a larger pattern of deceptive practices by GoodLeap : Minnesota Attorney General Lawsuit : In XX/XX/XXXX, the Minnesota Attorney General filed a lawsuit against GoodLeap and other solar lenders, alleging violations of consumer-fraud statutes, including deceptive lending practices and failure to disclose material terms. \n\nIn further support of my concerns, Id like to reference a lawsuit filed on XX/XX/XXXX, by Minnesota Attorney General XXXX XXXX against GoodLeap and XXXX other solar lenders. The lawsuit alleges that these companies engaged in deceptive lending practices, including hiding substantial dealer fees ( as high as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) within the loan principal, which consumers were never made aware of. These hidden fees artificially inflated loan balances and interest charges, often without any corresponding explanation to the borrower. The Attorney General asserts that such conduct violates XXXX consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, and usury laws. The lawsuit reflects a broader pattern of misconduct consistent with my own experience including a lack of transparency, misleading loan terms, and improper disclosures. \n( Source : Minnesota XXXX Official Site ) Arbitration Cases : GoodLeap has lost key arbitration cases where consumers were misled about loan terms and solar system performance. In a recent arbitration handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX, GoodLeap was found liable for the misconduct of its partner company, XXXX XXXX. The arbitrator ruled that XXXX extensive involvement with XXXX XXXX constituted an agency relationship, holding them responsible for deceptive sales practices, including misrepresentations about cost savings and damage caused during installation. The client was awarded approximately {$13000.00} in damages, had a {$90000.00} loan canceled, and received attorneys fees. This case sets a strong precedent for other consumers misled by similar solar financing arrangements. ( Goodleap XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Consumer Complaints : Numerous consumers have reported similar issues, including unauthorized loan transfers, lack of transparency, and defective solar installations. \n\nSupporting Evidence XXXX Involvement in Prior Credit Reporting Misconduct : In addition to my personal experience, I want to highlight that GoodLeap ( formerly LoanPal ) was recently the subject of a class action settlement involving improper credit reporting practices tied to XXXX XXXX, another defunct solar installer. According to the official XXXX, consumers alleged that GoodLeap reported solar loans as delinquent or charged off, even when installations were incomplete, systems were defective, or disputes were ongoing. \n\nThis resulted in significant credit damage to consumers in circumstances strikingly similar to mine. GoodLeap ultimately agreed to resolve these claims, demonstrating a documented pattern of misconduct, negligence, and disregard for fair credit reporting standardsparticularly when partnered installers go out of business, like XXXX XXXX in my case. I also XXXX be entitled to this settlement on the grounds that my financing was through Goodleap. \n\nXXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX, et al. v. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX Settlement","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-28T14:46:20.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"293XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13221914","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paramount GR Holdings, LLC","date_received":"2025-04-28T14:25:01.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Loan sold or transferred to another company"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have repeatedly requested documentation from both entities confirming the <em>loans</em> <em>transfer</em>, but I have received no response. \n\nNo Access or Acknowledgment by XXXX : Although XXXX appears to now own the <em>loan</em>, their representatives <em>deny</em> having any specific <em>loan</em> documentation or <em>servicing</em> knowledge. This leaves me in a difficult position as a consumer, unsure of who truly owns my <em>loan</em> or who is responsible for <em>servicing</em> it."],"sub_product":["<em>Other</em> type of mortgage"],"sub_issue":["<em>Loan</em> sold or <em>transferred</em> to another company"]},"sort":[15.868111,"13221914"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3705590","_score":15.662513,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX CFPB COMPLAINT ON FRAUDULENT 14 YEAR OLD HELOC FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT DEAR CFPB, ALL THE INFORMATION BELOW IS EASILY VERIFIED BY DOCUMENTATION AND TELEPHONE RECORDINGS WITH ALL RELEVANT PARTIES. PLEASE FIND BELOW, THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR YOUR REVIEW OF WHAT WE AND OTHERS KNOW TO BE A FRAUDULENT, ILLEGAL, UNDOCUMENTED ATTEMPT TO TAKE OUR HOME VIA AN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT BASED ON A PREVIOUSLY DISCHARGED, THEN CANCELLED, THEN TIME BARRED, THEN DISCHARGED AGAIN DUE TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ON A 14 YEAR OLD HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT, ( HELOC ) LOAN FOR {$32000.00} PER YOUR REQUESTED 5 STEP PROTOCOL, PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING. \n\n1. WHAT IS THE COMPLAINT ABOUT? WE ARE A XXXX YEAR OLD PRO SE DEFENDANT COUPLE WITH VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS WHO ARE TRYING TO FIGHT A FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE ACTION ON A 14 YEAR OLD HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ( HELOC ) FOR WHICH THERE IS NO LONGER PROPER VERIFICATION AVAILABLE TO PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND CONSUMERS ACCORDING TO ALMOST ALL RELEVANT THIRD PARTY SOURCES STATEMENTS TO US, AS WELL AS OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO OBSTRUCT OUR GETTING THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED TO DEFEND OURSELVES, IF IT EVEN EXISTS. \nOUR COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE LEGITIMACY OF ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST US, FROM THE ORIGINATION IRREGULARITIES SITED BY XXXX XXXX, TO PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS, LACK OF STANDING, LACK OF COMPLETE AND PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND RESPONSE, MULTIPLE REDACTIONS, POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT AND MISLEADING, CONTRADICTORY RECORDED STATEMENTS INVOLVING MULTIPLE PARTIES ENGAGED IN THE PROCESSING, HOLDING, TRANSFER VIOLATIONS, EMBEZZLEMENT, AND/OR THE NON APPLICATION OF A 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT SITED IN DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES, XXXX XXXX   AND THE IRS. THERE ARE MULTIPLE ISSUES IN THE IMPROPER ORIGINATION OF THIS LOAN THAT ARE A MATTER OF RECORD AND CONSTITUTE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. THERE HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT AND DELIBERATE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AS WELL AS ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL, MISLEAD AND OTHERWISE CREATE CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITY CONCERNING THE STATUS AND LEGITIMACY OF THIS DEBT, RESULTING IN DOCUMENTED MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE BY MULTIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED AND THEREFORE RESTRICTING THE CONSUMERS RIGHTS TO DUE DILIGENCE AND THUS HARMING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, IN DEFENDING OURSELVES AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS, AGAINST THIS UNSUPPORTED FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OUR HOME OF 33 YEARS. \n\nWE BELIEVE, AND ARE CONFIDENT WE CAN PROVE THE ILLEGAL ACTION AGAINST US TO BE A FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A FRAUDULENT DEBT, BY CORRUPTED THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS THAT WE BELIEVE DO NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING IN AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE A PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED DEBT, WHICH THEREFORE REPRESENTS AN ILLEGAL ACTION AGAINST US. THIS IS CLEARLY A THINLY VEILED ATTEMPT TO BULLY HOMEOWNERS INTO SETTLING WITH PRETENDER LENDERS ON FRAUDULENTLY TRUMPED UP, UNSUPPORTED, TIME BARRED DEBTS TO TARGET DEFENDANTS THAT DO NOT HAVE FINANCIAL MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN HOPES OF BULLYING, BLACKMAILING AND EXTORTING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF AND WITHOUT AFFORDABLE LEGAL DEFENSE, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE TO MAKING THEM PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AND RELEVANT TO THEIR CLAIMS OF STANDING TO COLLECT THIS FRAUDULENT, PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED, TIME BARRED DEBT, THE LEGITIMACY OF THE DEBT THEY HAVE ACQUIRED, AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THEY ACQUIRED THE DEBT, INCLUDING ALL BILLING AND PAYMENT DOCUMENTS, INTEREST AND TIME STAMPED BALANCES TO DOCUMENT THEIR DEBT TOTALS CLAIMS MADE IN THEIR COMPLAINT OVER THE LIFE OF THE LOAN, ALL NOTIFICATIONS SENT TO US OF ANY AND ALL TITLE TRANSFERS, ANY 1099-C CANCELLATION TRANSACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LOAN. WE REQUEST ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS LOAN BE SENT TO US, INCLUDING ALL PRIVATE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES DOCUMENTS INCLUDING XXXX XXXX   AND ALL TRANSFER AND BILLING RECORDS GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINATION OF THE LOAN FORWARD, AS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW BY THE CURRENT ALLEGED OWNERS OF THE DEBT, VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT AND A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. THESE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES REPRESENT CONSUMER FRAUD, PREDATORY FRAUDULENT DEBT COLLECTION, UNDOCUMENTED, OBSTRUCTIVE AND NON-TRANSPARENT ACTIONS AGAINST CONSUMERS AND BORROWERS WITHOUT PROPER AND COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION OR JUST CAUSE TO DO SO. \n\nFURTHER WE BELIEVE THIS MAY VERY WELL INVOLVE MAIL FRAUD, ABUSE OF PROCESS, MISLEADING AND UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS WE HAVE RECORDED AND FRAUD ON MANY LEVELS BY MULTIPLE PARTIES DUE TO GROSS LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE IN ORIGINATING AND ILLEGALLY TRANSFERRING THIS LOAN. \n\n2. WHAT TYPE OF PROBLEM ARE WE HAVING? OBSTRUCTION, MISLEADING INFORMATION AND A TOTAL LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. UPON MULTIPLE INQUIRIES TO ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED FROM THE ORIGINATION OF THIS LOAN FORWARD, WE WERE TOLD THIS LOAN WAS TOO OLD TO HAVE ANY PROPER DOCUMENTATION. AFTER NOT HAVING HEARD ANYTHING FROM ANYONE FOR 9 YEARS, MY WIFE AND I SUDDENLY ENCOUNTERED ALL OF THE FOLLOWING : WHICH INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM A TOTAL LACK OF COOPERATION TO DOWNRIGHT OBSTRUCTION OF OUR EFFORTS TO PROPERLY RESEARCH, DEFEND OR RESPOND TO THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT ON OUR HOME OF 33 YEARS. OUR FIRST MORTGAGE HAS BEEN CURRENT FOR MANY YEARS NOW. BUT WE HAVE GOTTEN NO BILLING, INQUIRIES, ANNUAL STATEMENTS, NOTIFICATIONS, NOTHING FOR 9 YEARS CONCERNING THIS HELOC 2ND MORTGAGE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY FOR THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF A 1099-C IN XX/XX/XXXX, FROM 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES ; XXXX XXXX AND THE IRS THAT SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED THIS LOAN, AS DOCUMENTATION OF THE CANCELLATION REQUIRED US TO PAY TAXES ON THIS CANCELLED LOAN. THIS HAPPENED AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME OUR 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD. WHEN OUR 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD, WE RECEIVED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT SHORTLY AFTER AND ALL COMMUNICATION CONCERNING THE HELOC CEASED UNTIL THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED ALMOST 8 YEARS LATER IN LATE XXXX. WE HAVE EXPERIENCED A TOTAL LACK OF ANY PROPER RESPONSE AND TRANSPARENCY AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE AND OTHERS FOR ALL NECESSARY AND RELEVANT INFORMATION, PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND COOPERATION NECESSARY FOR US TO DEFEND OURSELVES IN THIS FRAUDULENT, ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT. WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED A SUBSTANTIAL, DELIBERATE AND DAMAGING LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, COOPERATION, CONSISTENCY OF RESPONSE IN AN ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE AND RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) COMPLAINT OF FORECLOSURE ON OUR HOME, TO INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO MULTIPLE REDACTIONS IN DOCUMENTS, CONFLICTING, CONTRADICTORY, MISLEADING AND INCONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS OF FACT FROM MULTIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED, CONFLICTING DOCUMENTATION, NON RESPONSES FOR INFORMATION, ALL OF WHICH HAVE DELAYED AND DENIED OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND THEREFORE NECESSARILY, OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN DEFENDING THIS LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US AND HARMED OUR ABILITY TO PROPERLY RESPOND, AND DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IN THE COURTS. ADDITIONALLY, IN OUR ATTEMPT TO DEFEND OURSELVES WE HAVE ENCOUNTERS MULTIPLE REDACTIONS, INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING STATEMENTS, MULTIPLE CONTRADICTION TO THE SAME QUESTION FROM THE SAME PARTIES AND A TOTAL LACK OF COOPERATION TO DOWNRIGHT OBSTRUCTION IN OUR ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO THESE FALSE CLAIMS AND TO DEFEND OURSELVES AND OUR HOME. \n\nWE HAVE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY, BY MULTIPLE THIRD PARTIES, INVOLVED RELEVANT PARTIES AND PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THIS DEBT, THAT THIS LOAN IS SIMPLY TOO OLD TO HAVE PROPER DOCUMENTATION ON THIS 14 YEAR OLD LOAN, YET THIS COMPLAINT IS BASED ON WHAT THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM IS SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION THAT IT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE IN ITS ENTIRETY. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO BILLING, INQUIRIES, ANNUAL STATEMENTS, NOTIFICATIONS, JUDGMENT, NOTHING FOR 8 PLUS YEARS CONCERNING THIS HELOC 2ND MORTGAGE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY FOR THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 1099-C,  CANCELLATION STATEMENT FORM ISSUED BY XXXX XXXX AND THE IRS, REQUIRING US TO PAY TAXES ON THIS CANCELLED DEBT IN XXXX OF XXXX. THE EFFORTS BY XXXX XXXX, NATIONAL CITY BANK ( NOW MERGED WITH PNC ) PNC BANK, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   LAW FIRM XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ) HAVE ONLY FURTHER CREATED AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION FOR MY WIFE AND I IN OUR ABILITY TO PROPERLY DEFEND AND RESPOND TO THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT BY THEIR LACK OF PROPER RESPONSE FOR COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS COLLECTION EFFORT. WE ARE UNABLE TO AFFORD AN ATTORNEY AND UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE REPRESENTATION OF AN ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME. BUT THAT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE, BASED ON NEW INFORMATION WE HAVE UNCOVERED IN OUR OWN RESEARCH AND DEFENSE OF THIS COMPLAINT. WE BELIEVE THIS CASE DESERVES TO BE INVESTIGATED AS TO REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD INFORM THE NEED FOR COUNTERCLAIMS / CROSS CLAIMS, RELATED TO MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE AND ITS BROADER IMPLICATIONS TO MOVE THE LAW TO THE BENEFIT OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF HOME OWNERS AND CONSUMERS VICTIMIZED BY THE ILLEGAL PRACTICES. \n\nADDITIONALLY, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SENT US A WARNING LETTER WITHOUT PROPER LANGUAGE CONCERNING OUR RIGHT TO DISPUTE. THE ORIGINAL COLLECTION LETTERS DID NOT TELL US WE HAD THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THEIR ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINT, BUT SPECIFICALLY STATED -- ONLY WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IF WE DID TRY TO DISPUTE THEIR CLAIMS. THE LETTER WAS VERY SPECIFIC AND STATES CLEARLY THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REINSTATE AFTER ACCELERATION AND OTHER STIPULATIONS BUT SOMEHOW FAILS TO CLEARLY STATE OUR RIGHTS TO DISPUTE -- CLEARLY STATED FOR THE CONSUMER. THIS IS VERY MISLEADING, BY OMISSION, TO MANY I AM SURE AND NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LAW AND WHAT IT IN FACT ACTUALLY REQUIRES WHICH IS TO INFORM US THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THIS DEBT IN COURT AND OTHERWISE. IT IS HARD IMAGINE WITH SUCH SPECIFICITY ON OTHER TOPICS AND RIGHTS CLEARLY STATED WITHIN THE DOCUMENT THAT THIS WAS SIMPLY AN OVERSIGHT AND NOT INTENDED TO DIMINISH AND MARGINALIZE A CONSUMERS RIGHTS TO DISPUTE AS REQUIRED BY LAW.!\n\n3. WHAT HAPPED? THE 1099-C CANCELLING OF DEBT, SENT BY THE IRS, DATED XX/XX/XXXX AND FILED BY XXXX XXXX, 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES, WAS NOT, AND HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED AND THEREFORE REPRESENT FRAUDULENT AND RECKLESS ABANDONMENT BY THE OWNERS OF THE LOAN, IN AN ATTEMPT WRITE OFF, CANCEL, DIVIDE THE LOAN, DISCHARGE MULTIPLE TIMES, TO ILLEGALLY TRANSFER A FRAUDULENT, ILL CONCEIVED DEBT, THAT CAN NOT BE SEPARATED OUT FROM THE OBVIOUS CONFUSION, CONFLICTS AND CONTRADICTION CREATED BY THE ORIGINATORS OF THE LOAN PNC AND THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED IN WHAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SEE AS A CONCERTED, COORDINATED, CONSISTENT RACKETEERING EFFORT TO UNLAWFULLY TRANSFER AND OR COLLECT WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE A NON EXISTENT, TIME BARRED, PREVIOULY CANCELLED DEBT, RIDDLED WITH FALSE & MISLEADING STATEMENTS, ORIGINATION AND TRANSFER IRREGULARITIES AND VIOLATIONS AND ILLEGALLY CREATED ORIGINATION IRREGULARITIES, OMISSIONS, AND VIOLATIONS HAVE CREATED AND GIVEN RISE TO MULTIPLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. WE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED DEMANDS FOR MULTIPLE CONFLICTING SUMS AND EXPERIENCED DUAL ACTIONS DURING THE NEGOTIATION OF OUR LOAN MODIFICATION WHICH DID NOT SHOW THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE INCLUDED. WHAT WE THEN THOUGHT TO BE A CANCELLED DEBT, IN OUR MODIFICATION NEGOTIATION, THEREFORE HARMING AND DAMAGING OUR LEGITIMATE FINANCIAL OPTIONS AND WELL BEING. XXXX XXXX HAS CONFIRMED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION THEY SENT TO THE IRS, BUT THEY, PNC AND OTHERS THIRD PARTIES CLAIM THE LOAN IS TOO OLD AND CAN NOT OR WILL NOT PROVIDE REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR TRACKING THIS ACTION SO WE CAN CONFIRM RELEVANT DETAILS OF WHO, WHEN AND HOW THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS TOOK PLACE. THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS ACCURACY IS VERY MUCH IN DOUBT, FROM THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED TO BE OWED, PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS AND LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE, TO ABUSE OF PROCESS, ILLEGAL AND MISLEADING TITLE TRANSFERS, AND MULTIPLE REDACTIONS RESTRICTING AND OBSTRUCTING OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES TO CLARIFY WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE DELIBERATE, DOCUMENTABLE COUNTER/CROSS CLAIMS ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, AS IT RELATES TO WHO WAS AND WAS NOT THE LEGAL OWNERS, WHO HAD STANDING TO COLLECT AND SERVICE THE ILLEGALLY CONCEIVED AND EXECUTED LOAN DURING 8 YEARS WITHOUT ANY COMMUNICATIONS. THERE IS TOTAL OBSTRUCTION OF ALL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE TIMING, OWNERSHIP AND LACK OF PROPER APPLICATION OF THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ISSUES AND THE ILLEGALITY OF ATTEMPTING TO TRANSFER A NON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. WE REQUESTED, BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE STATED OBSTRUCTION, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED A 60 EXTENSION BY THE COURT, FOR THE SPECIFIC ABOVE STATED REASONS, IN HOPES OF UNTANGLING ALL THE AMBIGUITY, OBSTRUCTION, MISLEADING AND FRAUDULENT INFORMATION, FACILITATED BY PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER ABOVE STATED THIRD PARTIES IN A COORDINATED EFFORT TO DENY CONSUMERS ACCESS TO THIS RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION IF IT DOES IN FACT EVEN EXIST IN REALITY. I AM TOLD IT IS ONLY A DENIAL OF MY RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS IF PLAINTIFFS DONT SUPPLY THAT INFORMATION TO THE COURT BUT HOW WOULD THE AVERAGE CONSUMER COMPEL THAT RESPONSE WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL? THIS IS NOT JUSTICE, FAIR OR THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW IN SECURING CONSUMERS DUE PROCESS IN DEFENDING THEMSELVES, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO PROPER FORECLOSURE DEFENSE. WE HAVE DISCOVERED IN THIS PROCESS, ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT, AND MUCH TO OUR SURPRISE, THAT A XXXX CANCELLATION OF DEBT, ISSUED BY FANNIE MAE AND THE IRS THAT PNC BANK WAS AWARE OF, WAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED. IN FACT IT WAS NOT APPLIED AT ALL FROM WHAT WE HAVE FOUND. WE ASSUME SINCE THE 1099-C WAS ISSUED BY THE IRS, THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LOAN AT THAT TIME PNC BANK OR XXXX XXXX XXXX, THAT ALL PARTIES MUST HAVE BEEN AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS CANCELLATION OF DEBT ISSUED BY THE XXXX XXXX XXXX WERE USED AS A TAX WRITE OFF FOR THE BANK BUT WERE NOT PROPERLY, IF AT ALL, APPLIED TO OUR LOAN, BUT WERE REALIZED BY PNC XXXX BANK AND THEN LATER BENEFITED FROM SELLING THE LOAN TO OTHER PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF CANCELLED DEBT THAT WERE NOT APPLIED BY PNC OR XXXX TO OUR ACCOUNT AND IS THEREFORE MISSING FROM OUR ACCOUNT WHILE PNC, WHO OWNED BOTH OUR 1ST MORTGAGE AND HELOC LOAN, HAVING COMMITTED GRAVE ORIGINATION ILLEGALITIES, DIVIDING AND SEPARATING WHAT ORIGINATED AS A SINGLE LOAN, WHEN CLOSING BOTH THESE NO DOC, INTEREST ONLY LOANS ON THE SAME DAY. PNC SOLD OUR 1ST MORTGAGE IN XXXX OF XXXX. BUT AFTER THE 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD, THE HELOC DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY, ONLY TO SUDDENLY RESURFACE IN LATE XXXX AFTER ALMOST 9 YEARS, EXCEPT FOR THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT DOCUMENT THAT WE RECEIVED IN XXXX, 3 PLUS MONTHS AFTER PNC SOLD OUR MORTGAGE, LEADING US TO BELIEVE THE 1099-C HAD BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED TO OUR HELOC WHICH COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED OFF THE RADAR AT THAT SAME TIME. PNC STATED IN RECORDINGS TO ME, THAT THEY DISCHARGED OUR HELOC IN XXXX, WHEN THEY SOLD OUR 1ST MORTGAGE AT THAT SAME TIME, THEN SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED OUR HELOC, BURIED IT WITH NO COMMUNICATIONS TO US, SOLD OUR LOANS TO OTHER COMPANIES, THEN GOT IT BACK, DISCHARGED IT AGAIN DUE TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN XXXX OF XXXX, THEN SOLD THIS HELOC AGAIN, AFTER 2 DISCHARGES AND 1 CANCELLATION OF THE DEBT, THEN SOLD IT IN LATE XXXX, AND ALL THE WHILE HAVING NOT PROPERLY APPLIED THE CANCELLATION OF DEBT ISSUED BY 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES. AGAIN, I HAVE ALL THESE STATEMENTS RECORDED AND THEREFORE CAN BE TRANSCRIBED FOR YOU AND THE COURT. WE HAVE APPLIED FOR NUMEROUS LOANS OVER THE YEARS, SINCE XXXX WHEN WE RECEIVED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT AND THIS LOAN DID NOT SHOW UP ON OUR CREDIT REPORTS AND WAS NEVER MENTIONED AS EXISTING, DELINQUENT, DEFAULTED OR AS AN ISSUE OF ANY KIND IN THE LOAN APPLICATION PROCESS AND GRANTING OF THE LOANS. XXXX XXXX BANK GRANTED US A HOME EQUITY LOAN RECENTLY BUT THOSE FUNDS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN FROZEN UPON THE FILING OF THIS FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, THUS DAMAGING, HARMING AND LIMITING OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS THOSE FUNDS FOR NEEDED REPAIRS ON OUR HOME, AND CRIPPLED OUR FINANCIAL PLANNING IN PREPARING FOR OUR RETIREMENT WHICH WE BELIEVE CLEARLY CREATES DOCUMENTED LIABILITY FOR THOSE FILING THIS FRAUDULENT COMPLAINT AGAINST US AS WELL AS FOR OTHER 3RD PARTIES. IN CONCLUSION, SIMPLY STATED, IT IS EASILY VERIFIED THAT PNC OWNED BOTH LOANS FROM XXXX, DISCHARGED OUR HELOC, IN LATE XXXX, TOOK THE TAX WRITE OFF, WAS AWARE OF THE XXXX XXXX AND IRS DIRECTED CANCELLATION OF DEBT TO OUR LOANS, THEN BURIED OUR HELOC, WITHOUT A WORD, FOR 9 YEARS, SOLD IT IN LATE XXXX, AND ACCORDING TO RECORDINGS I HAVE OF OUR CONVERSATIONS WHERE THEY STATED THAT THEY DISCHARGED IT AGAIN IN XXXX OF XXXX, CULMINATING IN THEIR FRAUDULENTLY DISCHARGING OUR DEBT MULTIPLE TIMES, NOT PROPERLY CANCELLING AND APPLYING THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, PER XXXX XXXX & IRS, 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES DIRECTIVES, AND THEN ILLEGALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY SELLING THIS DEBT 12 YEARS LATER. JUST IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO WE HAVE HEARD FROM 2 DIFFERENT LAW FIRMS, AND 3 DIFFERENT COLLECTION AGENCIES AND SERVICERS ON THE SAME CANCELLED DEBT INCLUDING DIFFERENT AMOUNTS DUE AND DIFFERENT INTERESTS RATES, NO PAYMENT HISTORIES TO SUPPORT THEIR FALSE CLAIMS OF HOW MUCH IS OWED AND AS TO WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THESE DIFFERING AMOUNTS AND WE ARE RELATIVELY SURE THERE WERE 2 OR MORE COLLECTION AGENCIES TRYING TO COLLECT ON THE SAME DEBT AND WITH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS REQUIRED. FURTHER, PNC WAS PURSUING FORECLOSURE WHILE WE WERE TRYING TO WORK OUT A MODIFICATION AND MEDIATION WHICH WE KNOW IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION IN OHIO IS NOW BASED ON RETROACTIVELY APPLIED CHANGES MADE IN XXXX ESTABLISHING IT AS 6 YEARS FOR PROMISSORY NOTES AND/OR LOAN DOCUMENTS THAT FUNCTION AS PROMISSORY NOTES WHICH MAKES THIS NOTE TIME BARRED IN OHIO. \n\n4. WHAT COMPANY IS THIS COMPLAINT ABOUT? XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT INVOLVES XXXX XXXX, NATIONAL CITY BANK, THE LOAN ORIGINATORS IN XX/XX/XXXX, UNTIL XXXX WHEN THEY MERGED WITH PNC, THEN IT SOLD TO XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, THEN TO XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. BECAUSE NO PROPER DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE THESE WERE IMPROPERLY TRANSFERS OF THIS FRAUDULENT, DEFECTIVE AND ILLEGAL LOAN IN BETWEEN PNC AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, BUT XXXX XXXX XXXX FILED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT VIA XXXX AND XXXX, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS, XXXX XXXX XXXX, AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, OHIO, XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WHO SIGNED THE COMPLAINT IS NO LONGER WITH THAT FIRM AND SO OUR CERTIFIED MAIL, ADDRESSED TO BOTH ATTORNEYS HAS BEEN RETURNED TO US, LEAVING US AS PRO SE ATTORNEYS WONDERING WHO, WHAT, IF, WHEN AND HOW THIS COMPLAINT IS MOVING FORWARD AND IF OUR EFFORTS TO DEFEND OURSELVES ARE BEING IGNORED, SUBJUGATED, INVALIDATED, LOST, OR DISMISSED???? SERVICERS ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 5. WHO ARE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. XXXX XXXX XXXX ATTORNEY AT LAW -- ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BELOW XXXX, OHIO, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) 6. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING : A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THIS HIGHLY IRREGULAR, VERY LIKELY FRAUDULENT AND DOCUMENTED FORECLOSURE ACTION BASED ON ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. ALL DOCUMENT RELATING TO THIS COMPLAINT FROM ALL PARTIES LISTED IN THIS COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING WHICH PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE TO PROPERLY SUPPORT CLAIMS ALLEGED IN THIS COMPLAINT. JUDGEMENT FROM THE COURT AGAINST DEFENDANTS DATED XX/XX/XXXX WITH ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND COMPLETE PAYMENT AND BILLING STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT CLAIMS OF XXXX OWED DATING FROM XX/XX/XXXX TO PRESENT- XX/XX/XXXX AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. ALL ANNUAL STATEMENTS, BANKING RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS FROM ANY PERSON OR COMPANY THAT ENGAGED IN ANY WAY WITH THE ORIGINATION, PROCESSING, TAKING OF PAYMENTS, COLLECTIONS, SERVICING, OR OWNERSHIP OF THIS LOAN FROM ORIGINATION TO THE PRESENT XX/XX/XXXX PLAINTIFFS, LEGAL COUNSELS LICENSING TO REPRESENT OUT OF STATE COMPANIES IN COLLECTING DEBTS HERE IN OHIO. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, LICENSING AND PROOF OF STANDING TO PURSUE OUT OF STATE LEGAL ACTIONS INCLUDING FORECLOSURE ACTIONS HERE IN OHIO PROVIDE ANY AND ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION, DATES AND NAMES OF ALL PARTIES ENGAGED IN THE ORIGINATION, PROCESSING, TAKING OF PAYMENTS, COLLECTIONS, TRANSFERS, ASSIGNMENTS, ALLONGES OR OWNERSHIP TO SUPPORT AND DOCUMENT ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED IN PLAINTIFFS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, WHICH ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ASSUME THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION IN ORDER TO SUPPORT ANY LEGITIMATE, LEGAL AND PROPER COMPLAINT TO FACILITATE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND JUSTIFY JUST CAUSE VIA PLAINTIFFS REQUIRED DUE DILIGENCE, RESPECT FOR THIS PROCESS AND BURDEN OF PROOF CLEARLY REQUIRED BY THE LAW AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. \n\n7. IN CONCLUSION : WE BELIEVE PLAINTIFF PURCHASED A ILLEGITIMATE, NON TRANSFERABLE, CORRUPTED AND DEFECTIVE INSTRUMENT, DEFUNCT, COMPROMISED AND THEREFORE VOIDED LOAN THAT HAS MULTIPLE LEGAL ISSUES CREATING ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT THAT EXCLUDES THEM FROM HAVING ANY STANDING TO BUY, SELL, ATTEMPT TO COLLECT OR TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION INVOLVING THIS LOAN, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION DUE TO ITS AGE AND COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED HISTORY AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE PLEASE PROVIDE FULL DOCUMENTATION TO SATISFY WHAT THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE AS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS IN THIS COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFFS CANT EXPLAIN, MUCH LESS PROVE TO A JUDGE AND / OR JURY, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT HOW THE LEGITIMACY, ACCURACY, INTENTIONS, TIMELINESS, LEGALITY, PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY, PAYMENT HISTORY, 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT FAILURES, AND OTHER ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT DOCUMENTED THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF OUR LOAN/LOANS THAT SEEM TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO, AND RESULTING IN, GROSS NONFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE REPEATEDLY HARMING DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. OUR DOCUMENTS WILL PROVE, GROSS NEGLECT AND MALFEASANCE AS PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER 3RD PARTIES INVOLVED, LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE RESULTED IN MANIPULATION AND CORRUPTION OF THE LOANS ORIGINATIONS, RANDOMLY DIVIDING THE LOAN INTO PIECES ON WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A SINGLE LOAN FROM ITS INCEPTION, TRANSFERS, THEIR FAILURE TO PROPERLY NOTIFY US ABOUT TRANSFERS, WE BELIEVE FRAUDULENTLY, WITH THE PROBABLE INTENT TO INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD, EVADE, GENERALLY CREATE AMBIGUITY, OMIT AND OBSCURE MATERIAL INFORMATION DESIGNED TO INTENTIONALLY HIDE INFORMATION AND TRACKING OF THE LOAN BY PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND THEREFORE DID HARM DEFENDANTS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO PROPERLY DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ILLEGAL MISHANDLING OF THIS LOAN HAS BEEN INSTITUTIONALIZED THROUGHOUT THE LENDING, OWNERSHIP AND SERVICING PROCESS, CREATING AN INCENTIVE TO DISCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CONSUMERS AND HOMEOWNERS, FOR WHICH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SERVE AND PROTECT AS THE FINAL STAKEHOLDER AND END USER OF THE TRANSACTION! THEREFORE FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY AND WANTING IN THIS FAMILIAR PRACTICE ATTEMPTED BY LARGE PRIVATE BANKS TO DEFRAUD HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS THROUGH AN UNNECESSARILY AND OVERLY BURDENSOME PROCESS TO ILLUMINATE THE ISSUES, FACTS AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE OUTSIDE OF COURT IF POSSIBLE OR THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IF NECESSARY, THEREFORE SERIOUSLY HARMING AND DAMAGING HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS LEGAL RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND SELF DEFENSE AS IN THE CASE OF MY FAMILY AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS. IN THE CLEAR LIGHT AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW THIS COMPLAINT SHOULD AND MUST, BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS TO SUPPORT HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS TO BE SURE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ILLUMINATE FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND CONSUMERS BENEFIT, AS A LAST RESORT AND RECOURSE AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS, TO FURTHER ATTAIN AND HELP CONFIRM THE TRUTH AND FACTS AS REQUIRED FOR JUSTICE TO BE SERVED IN DEED, IN LAW, IN PROCESS AND IN THE SPIRIT OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN HOPEFULLY MOVING THE LAW FORWARD FOR MANY FUTURE OUTCOMES, AND AS THE LAW REQUIRES IN ORDER TO FIND A FAIR, ACCOUNTABLE AND JUST OUTCOME FOR THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND FOR THOSE WHO IT CAN HELP TO PROTECT IN THE FUTURE. WE BELIEVE PLAINTIFF PURCHASED A ILLEGITIMATE, NON TRANSFERABLE, CORRUPTED AND DEFECTIVE INSTRUMENT, DEFUNCT, COMPROMISED AND THEREFORE VOIDED LOAN THAT HAS MULTIPLE LEGAL ISSUES CREATING ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT THAT EXCLUDES THEM FROM HAVING ANY STANDING TO BUY, SELL, ATTEMPT TO COLLECT OR TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION INVOLVING THIS LOAN, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION DUE TO ITS AGE AND COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED HISTORY AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE PLEASE PROVIDE FULL DOCUMENTATION TO SATISFY WHAT THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE AS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS IN THIS COMPLAINT. IN RECENT YEARS EVENTS CLEARLY SHOWS THE CORRUPT CULTURE OF THE NATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM AND THE DAMAGE REPEATEDLY DONE TO CONSUMERS AND TO THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE. SINCERELY, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, OHIO, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-06-18T20:33:27.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"431XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3705590","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2020-06-18T20:33:24.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["OUR DOCUMENTS WILL PROVE, GROSS NEGLECT AND MALFEASANCE AS PLAINTIFFS AND <em>OTHER</em> 3RD PARTIES INVOLVED, LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE RESULTED IN MANIPULATION AND CORRUPTION OF THE <em>LOANS</em> ORIGINATIONS, RANDOMLY DIVIDING THE <em>LOAN</em> INTO PIECES ON WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A SINGLE <em>LOAN</em> FROM ITS INCEPTION, <em>TRANSFERS</em>, THEIR FAILURE TO PROPERLY NOTIFY US ABOUT <em>TRANSFERS</em>, WE BELIEVE FRAUDULENTLY, WITH THE PROBABLE INTENT TO INTENTIONALLY <em>MISLEAD</em>, EVADE, GENERALLY CREATE AMBIGUITY, OMIT AND OBSCURE MATERIAL <em>INFORMATION</em>"]},"sort":[15.662513,"3705590"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3703140","_score":15.662513,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX CFPB Complaint on fraudulent 14 year old HELOC foreclosure complaint Dear CFPB, All the information below is easily verified by documentation and telephone recordings with all relevant parties. Please find below, the relevant information and documents necessary for your review of what we and others know to be a fraudulent, illegal, undocumented attempt to take our home via an illegal foreclosure complaint based on a previously discharged, then cancelled, then time barred, then discharged again due to statute of limitations, on a 14 year old home equity line of credit, ( HELOC ) loan for {$32000.00} Per your requested 5 step protocol, please see the following. \n\n1. What is the complaint about? We are a XXXX year old pro se defendant couple with very little knowledge of the foreclosure process who are trying to fight a fraudulent foreclosure action on a 14 year old home equity line of credit ( HELOC ) for which there is no longer proper verification available to pro se defendants and consumers according to almost all relevant third party sources statements to us, as well as obvious attempts to obstruct our getting the proper documentation required to defend ourselves, if it even exists. \nOur complaint concerns the legitimacy of almost every aspect of the foreclosure action against us, from the origination irregularities sited by XXXX XXXX, to procedural violations, lack of standing, lack of complete and proper documentation and response, multiple redactions, possible fraudulent and misleading, contradictory recorded statements involving multiple parties engaged in the processing, holding, transfer violations, embezzlement, and/or the non application of a 1099-C cancellation of debt sited in documents issued by 2 Federal agencies, XXXX XXXX and the IRS. There are multiple issues in the improper origination of this loan that are a matter of record and constitute issues of material fact. There has been a consistent and deliberate lack of transparency as well as attempts to conceal, mislead and otherwise create confusion and ambiguity concerning the status and legitimacy of this debt, resulting in documented malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance by multiple parties involved and therefore restricting the consumers rights to due diligence and thus harming our constitutional right of due process, in defending ourselves as pro se defendants, against this unsupported fraudulent foreclosure action against our home of 33 years. \n\nWe believe, and are confident we can prove the illegal action against us to be a fraudulent attempt to collect a fraudulent debt, by corrupted third party defendants and plaintiffs that we believe do not have legal standing in an attempt to collect what we believe to be a previously resolved debt, which therefore represents an illegal action against us. This is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to bully homeowners into settling with pretender lenders on fraudulently trumped up, unsupported, time barred debts to target defendants that do not have financial means to defend themselves in hopes of bullying, blackmailing and extorting payment in lieu of and without affordable legal defense, which is why we need your assistance to making them provide all documents relating to and relevant to their claims of standing to collect this fraudulent, previously resolved, time barred debt, the legitimacy of the debt they have acquired, and the process by which they acquired the debt, including all billing and payment documents, interest and time stamped balances to document their debt totals claims made in their complaint over the life of the loan, all notifications sent to us of any and all title transfers, any 1099-C cancellation transactions associated with this loan. We request any and all documents relating to this loan be sent to us, including all private and public agencies documents including XXXX XXXX and all transfer and billing records going back to the origination of the loan forward, as are required by law by the current alleged owners of the debt, verification of the debt and a copy of the judgment. These illegal activities represent consumer fraud, predatory fraudulent debt collection, undocumented, obstructive and non-transparent actions against consumers and borrowers without proper and complete documentation or just cause to do so. \n\nFurther we believe this may very well involve mail fraud, abuse of process, misleading and untruthful statements we have recorded and fraud on many levels by multiple parties due to gross lack of due diligence in originating and illegally transferring this loan. PNC had knowledge of the 1099-C cancellation document but did not follow up to be sure it was properly applied to our account. \n\n2. What type of problem are we having? Obstruction, misleading information and a total lack of transparency. Upon multiple inquiries to all the parties involved from the origination of this loan forward, we were told this loan was too old to have any proper documentation. After not having heard anything from anyone for 9 years, my wife and I suddenly encountered all of the following : which includes everything from a total lack of cooperation to downright obstruction of our efforts to properly research, defend or respond to this foreclosure complaint on our home of 33 years. Our first mortgage has been current for many years now. But we have gotten no billing, inquiries, annual statements, notifications, nothing for 9 years concerning this HELOC 2nd mortgage until very recently for this foreclosure action with the sole exception of a 1099-C in XX/XX/XXXX, from 2 federal agencies ; XXXX XXXX and the IRS that should have cancelled this loan, as documentation of the cancellation required us to pay taxes on this cancelled loan. This happened at exactly the same time our 1st mortgage was sold. When our 1st mortgage was sold, we received the 1099-C cancellation of debt shortly after and all communication concerning the HELOC ceased until this complaint was filed almost 8 years later in late XXXX. We have experienced a total lack of any proper response and transparency after repeated requests by the Ohio Attorney Generals office and others for all necessary and relevant information, proper documentation and cooperation necessary for us to defend ourselves in this fraudulent, illegal foreclosure complaint. We have encountered a substantial, deliberate and damaging lack of transparency, cooperation, consistency of response in an attempt to engage and respond to plaintiffs ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) complaint of foreclosure on our home, to include, but are not limited to multiple redactions in documents, conflicting, contradictory, misleading and inconsistent explanations of fact from multiple parties involved, conflicting documentation, non responses for information, all of which have delayed and denied our due diligence and therefore necessarily, our constitutionally guaranteed due process rights in defending this legal action against us and harmed our ability to properly respond, and defend ourselves against this foreclosure action in the courts. Additionally, in our attempt to defend ourselves we have encounters multiple redactions, intentionally misleading statements, multiple contradiction to the same question from the same parties and a total lack of cooperation to downright obstruction in our attempts to respond to these false claims and to defend ourselves and our home. \n\nWe have been told repeatedly, by multiple third parties, involved relevant parties and previous owners of this debt, that this loan is simply too old to have proper documentation on this 14 year old loan, yet this complaint is based on what the Plaintiffs claim is sufficient documentation that it has failed to produce in its entirety. We have received no billing, inquiries, annual statements, notifications, judgment, nothing for 8 plus  yearsconcerning this HELOC 2nd mortgage until very recently for this foreclosure action with the sole exception of the aforementioned 1099-C, cancellation statement form issued by XXXX XXXX and the IRS, requiring us to pay taxes on this cancelled debt in XXXX of XXXX. The efforts by XXXX XXXX, National City Bank ( now merged with PNC ) PNC Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX law firm XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX attorneys for plaintiff ) have only further created ambiguity and confusion for my wife and I in our ability to properly defend and respond to this foreclosure complaint by their lack of proper response for complete documentation of the legitimacy of this collection effort. We are unable to afford an attorney and unable to obtain the representation of an attorney at this time. But that may not always be the case, based on new information we have uncovered in our own research and defense of this complaint. We believe this case deserves to be investigated as to regulatory and procedural violations that would inform the need for counterclaims / cross claims, related to malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance and its broader implications to move the law to the benefit of untold numbers of home owners and consumers victimized by the illegal practices. \n\nAdditionally, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sent us a warning letter without proper language concerning our right to dispute. The original collection letters did not tell us we had the right to dispute their allegations and complaint, but specifically stated -- only what we would need to do if we did try to dispute their claims. The letter was very specific and states clearly that we have the right to reinstate after acceleration and other stipulations but somehow fails to clearly state our rights to dispute -- clearly stated for the consumer. This is very misleading, by omission, to many I am sure and not the intention of the law and what it in fact actually requires which is to inform us that we have the right to dispute this debt in court and otherwise. It is hard imagine with such specificity on other topics and rights clearly stated within the document that this was simply an oversight and not intended to diminish and marginalize a consumers rights to dispute as required by law.! \n\n3. What happed? THE 1099-C CANCELLING OF DEBT, SENT BY THE IRS, DATED XX/XX/XXXX AND FILED BY XXXX XXXX 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES, WAS NOT, AND HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED AND THEREFORE REPRESENT FRAUDULENT AND RECKLESS ABANDONMENT BY THE OWNERS OF THE LOAN, IN AN ATTEMPT WRITE OFF, CANCEL, DIVIDE THE LOAN, DISCHARGE MULTIPLE TIMES, TO ILLEGALLY TRANSFER A FRAUDULENT, ILL CONCEIVED DEBT, THAT CAN NOT BE SEPARATED OUT FROM THE OBVIOUS CONFUSION, CONFLICTS AND CONTRADICTION CREATED BY THE ORIGINATORS OF THE LOAN PNC AND THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED IN WHAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SEE AS A CONCERTED, COORDINATED, CONSISTENT RACKETEERING EFFORT TO UNLAWFULLY TRANSFER AND OR COLLECT WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE A NON EXISTENT, TIME BARRED, PREVIOULY CANCELLED DEBT, RIDDLED WITH FALSE & MISLEADING STATEMENTS, ORIGINATION AND TRANSFER IRREGULARITIES AND VIOLATIONS AND ILLEGALLY CREATED ORIGINATION IRREGULARITIES, OMISSIONS, AND VIOLATIONS HAVE CREATED AND GIVEN RISE TO MULTIPLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. We also have received demands for multiple conflicting sums and experienced Dual Actions during the negotiation of our loan modification which did not show the proper application of the 1099-C cancellation of debt, otherwise we would have included. what we then thought to be a cancelled debt, in our modification negotiation, therefore harming and damaging our legitimate financial options and well being. XXXX XXXX has confirmed the 1099-C cancellation they sent to the IRS, but they, PNC and others third parties claim the loan is too old and can not or will not provide requested information for tracking this action so we can confirm relevant details of who, when and how these illegal actions took place. The foreclosure complaints accuracy is very much in doubt, from the amounts claimed to be owed, procedural violations and lack of due diligence, to abuse of process, illegal and misleading title transfers, and multiple redactions restricting and obstructing our ability to defend ourselves to clarify what we believe to be deliberate, documentable counter/cross claims on multiple levels, as it relates to who was and was not the legal owners, who had standing to collect and service the illegally conceived and executed loan during 8 years without any communications. There is total obstruction of all information concerning the timing, ownership and lack of proper application of the 1099-C cancellation of debt, statute of limitations issues and the illegality of attempting to transfer a non negotiable instrument. We requested, because of the above stated obstruction, and were subsequently granted a 60 extension by the court, for the specific above stated reasons, in hopes of untangling all the ambiguity, obstruction, misleading and fraudulent information, facilitated by plaintiffs and other above stated third parties in a coordinated effort to deny consumers access to this relevant information and documentation if it does in fact even exist in reality. I am told it is only a denial of my rights of due process if plaintiffs dont supply that information to the court but how would the average consumer compel that response without legal counsel? This is not justice, fair or the spirit of the law in securing consumers due process in defending themselves, particularly with regard to proper foreclosure defense. We have discovered in this process, issues of material fact, and much to our surprise, that a XXXX cancellation of debt, issued by XXXX XXXX and the IRS that PNC bank was aware of, was not properly applied. In fact it was not applied at all from what we have found. We assume since the 1099-C was issued by the IRS, that the owners of the loan at that time PNC Bank or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that all parties must have been and should have been aware of this cancellation of debt issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX were used as a tax write off for the bank but were not properly, if at all, applied to our loan, but were realized by PNC BankXXXX XXXX  And then later benefited from selling the loan to other parties. Therefore, there are tens of thousands of dollars of cancelled debt that were NOT applied by PNC or XXXX to our account and is therefore missing from our account while PNC, who owned both our 1st mortgage and HELOC loan, having committed grave origination illegalities, dividing and separating what originated as a single loan, when closing both these no doc, interest only loans on the same day. PNC sold our 1st mortgage in XXXX of XXXX. But after the 1st mortgage was sold, the HELOC disappeared completely, only to suddenly resurface in late XXXX after almost 9 years, except for the 1099-C cancellation of debt document that we received in XXXX, 3 plus months after PNC sold our mortgage, leading us to believe the 1099-C had been properly applied to our HELOC which completely disappeared off the radar at that same time. PNC stated in recordings to me, that they discharged our HELOC in XXXX, when they sold our 1st mortgage at that same time, then subsequently cancelled our HELOC, BURIED IT WITH NO COMMUNICATIONS TO US, sold our loans to other companies, then got it back, discharged it again due to the statute of limitations in XXXX of XXXX, then sold this HELOC again, after 2 discharges and 1 cancellation of the debt, THEN SOLD IT in late XXXX, AND ALL THE WHILE HAVING NOT PROPERLY APPLIED THE CANCELLATION OF DEBT ISSUED BY 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES. Again, I have all these statements recorded and therefore can be transcribed for you and the court. We have applied for numerous loans over the years, since XXXX when we received the 1099-C cancellation of debt and this loan did not show up on our credit reports and was never mentioned as existing, delinquent, defaulted or as an issue of any kind in the loan application process and granting of the loans. XXXX XXXX XXXX  granted us a home equity loan recently but those funds seem to have been frozen upon the filing of this fraudulent foreclosure complaint, thus damaging, harming and limiting our ability to access those funds for needed repairs on our home, and crippled our financial planning in preparing for our retirement WHICH WE BELIEVE CLEARLY CREATES DOCUMENTED LIABILITY FOR THOSE FILING THIS FRAUDULENT COMPLAINT AGAINST US AS WELL AS FOR OTHER 3RD PARTIES. IN CONCLUSION, simply stated, it is easily verified that PNC owned both loans from XXXX, discharged our HELOC, in late XXXX, took the tax write off, was aware of the XXXX XXXX and IRS directed cancellation of debt to our loans, then buried our HELOC, without a word, for 9 years, sold it in late XXXX, and according to recordings I have of our conversations where they stated that they discharged it again in XXXX of XXXX, culminating in their fraudulently discharging our debt multiple times, not properly cancelling and applying the 1099-C cancellation of debt, per XXXX XXXX & IRS, 2 federal agencies directives, and then illegally and fraudulently selling this debt 12 years later. Just in the last year or so we have heard from 2 different law firms, and 3 different collection agencies and servicers on the same cancelled debt including different amounts due and different interests rates, no payment histories to support their false claims of how much is owed and as to who has the right to collect these differing amounts and we are relatively sure there were 2 or  more collection agencies trying to collect on the same debt and with different amounts required. Further, PNC was pursuing foreclosure while we were trying to work out a modification and mediation which we know is highly illegal. The statute of limitation in Ohio is now based on retroactively applied changes made in XXXX establishing it as 6 years for promissory notes and/or loan documents that function as promissory notes which makes this note time barred in Ohio. \n\n4. What company is this complaint about? XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Foreclosure complaint This complaint involves XXXX XXXX, National City Bank, the loan originators in XX/XX/XXXX, until XXXX when they merged with PNC, then it sold to U.S Mortgage XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, then to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Because no proper due diligence was done these were improperly transfers of this fraudulent, defective and illegal loan in between PNC and XXXX XXXX XXXX, but XXXX XXXX XXXX filed the foreclosure complaint via XXXX XXXX  XXXX, attorneys for plaintiffs, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ohio, XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, who signed the complaint is no longer with that firm and so our certified mail, addressed to both attorneys has been returned to us, leaving us as pro se attorneys wondering who, what, if, when and how this complaint is moving forward and if our efforts to defend ourselves are being ignored, subjugated, invalidated, lost, or dismissed???? Servicers ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 5. Who are the people involved. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX -- attorneys for plaintiff below XXXX, Ohio, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) 6. What we are requesting : A full investigation into this highly irregular, very likely fraudulent and documented foreclosure action based on issues of material fact. All document relating to this complaint from all parties listed in this complaint to include but are not limited to the following which plaintiffs would be required to have to properly support claims alleged in this complaint. Judgement from the court against defendants dated XX/XX/XXXX with all relevant documents and complete payment and billing statements to support claims of XXXX owed dating from XX/XX/XXXX to present- XX/XX/XXXX as alleged in the complaint. All annual statements, banking records and documents from any person or company that engaged in any way with the origination, processing, taking of payments, collections, servicing, or ownership of this loan from origination to the present XX/XX/XXXX Plaintiffs, legal counsels licensing to represent out of state companies in collecting debts here in Ohio. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, licensing and proof of standing to pursue out of state legal actions including foreclosure actions here in Ohio Provide any and all relevant information and documentation, dates and names of all parties engaged in the origination, processing, taking of payments, collections, transfers, assignments, allonges or ownership to support and document allegations asserted in plaintiffs foreclosure complaint, which any reasonable person would assume the plaintiffs would have in their possession in order to support any legitimate, legal and proper complaint to facilitate due process rights of pro se defendants and justify just cause via plaintiffs required due diligence, respect for this process and burden of proof clearly required by the law and the spirit of the law. \n\n7. In Conclusion : We believe plaintiff purchased a illegitimate, non transferable, corrupted and defective instrument, defunct, compromised and therefore voided loan that has multiple legal issues creating issues of material fact that excludes them from having any standing to buy, sell, attempt to collect or take any legal action involving this loan, not the least of which is the lack of documentation due to its age and compromised and corrupted history and if this is not the case please provide full documentation to satisfy what the law would require as your burden of proof of your allegations in this complaint. Plaintiffs cant explain, much less prove to a judge and / or jury, beyond a reasonable doubt how the legitimacy, accuracy, intentions, timeliness, legality, procedural integrity, payment history, 1099-C Cancellation of debt failures, and other issues of material fact documented throughout the history of our loan/loans that seem to be undertaken to, and resulting in, gross nonfeasance, malfeasance and misfeasance repeatedly harming defendants and their ability to defend themselves. Our documents will prove, gross neglect and malfeasance as plaintiffs and other 3rd parties involved, lack of due diligence resulted in manipulation and corruption of the loans originations, randomly dividing the loan into pieces on what was intended to be a single loan from its inception, transfers, their failure to properly notify us about transfers, we believe fraudulently, with the probable intent to intentionally mislead, evade, generally create ambiguity, omit and obscure material information designed to intentionally hide information and tracking of the loan by pro se defendants and therefore did harm defendants due process rights in their attempts to properly defend themselves in this foreclosure complaint. It is clear that the illegal mishandling of this loan has been institutionalized throughout the lending, ownership and servicing process, creating an incentive to discourage transparency and accountability for consumers and homeowners, for which the entire system was designed to properly serve and protect as the final stakeholder and end user of the transaction! Therefore further investigation is necessary and wanting in this familiar practice attempted by large private banks to defraud homeowners and consumers through an unnecessarily and overly burdensome process to illuminate the issues, facts and relevant documents to resolve this issue outside of court if possible or through the legal system if necessary, therefore seriously harming and damaging homeowners and consumers legal rights of due process and self defense as in the case of my family as pro se defendants. In the clear light and spirit of the law this complaint should and must, be thoroughly investigated to ensure transparency, accountability and fairness to support homeowners and consumers to be sure the burden of proof is illuminate for the homeowner and consumers benefit, as a last resort and recourse as pro se defendants, to further attain and help confirm the truth and facts as required for justice to be served in deed, in law, in process and in the spirit of accountability in hopefully moving the law forward for many future outcomes, and as the law requires in order to find a fair, accountable and just outcome for the parties involved and for those who it can help to protect in the future. We believe plaintiff purchased a illegitimate, non transferable, corrupted and defective instrument, defunct, compromised and therefore voided loan that has multiple legal issues creating issues of material fact that excludes them from having any standing to buy, sell, attempt to collect or take any legal action involving this loan, not the least of which is the lack of documentation due to its age and compromised and corrupted history and if this is not the case please provide full documentation to satisfy what the law would require as your burden of proof of your allegations in this complaint. In recent years events clearly shows the corrupt culture of the national banking system and the damage repeatedly done to consumers and to the economy as a whole. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, Ohio, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-06-24T15:50:39.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"431XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3703140","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2020-06-17T17:53:42.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Our documents will prove, gross neglect and malfeasance as plaintiffs and <em>other</em> 3rd parties involved, lack of due diligence resulted in manipulation and corruption of the <em>loans</em> originations, randomly dividing the <em>loan</em> into pieces on what was intended to be a single <em>loan</em> from its inception, <em>transfers</em>, their failure to properly notify us about <em>transfers</em>, we believe fraudulently, with the probable intent to intentionally <em>mislead</em>, evade, generally create ambiguity, omit and obscure material <em>information</em>"]},"sort":[15.662513,"3703140"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3705534","_score":15.658853,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX CFPB COMPLAINT ON FRAUDULENT 14 YEAR OLD HELOC FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT DEAR CFPB, ALL THE INFORMATION BELOW IS EASILY VERIFIED BY DOCUMENTATION AND TELEPHONE RECORDINGS WITH ALL RELEVANT PARTIES. PLEASE FIND BELOW, THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR YOUR REVIEW OF WHAT WE AND OTHERS KNOW TO BE A FRAUDULENT, ILLEGAL, UNDOCUMENTED ATTEMPT TO TAKE OUR HOME VIA AN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT BASED ON A PREVIOUSLY DISCHARGED, THEN CANCELLED, THEN TIME BARRED, THEN DISCHARGED AGAIN DUE TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ON A 14 YEAR OLD HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT, ( HELOC ) LOAN FOR {$32000.00} PER YOUR REQUESTED 5 STEP PROTOCOL, PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING.\n\n1. WHAT IS THE COMPLAINT ABOUT? WE ARE A XXXX YEAR OLD PRO SE DEFENDANT COUPLE WITH VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS WHO ARE TRYING TO FIGHT A FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE ACTION ON A 14 YEAR OLD HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ( HELOC ) FOR WHICH THERE IS NO LONGER PROPER VERIFICATION AVAILABLE TO PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND CONSUMERS ACCORDING TO ALMOST ALL RELEVANT THIRD PARTY SOURCES STATEMENTS TO US, AS WELL AS OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO OBSTRUCT OUR GETTING THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED TO DEFEND OURSELVES, IF IT EVEN EXISTS.\n\nOUR COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE LEGITIMACY OF ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST US, FROM THE ORIGINATION IRREGULARITIES SITED BY XXXX XXXX, TO PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS, LACK OF STANDING, LACK OF COMPLETE AND PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND RESPONSE, MULTIPLE REDACTIONS, POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT AND MISLEADING, CONTRADICTORY RECORDED STATEMENTS INVOLVING MULTIPLE PARTIES ENGAGED IN THE PROCESSING, HOLDING, TRANSFER VIOLATIONS, EMBEZZLEMENT, AND/OR THE NON APPLICATION OF A 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT SITED IN DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES, XXXX XXXX AND THE  IRS. THERE ARE MULTIPLE ISSUES IN THE IMPROPER ORIGINATION OF THIS LOAN THAT ARE A MATTER OF RECORD AND CONSTITUTE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. THERE HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT AND DELIBERATE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AS WELL AS ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL, MISLEAD AND OTHERWISE CREATE CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITY CONCERNING THE STATUS AND LEGITIMACY OF THIS DEBT, RESULTING IN DOCUMENTED MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE BY MULTIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED AND THEREFORE RESTRICTING THE CONSUMERS RIGHTS TO DUE DILIGENCE AND THUS HARMING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, IN DEFENDING OURSELVES AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS, AGAINST THIS UNSUPPORTED FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OUR HOME OF 33 YEARS. \n\nWE BELIEVE, AND ARE CONFIDENT WE CAN PROVE THE ILLEGAL ACTION AGAINST US TO BE A FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A FRAUDULENT DEBT, BY CORRUPTED THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS THAT WE BELIEVE DO NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING IN AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE A PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED DEBT, WHICH THEREFORE REPRESENTS AN ILLEGAL ACTION AGAINST US. THIS IS CLEARLY A THINLY VEILED ATTEMPT TO BULLY HOMEOWNERS INTO SETTLING WITH PRETENDER LENDERS ON FRAUDULENTLY TRUMPED UP, UNSUPPORTED, TIME BARRED DEBTS TO TARGET DEFENDANTS THAT DO NOT HAVE FINANCIAL MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN HOPES OF BULLYING, BLACKMAILING AND EXTORTING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF AND WITHOUT AFFORDABLE LEGAL DEFENSE, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE TO MAKING THEM PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AND RELEVANT TO THEIR CLAIMS OF STANDING TO COLLECT THIS FRAUDULENT, PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED, TIME BARRED DEBT, THE LEGITIMACY OF THE DEBT THEY HAVE ACQUIRED, AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THEY ACQUIRED THE DEBT, INCLUDING ALL BILLING AND PAYMENT DOCUMENTS, INTEREST AND TIME STAMPED BALANCES TO DOCUMENT THEIR DEBT TOTALS CLAIMS MADE IN THEIR COMPLAINT OVER THE LIFE OF THE LOAN, ALL NOTIFICATIONS SENT TO US OF ANY AND ALL TITLE TRANSFERS, ANY 1099-C CANCELLATION TRANSACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LOAN. WE REQUEST ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS LOAN BE SENT TO US, INCLUDING ALL PRIVATE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES DOCUMENTS INCLUDING XXXX XXXX AND ALL TRANSFER AND BILLING RECORDS GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINATION OF THE LOAN FORWARD, AS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW BY THE CURRENT ALLEGED OWNERS OF THE DEBT, VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT AND A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. THESE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES REPRESENT CONSUMER FRAUD, PREDATORY FRAUDULENT DEBT COLLECTION, UNDOCUMENTED, OBSTRUCTIVE AND NON-TRANSPARENT ACTIONS AGAINST CONSUMERS AND BORROWERS WITHOUT PROPER AND COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION OR JUST CAUSE TO DO SO. \n\nFURTHER WE BELIEVE THIS MAY VERY WELL INVOLVE MAIL FRAUD, ABUSE OF PROCESS, MISLEADING AND UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS WE HAVE RECORDED AND FRAUD ON MANY LEVELS BY MULTIPLE PARTIES DUE TO GROSS LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE IN ORIGINATING AND ILLEGALLY TRANSFERRING THIS LOAN. \n\n2. WHAT TYPE OF PROBLEM ARE WE HAVING? OBSTRUCTION, MISLEADING INFORMATION AND A TOTAL LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. UPON MULTIPLE INQUIRIES TO ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED FROM THE ORIGINATION OF THIS LOAN FORWARD, WE WERE TOLD THIS LOAN WAS TOO OLD TO HAVE ANY PROPER DOCUMENTATION. AFTER NOT HAVING HEARD ANYTHING FROM ANYONE FOR 9 YEARS, MY WIFE AND I SUDDENLY ENCOUNTERED ALL OF THE FOLLOWING : WHICH INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM A TOTAL LACK OF COOPERATION TO DOWNRIGHT OBSTRUCTION OF OUR EFFORTS TO PROPERLY RESEARCH, DEFEND OR RESPOND TO THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT ON OUR HOME OF 33 YEARS. OUR FIRST MORTGAGE HAS BEEN CURRENT FOR MANY YEARS NOW. BUT WE HAVE GOTTEN NO BILLING, INQUIRIES, ANNUAL STATEMENTS, NOTIFICATIONS, NOTHING FOR 9 YEARS CONCERNING THIS HELOC 2ND MORTGAGE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY FOR THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF A 1099-C IN XX/XX/XXXX, FROM 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES ; XXXX XXXX AND THE IRS THAT SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED THIS LOAN, AS DOCUMENTATION OF THE CANCELLATION REQUIRED US TO PAY TAXES ON THIS CANCELLED LOAN. THIS HAPPENED AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME OUR 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD. WHEN OUR 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD, WE RECEIVED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT SHORTLY AFTER AND ALL COMMUNICATION CONCERNING THE HELOC CEASED UNTIL THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED ALMOST 8 YEARS LATER IN LATE XXXX. WE HAVE EXPERIENCED A TOTAL LACK OF ANY PROPER RESPONSE AND TRANSPARENCY AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE AND OTHERS FOR ALL NECESSARY AND RELEVANT INFORMATION, PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND COOPERATION NECESSARY FOR US TO DEFEND OURSELVES IN THIS FRAUDULENT, ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT. WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED A SUBSTANTIAL, DELIBERATE AND DAMAGING LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, COOPERATION, CONSISTENCY OF RESPONSE IN AN ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE AND RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) COMPLAINT OF FORECLOSURE ON OUR HOME, TO INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO MULTIPLE REDACTIONS IN DOCUMENTS, CONFLICTING, CONTRADICTORY, MISLEADING AND INCONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS OF FACT FROM MULTIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED, CONFLICTING DOCUMENTATION, NON RESPONSES FOR INFORMATION, ALL OF WHICH HAVE DELAYED AND DENIED OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND THEREFORE NECESSARILY, OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN DEFENDING THIS LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US AND HARMED OUR ABILITY TO PROPERLY RESPOND, AND DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IN THE COURTS. ADDITIONALLY, IN OUR ATTEMPT TO DEFEND OURSELVES WE HAVE ENCOUNTERS MULTIPLE REDACTIONS, INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING STATEMENTS, MULTIPLE CONTRADICTION TO THE SAME QUESTION FROM THE SAME PARTIES AND A TOTAL LACK OF COOPERATION TO DOWNRIGHT OBSTRUCTION IN OUR ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO THESE FALSE CLAIMS AND TO DEFEND OURSELVES AND OUR HOME. \n\nWE HAVE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY, BY MULTIPLE THIRD PARTIES, INVOLVED RELEVANT PARTIES AND PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THIS DEBT, THAT THIS LOAN IS SIMPLY TOO OLD TO HAVE PROPER DOCUMENTATION ON THIS 14 YEAR OLD LOAN, YET THIS COMPLAINT IS BASED ON WHAT THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM IS SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION THAT IT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE IN ITS ENTIRETY. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO BILLING, INQUIRIES, ANNUAL STATEMENTS, NOTIFICATIONS, JUDGMENT, NOTHING FOR 8 PLUS YEARS CONCERNING THIS HELOC 2ND MORTGAGE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY FOR THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 1099-C, CANCELLATION STATEMENT FORM ISSUED BY XXXX XXXX AND THE IRS, REQUIRING US TO  PAY TAXES ON THIS CANCELLED DEBT IN XXXX OF XXXX. THE EFFORTS BY XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( NOW MERGED WITH XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ) HAVE ONLY FURTHER CREATED AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION FOR MY WIFE AND I IN OUR ABILITY TO PROPERLY DEFEND AND RESPOND TO THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT BY THEIR LACK OF PROPER RESPONSE FOR COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS COLLECTION EFFORT. WE ARE UNABLE TO AFFORD AN ATTORNEY AND UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE REPRESENTATION OF AN ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME. BUT THAT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE, BASED ON NEW INFORMATION WE HAVE UNCOVERED IN OUR OWN RESEARCH AND DEFENSE OF THIS COMPLAINT. WE BELIEVE THIS CASE DESERVES TO BE INVESTIGATED AS TO REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD INFORM THE NEED FOR COUNTERCLAIMS / CROSS CLAIMS, RELATED TO MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE AND ITS BROADER IMPLICATIONS TO MOVE THE LAW TO THE BENEFIT OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF HOME OWNERS AND CONSUMERS VICTIMIZED BY THE ILLEGAL PRACTICES. \n\nADDITIONALLY, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SENT US A WARNING LETTER WITHOUT PROPER LANGUAGE CONCERNING OUR RIGHT TO DISPUTE. THE ORIGINAL COLLECTION LETTERS DID NOT TELL US WE HAD THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THEIR ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINT, BUT SPECIFICALLY STATED -- ONLY WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IF WE DID TRY TO DISPUTE THEIR CLAIMS. THE LETTER WAS VERY SPECIFIC AND STATES CLEARLY THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REINSTATE AFTER ACCELERATION AND OTHER STIPULATIONS BUT SOMEHOW FAILS TO CLEARLY STATE OUR RIGHTS TO DISPUTE -- CLEARLY STATED FOR THE CONSUMER. THIS IS VERY MISLEADING, BY OMISSION, TO MANY I AM SURE AND NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LAW AND WHAT IT IN FACT ACTUALLY REQUIRES WHICH IS TO INFORM US THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THIS DEBT IN COURT AND OTHERWISE. IT IS HARD IMAGINE WITH SUCH SPECIFICITY ON OTHER TOPICS AND RIGHTS CLEARLY STATED WITHIN THE DOCUMENT THAT THIS WAS SIMPLY AN OVERSIGHT AND NOT INTENDED TO DIMINISH AND MARGINALIZE A CONSUMERS RIGHTS TO DISPUTE AS REQUIRED BY LAW.! \n\n3. WHAT HAPPED? THE 1099-C CANCELLING OF DEBT, SENT BY THE IRS, DATED XX/XX/XXXX AND FILED BY XXXX XXXX, 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES, WAS NOT, AND HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED AND THEREFORE REPRESENT FRAUDULENT AND RECKLESS ABANDONMENT BY THE OWNERS OF THE LOAN, IN AN ATTEMPT WRITE OFF, CANCEL, DIVIDE THE LOAN, DISCHARGE MULTIPLE TIMES, TO ILLEGALLY TRANSFER A FRAUDULENT, ILL CONCEIVED DEBT, THAT CAN NOT BE SEPARATED OUT FROM THE OBVIOUS CONFUSION, CONFLICTS AND CONTRADICTION CREATED BY THE ORIGINATORS OF THE LOAN XXXX AND THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED IN WHAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SEE AS A CONCERTED, COORDINATED, CONSISTENT RACKETEERING EFFORT TO UNLAWFULLY TRANSFER AND OR COLLECT WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE A NON EXISTENT, TIME BARRED, PREVIOULY CANCELLED DEBT, RIDDLED WITH FALSE & MISLEADING STATEMENTS, ORIGINATION AND TRANSFER IRREGULARITIES AND VIOLATIONS AND ILLEGALLY CREATED ORIGINATION IRREGULARITIES, OMISSIONS, AND VIOLATIONS HAVE CREATED AND GIVEN RISE TO MULTIPLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. WE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED DEMANDS FOR MULTIPLE CONFLICTING SUMS AND EXPERIENCED DUAL ACTIONS DURING THE NEGOTIATION OF OUR LOAN MODIFICATION WHICH DID NOT SHOW THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE INCLUDED. WHAT WE THEN THOUGHT TO BE A CANCELLED DEBT, IN OUR MODIFICATION NEGOTIATION, THEREFORE HARMING AND DAMAGING OUR LEGITIMATE FINANCIAL OPTIONS AND WELL BEING. XXXX XXXX HAS CONFIRMED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION THEY SENT TO THE IRS, BUT THEY, XXXX AND OTHERS THIRD PARTIES CLAIM THE LOAN IS TOO OLD AND CAN NOT OR WILL NOT PROVIDE REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR TRACKING THIS ACTION SO WE CAN CONFIRM RELEVANT DETAILS OF WHO, WHEN AND HOW THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS TOOK PLACE. THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS ACCURACY IS VERY MUCH IN DOUBT, FROM THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED TO BE OWED, PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS AND LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE, TO ABUSE OF PROCESS, ILLEGAL AND MISLEADING TITLE TRANSFERS, AND MULTIPLE REDACTIONS RESTRICTING AND OBSTRUCTING OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES TO CLARIFY WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE DELIBERATE, DOCUMENTABLE COUNTER/CROSS CLAIMS ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, AS IT RELATES TO WHO WAS AND WAS NOT THE LEGAL OWNERS, WHO HAD STANDING TO COLLECT AND SERVICE THE ILLEGALLY CONCEIVED AND EXECUTED LOAN DURING 8 YEARS WITHOUT ANY COMMUNICATIONS. THERE IS TOTAL OBSTRUCTION OF ALL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE TIMING, OWNERSHIP AND LACK OF PROPER APPLICATION OF THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ISSUES AND THE ILLEGALITY OF ATTEMPTING TO TRANSFER A NON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. WE REQUESTED, BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE STATED OBSTRUCTION, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED A 60 EXTENSION BY THE COURT, FOR THE SPECIFIC ABOVE STATED REASONS, IN HOPES OF UNTANGLING ALL THE AMBIGUITY, OBSTRUCTION, MISLEADING AND FRAUDULENT INFORMATION, FACILITATED BY PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER ABOVE STATED THIRD PARTIES IN A COORDINATED EFFORT TO DENY CONSUMERS ACCESS TO THIS RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION IF IT DOES IN FACT EVEN EXIST IN REALITY. I AM TOLD IT IS ONLY A DENIAL OF MY RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS IF PLAINTIFFS DONT SUPPLY THAT INFORMATION TO THE COURT BUT HOW WOULD THE AVERAGE CONSUMER COMPEL THAT RESPONSE WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL? THIS IS NOT JUSTICE, FAIR OR THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW IN SECURING CONSUMERS DUE PROCESS IN DEFENDING THEMSELVES, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO PROPER FORECLOSURE DEFENSE. WE HAVE DISCOVERED IN THIS PROCESS, ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT, AND MUCH TO OUR SURPRISE, THAT A XXXX CANCELLATION OF DEBT, ISSUED BY XXXX XXXX AND THE IRS THAT XXXX XXXX  WAS AWARE OF, WAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED. IN FACT IT WAS NOT APPLIED AT ALL FROM WHAT WE HAVE FOUND. WE ASSUME SINCE THE 1099-C WAS ISSUED BY THE IRS, THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LOAN AT THAT TIME XXXX XXXX OR XXXX ETRADE BAND, THAT ALL PARTIES MUST HAVE BEEN AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS CANCELLATION OF DEBT ISSUED BY THE XXXX XXXX , WERE USED AS A TAX WRITE OFF FOR THE BANK BUT WERE NOT PROPERLY, IF AT ALL, APPLIED TO OUR LOAN, BUT WERE REALIZED BY XXXX XXXX/ETRADE BANK AND THEN LATER BENEFITED FROM SELLING THE LOAN TO OTHER PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF CANCELLED DEBT THAT WERE NOT APPLIED BY XXXX OR XXXX TO OUR ACCOUNT AND IS THEREFORE MISSING FROM OUR ACCOUNT WHILE XXXX, WHO OWNED BOTH OUR 1ST MORTGAGE AND HELOC LOAN, HAVING COMMITTED GRAVE ORIGINATION ILLEGALITIES, DIVIDING AND SEPARATING WHAT ORIGINATED AS A SINGLE LOAN, WHEN CLOSING BOTH THESE NO DOC, INTEREST ONLY LOANS ON THE SAME DAY. XXXX SOLD OUR 1ST MORTGAGE IN XXXX OF XXXX. BUT AFTER THE 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD, THE HELOC DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY, ONLY TO SUDDENLY RESURFACE IN LATE XXXX AFTER ALMOST 9 YEARS, EXCEPT FOR THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT DOCUMENT THAT WE RECEIVED IN XXXX, 3 PLUS MONTHS AFTER XXXX SOLD OUR MORTGAGE, LEADING US TO  BELIEVE THE 1099-C HAD BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED TO OUR HELOC WHICH COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED OFF THE RADAR AT THAT SAME TIME. XXXX STATED IN RECORDINGS TO ME, THAT THEY DISCHARGED OUR HELOC IN XXXX, WHEN THEY SOLD OUR 1ST MORTGAGE AT THAT SAME TIME, THEN SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED OUR HELOC, BURIED IT WITH NO COMMUNICATIONS TO US, SOLD OUR LOANS TO OTHER COMPANIES, THEN GOT IT BACK, DISCHARGED IT AGAIN DUE TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN XXXX OF XXXX, THEN SOLD THIS HELOC AGAIN, AFTER 2 DISCHARGES AND 1 CANCELLATION OF THE DEBT, THEN SOLD IT IN LATE XXXX, AND ALL THE WHILE HAVING NOT PROPERLY APPLIED THE CANCELLATION OF DEBT ISSUED BY 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES. AGAIN, I HAVE ALL THESE STATEMENTS RECORDED AND THEREFORE CAN BE TRANSCRIBED FOR YOU AND THE COURT. WE HAVE APPLIED FOR NUMEROUS LOANS OVER THE YEARS, SINCE XXXX WHEN WE RECEIVED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT AND THIS LOAN DID NOT SHOW UP ON OUR CREDIT REPORTS AND WAS NEVER MENTIONED AS EXISTING, DELINQUENT, DEFAULTED OR AS AN ISSUE OF ANY KIND IN THE LOAN APPLICATION PROCESS AND GRANTING OF THE LOANS. XXXX XXXX XXXX GRANTED US A  HOME EQUITY LOAN RECENTLY BUT THOSE FUNDS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN FROZEN UPON THE FILING OF THIS FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, THUS DAMAGING, HARMING AND LIMITING OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS THOSE FUNDS FOR NEEDED REPAIRS ON OUR HOME, AND CRIPPLED OUR FINANCIAL PLANNING IN PREPARING FOR OUR RETIREMENT WHICH WE BELIEVE CLEARLY CREATES DOCUMENTED LIABILITY FOR THOSE FILING THIS FRAUDULENT COMPLAINT AGAINST US AS WELL AS FOR OTHER 3RD PARTIES. IN CONCLUSION, SIMPLY STATED, IT IS EASILY VERIFIED THAT XXXX OWNED BOTH LOANS FROM XXXX, DISCHARGED OUR HELOC,  IN LATE XXXX, TOOK THE TAX WRITE OFF, WAS AWARE OF THE XXXX XXXX AND IRS DIRECTED CANCELLATION OF DEBT TO OUR LOANS, THEN BURIED OUR HELOC, WITHOUT A WORD, FOR 9 YEARS, SOLD IT IN LATE XXXX, AND ACCORDING TO RECORDINGS I HAVE OF OUR CONVERSATIONS WHERE THEY STATED THAT THEY DISCHARGED IT AGAIN IN XXXX OF XXXX, CULMINATING IN THEIR FRAUDULENTLY DISCHARGING OUR DEBT MULTIPLE TIMES, NOT PROPERLY CANCELLING AND APPLYING THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, PER XXXX XXXX  & IRS, 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES DIRECTIVES, AND THEN ILLEGALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY SELLING THIS DEBT 12 YEARS LATER. JUST IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO WE HAVE HEARD FROM 2 DIFFERENT LAW FIRMS, AND 3 DIFFERENT COLLECTION AGENCIES AND SERVICERS ON THE SAME CANCELLED DEBT INCLUDING DIFFERENT AMOUNTS DUE AND DIFFERENT INTERESTS RATES, NO PAYMENT HISTORIES TO SUPPORT THEIR FALSE CLAIMS OF HOW MUCH IS OWED AND AS TO WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THESE DIFFERING AMOUNTS AND WE ARE RELATIVELY SURE THERE WERE 2 OR MORE COLLECTION AGENCIES TRYING TO COLLECT ON THE SAME DEBT AND WITH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS REQUIRED. FURTHER, XXXX WAS PURSUING FORECLOSURE WHILE WE WERE TRYING TO WORK OUT A MODIFICATION AND MEDIATION WHICH WE KNOW IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION IN OHIO IS NOW BASED ON RETROACTIVELY APPLIED CHANGES MADE IN XXXX ESTABLISHING IT AS 6 YEARS FOR PROMISSORY NOTES AND/OR LOAN DOCUMENTS THAT FUNCTION AS PROMISSORY NOTES WHICH MAKES THIS NOTE TIME BARRED IN OHIO. \n\n4. WHAT COMPANY IS THIS COMPLAINT ABOUT? XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT INVOLVES XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, THE LOAN ORIGINATORS IN XX/XX/XXXX, UNTIL XXXX WHEN THEY MERGED WITH XXXX, THEN IT SOLD TO XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, THEN TO XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. BECAUSE NO PROPER DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE THESE WERE IMPROPERLY TRANSFERS OF THIS FRAUDULENT, DEFECTIVE AND ILLEGAL LOAN IN BETWEEN XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, BUT XXXX XXXX XXXX FILED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT VIA XXXX AND XXXX, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS, XXXX XXXX XXXX, AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, OHIO, XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WHO SIGNED THE COMPLAINT IS NO LONGER WITH THAT FIRM AND SO OUR CERTIFIED MAIL, ADDRESSED TO BOTH ATTORNEYS HAS BEEN RETURNED TO US, LEAVING US AS PRO SE ATTORNEYS WONDERING WHO, WHAT, IF, WHEN AND HOW THIS COMPLAINT IS MOVING FORWARD AND IF OUR EFFORTS TO DEFEND OURSELVES ARE BEING IGNORED, SUBJUGATED, INVALIDATED, LOST, OR DISMISSED???? SERVICERS ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 5. WHO ARE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  -- ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BELOW XXXX, OHIO, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) 6. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING : A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THIS HIGHLY IRREGULAR, VERY LIKELY FRAUDULENT AND DOCUMENTED FORECLOSURE ACTION BASED ON ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. ALL DOCUMENT RELATING TO THIS COMPLAINT FROM ALL PARTIES LISTED IN THIS COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING WHICH PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE TO PROPERLY SUPPORT CLAIMS ALLEGED IN THIS COMPLAINT. JUDGEMENT FROM THE COURT AGAINST DEFENDANTS DATED XX/XX/XXXX WITH ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND COMPLETE PAYMENT AND BILLING STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT CLAIMS OF XXXX OWED DATING FROM XX/XX/XXXX TO PRESENT- XX/XX/XXXX AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. ALL ANNUAL STATEMENTS, BANKING RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS FROM ANY PERSON OR COMPANY THAT ENGAGED IN ANY WAY WITH THE ORIGINATION, PROCESSING, TAKING OF PAYMENTS, COLLECTIONS, SERVICING, OR OWNERSHIP OF THIS LOAN FROM ORIGINATION TO THE PRESENT XX/XX/XXXX PLAINTIFFS, LEGAL COUNSELS LICENSING TO REPRESENT OUT OF STATE COMPANIES IN COLLECTING DEBTS HERE IN OHIO. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, LICENSING AND PROOF OF STANDING TO PURSUE OUT OF STATE LEGAL ACTIONS INCLUDING FORECLOSURE ACTIONS HERE IN OHIO PROVIDE ANY AND ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION, DATES AND NAMES OF ALL PARTIES ENGAGED IN THE ORIGINATION, PROCESSING, TAKING OF PAYMENTS, COLLECTIONS, TRANSFERS, ASSIGNMENTS, ALLONGES OR OWNERSHIP TO SUPPORT AND DOCUMENT ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED IN PLAINTIFFS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, WHICH ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ASSUME THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION IN ORDER TO SUPPORT ANY LEGITIMATE, LEGAL AND PROPER COMPLAINT TO FACILITATE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND JUSTIFY JUST CAUSE VIA PLAINTIFFS REQUIRED DUE DILIGENCE, RESPECT FOR THIS PROCESS AND BURDEN OF PROOF CLEARLY REQUIRED BY THE LAW AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. \n\n7. IN CONCLUSION : WE BELIEVE PLAINTIFF PURCHASED A ILLEGITIMATE, NON TRANSFERABLE, CORRUPTED AND DEFECTIVE INSTRUMENT, DEFUNCT, COMPROMISED AND THEREFORE VOIDED LOAN THAT HAS MULTIPLE LEGAL ISSUES CREATING ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT THAT EXCLUDES THEM FROM HAVING ANY STANDING TO BUY, SELL, ATTEMPT TO COLLECT OR TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION INVOLVING THIS LOAN, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION DUE TO ITS AGE AND COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED HISTORY AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE PLEASE PROVIDE FULL DOCUMENTATION TO SATISFY WHAT THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE AS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS IN THIS COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFFS CANT EXPLAIN, MUCH LESS PROVE TO A JUDGE AND / OR JURY, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT HOW THE LEGITIMACY, ACCURACY, INTENTIONS, TIMELINESS, LEGALITY, PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY, PAYMENT HISTORY, 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT FAILURES, AND OTHER ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT DOCUMENTED THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF OUR LOAN/LOANS THAT SEEM TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO, AND RESULTING IN, GROSS NONFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE REPEATEDLY HARMING DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. OUR DOCUMENTS WILL PROVE, GROSS NEGLECT AND MALFEASANCE AS PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER 3RD PARTIES INVOLVED, LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE RESULTED IN MANIPULATION AND CORRUPTION OF THE LOANS ORIGINATIONS, RANDOMLY DIVIDING THE LOAN INTO PIECES ON WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A SINGLE LOAN FROM ITS INCEPTION, TRANSFERS, THEIR FAILURE TO PROPERLY NOTIFY US ABOUT TRANSFERS, WE BELIEVE FRAUDULENTLY, WITH THE PROBABLE INTENT TO INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD, EVADE, GENERALLY CREATE AMBIGUITY, OMIT AND OBSCURE MATERIAL INFORMATION DESIGNED TO INTENTIONALLY HIDE INFORMATION AND TRACKING OF THE LOAN BY PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND THEREFORE DID HARM DEFENDANTS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO PROPERLY DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ILLEGAL MISHANDLING OF THIS LOAN HAS BEEN INSTITUTIONALIZED THROUGHOUT THE LENDING, OWNERSHIP AND SERVICING PROCESS, CREATING AN INCENTIVE TO DISCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CONSUMERS AND HOMEOWNERS, FOR WHICH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SERVE AND PROTECT AS THE FINAL STAKEHOLDER AND END USER OF THE TRANSACTION! THEREFORE FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY AND WANTING IN THIS FAMILIAR PRACTICE ATTEMPTED BY LARGE PRIVATE BANKS TO DEFRAUD HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS THROUGH AN UNNECESSARILY AND OVERLY BURDENSOME PROCESS TO ILLUMINATE THE ISSUES, FACTS AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE OUTSIDE OF COURT IF POSSIBLE OR THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IF NECESSARY, THEREFORE SERIOUSLY HARMING AND DAMAGING HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS LEGAL RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND SELF DEFENSE AS IN THE CASE OF MY FAMILY AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS. IN THE CLEAR LIGHT AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW THIS COMPLAINT SHOULD AND MUST, BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS TO SUPPORT HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS TO BE SURE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ILLUMINATE FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND CONSUMERS BENEFIT, AS A LAST RESORT AND RECOURSE AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS, TO FURTHER ATTAIN AND HELP CONFIRM THE TRUTH AND FACTS AS REQUIRED FOR JUSTICE TO BE SERVED IN DEED, IN LAW, IN PROCESS AND IN THE SPIRIT OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN HOPEFULLY MOVING THE LAW FORWARD FOR MANY FUTURE OUTCOMES, AND AS THE LAW REQUIRES IN ORDER TO FIND A FAIR, ACCOUNTABLE AND JUST OUTCOME FOR THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND FOR THOSE WHO IT CAN HELP TO PROTECT IN THE FUTURE. WE BELIEVE PLAINTIFF PURCHASED A ILLEGITIMATE, NON TRANSFERABLE, CORRUPTED AND DEFECTIVE INSTRUMENT, DEFUNCT, COMPROMISED AND THEREFORE VOIDED LOAN THAT HAS MULTIPLE LEGAL ISSUES CREATING ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT THAT EXCLUDES THEM FROM HAVING ANY STANDING TO BUY, SELL, ATTEMPT TO COLLECT OR TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION INVOLVING THIS LOAN, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION DUE TO ITS AGE AND COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED HISTORY AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE PLEASE PROVIDE FULL DOCUMENTATION TO SATISFY WHAT THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE AS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS IN THIS COMPLAINT. IN RECENT YEARS EVENTS CLEARLY SHOWS THE CORRUPT CULTURE OF THE NATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM AND THE DAMAGE REPEATEDLY DONE TO CONSUMERS AND TO THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE. SINCERELY, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, OHIO, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-06-24T16:23:06.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"431XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3705534","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"E*TRADE BANK","date_received":"2020-06-18T19:53:36.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["OUR DOCUMENTS WILL PROVE, GROSS NEGLECT AND MALFEASANCE AS PLAINTIFFS AND <em>OTHER</em> 3RD PARTIES INVOLVED, LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE RESULTED IN MANIPULATION AND CORRUPTION OF THE <em>LOANS</em> ORIGINATIONS, RANDOMLY DIVIDING THE <em>LOAN</em> INTO PIECES ON WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A SINGLE <em>LOAN</em> FROM ITS INCEPTION, <em>TRANSFERS</em>, THEIR FAILURE TO PROPERLY NOTIFY US ABOUT <em>TRANSFERS</em>, WE BELIEVE FRAUDULENTLY, WITH THE PROBABLE INTENT TO INTENTIONALLY <em>MISLEAD</em>, EVADE, GENERALLY CREATE AMBIGUITY, OMIT AND OBSCURE MATERIAL <em>INFORMATION</em>"]},"sort":[15.658853,"3705534"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3705418","_score":15.647248,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX CFPB COMPLAINT ON FRAUDULENT 14 YEAR OLD HELOC FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT DEAR CFPB, ALL THE INFORMATION BELOW IS EASILY VERIFIED BY DOCUMENTATION AND TELEPHONE RECORDINGS WITH ALL RELEVANT PARTIES. PLEASE FIND BELOW, THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR YOUR REVIEW OF WHAT WE AND OTHERS KNOW TO BE A FRAUDULENT, ILLEGAL, UNDOCUMENTED ATTEMPT TO TAKE OUR HOME VIA AN ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT BASED ON A PREVIOUSLY DISCHARGED, THEN CANCELLED, THEN TIME BARRED, THEN DISCHARGED AGAIN DUE TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ON A 14 YEAR OLD HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT, ( HELOC ) LOAN FOR {$32000.00} PER YOUR REQUESTED 5 STEP PROTOCOL, PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING. \n\n1. WHAT IS THE COMPLAINT ABOUT? WE ARE A XXXX YEAR OLD PRO SE DEFENDANT COUPLE WITH VERY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS WHO ARE TRYING TO FIGHT A FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE ACTION ON A 14 YEAR OLD HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT ( HELOC ) FOR WHICH THERE IS NO LONGER PROPER VERIFICATION AVAILABLE TO PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND CONSUMERS ACCORDING TO ALMOST ALL RELEVANT THIRD PARTY SOURCES STATEMENTS TO US, AS WELL AS OBVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO OBSTRUCT OUR GETTING THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED TO DEFEND OURSELVES, IF IT EVEN EXISTS. \nOUR COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE LEGITIMACY OF ALMOST EVERY ASPECT OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST US, FROM THE ORIGINATION IRREGULARITIES SITED BY XXXX XXXX, TO PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS, LACK OF STANDING, LACK OF COMPLETE AND PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND RESPONSE, MULTIPLE REDACTIONS, POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT AND MISLEADING, CONTRADICTORY RECORDED STATEMENTS INVOLVING MULTIPLE PARTIES ENGAGED IN THE PROCESSING, HOLDING, TRANSFER VIOLATIONS, EMBEZZLEMENT, AND/OR THE NON APPLICATION OF A 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT SITED IN DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES, XXXX XXXX AND THE IRS. THERE ARE MULTIPLE ISSUES IN THE IMPROPER ORIGINATION OF THIS LOAN THAT ARE A MATTER OF RECORD AND CONSTITUTE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. THERE HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT AND DELIBERATE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AS WELL AS ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL, MISLEAD AND OTHERWISE CREATE CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITY CONCERNING THE STATUS AND LEGITIMACY OF THIS DEBT, RESULTING IN DOCUMENTED MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE BY MULTIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED AND THEREFORE RESTRICTING THE CONSUMERS RIGHTS TO DUE DILIGENCE AND THUS HARMING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, IN DEFENDING OURSELVES AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS, AGAINST THIS UNSUPPORTED FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OUR HOME OF 33 YEARS. \n\nWE BELIEVE, AND ARE CONFIDENT WE CAN PROVE THE ILLEGAL ACTION AGAINST US TO BE A FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A FRAUDULENT DEBT, BY CORRUPTED THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS THAT WE BELIEVE DO NOT HAVE LEGAL STANDING IN AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE A PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED DEBT, WHICH THEREFORE REPRESENTS AN ILLEGAL ACTION AGAINST US. THIS IS CLEARLY A THINLY VEILED ATTEMPT TO BULLY HOMEOWNERS INTO SETTLING WITH PRETENDER LENDERS ON FRAUDULENTLY TRUMPED UP, UNSUPPORTED, TIME BARRED DEBTS TO TARGET DEFENDANTS THAT DO NOT HAVE FINANCIAL MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN HOPES OF BULLYING, BLACKMAILING AND EXTORTING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF AND WITHOUT AFFORDABLE LEGAL DEFENSE, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE TO MAKING THEM PROVIDE ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AND RELEVANT TO THEIR CLAIMS OF STANDING TO COLLECT THIS FRAUDULENT, PREVIOUSLY RESOLVED, TIME BARRED DEBT, THE LEGITIMACY OF THE DEBT THEY HAVE ACQUIRED, AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH THEY ACQUIRED THE DEBT, INCLUDING ALL BILLING AND PAYMENT DOCUMENTS, INTEREST AND TIME STAMPED BALANCES TO DOCUMENT THEIR DEBT TOTALS CLAIMS MADE IN THEIR COMPLAINT OVER THE LIFE OF THE LOAN, ALL NOTIFICATIONS SENT TO US OF ANY AND ALL TITLE TRANSFERS, ANY 1099-C CANCELLATION TRANSACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LOAN. WE REQUEST ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS LOAN BE SENT TO US, INCLUDING ALL PRIVATE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES DOCUMENTS INCLUDING XXXX XXXX   AND ALL TRANSFER AND BILLING RECORDS GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINATION OF THE LOAN FORWARD, AS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW BY THE CURRENT ALLEGED OWNERS OF THE DEBT, VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT AND A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. THESE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES REPRESENT CONSUMER FRAUD, PREDATORY FRAUDULENT DEBT COLLECTION, UNDOCUMENTED, OBSTRUCTIVE AND NON-TRANSPARENT ACTIONS AGAINST CONSUMERS AND BORROWERS WITHOUT PROPER AND COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION OR JUST CAUSE TO DO SO. \n\nFURTHER WE BELIEVE THIS MAY VERY WELL INVOLVE MAIL FRAUD, ABUSE OF PROCESS, MISLEADING AND UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS WE HAVE RECORDED AND FRAUD ON MANY LEVELS BY MULTIPLE PARTIES DUE TO GROSS LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE IN ORIGINATING AND ILLEGALLY TRANSFERRING THIS LOAN. \n\n2. WHAT TYPE OF PROBLEM ARE WE HAVING? OBSTRUCTION, MISLEADING INFORMATION AND A TOTAL LACK OF TRANSPARENCY. UPON MULTIPLE INQUIRIES TO ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED FROM THE ORIGINATION OF THIS LOAN FORWARD, WE WERE TOLD THIS LOAN WAS TOO OLD TO HAVE ANY PROPER DOCUMENTATION. AFTER NOT HAVING HEARD ANYTHING FROM ANYONE FOR 9 YEARS, MY WIFE AND I SUDDENLY ENCOUNTERED ALL OF THE FOLLOWING : WHICH INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM A TOTAL LACK OF COOPERATION TO DOWNRIGHT OBSTRUCTION OF OUR EFFORTS TO PROPERLY RESEARCH, DEFEND OR RESPOND TO THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT ON OUR HOME OF 33 YEARS. OUR FIRST MORTGAGE HAS BEEN CURRENT FOR MANY YEARS NOW. BUT WE HAVE GOTTEN NO BILLING, INQUIRIES, ANNUAL STATEMENTS, NOTIFICATIONS, NOTHING FOR 9 YEARS CONCERNING THIS HELOC 2ND MORTGAGE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY FOR THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF A 1099-C IN XX/XX/XXXX, FROM 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES ; XXXX XXXX AND THE IRS THAT SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED THIS LOAN, AS DOCUMENTATION OF THE CANCELLATION REQUIRED US TO PAY TAXES ON THIS CANCELLED LOAN. THIS HAPPENED AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME OUR 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD. WHEN OUR 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD, WE RECEIVED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT SHORTLY AFTER AND ALL COMMUNICATION CONCERNING THE HELOC CEASED UNTIL THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED ALMOST 8 YEARS LATER IN LATE XXXX. WE HAVE EXPERIENCED A TOTAL LACK OF ANY PROPER RESPONSE AND TRANSPARENCY AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS BY THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE AND OTHERS FOR ALL NECESSARY AND RELEVANT INFORMATION, PROPER DOCUMENTATION AND COOPERATION NECESSARY FOR US TO DEFEND OURSELVES IN THIS FRAUDULENT, ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT. WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED A SUBSTANTIAL, DELIBERATE AND DAMAGING LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, COOPERATION, CONSISTENCY OF RESPONSE IN AN ATTEMPT TO ENGAGE AND RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) COMPLAINT OF FORECLOSURE ON OUR HOME, TO INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO MULTIPLE REDACTIONS IN DOCUMENTS, CONFLICTING, CONTRADICTORY, MISLEADING AND INCONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS OF FACT FROM MULTIPLE PARTIES INVOLVED, CONFLICTING DOCUMENTATION, NON RESPONSES FOR INFORMATION, ALL OF WHICH HAVE DELAYED AND DENIED OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND THEREFORE NECESSARILY, OUR CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN DEFENDING THIS LEGAL ACTION AGAINST US AND HARMED OUR ABILITY TO PROPERLY RESPOND, AND DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IN THE COURTS. ADDITIONALLY, IN OUR ATTEMPT TO DEFEND OURSELVES WE HAVE ENCOUNTERS MULTIPLE REDACTIONS, INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING STATEMENTS, MULTIPLE CONTRADICTION TO THE SAME QUESTION FROM THE SAME PARTIES AND A TOTAL LACK OF COOPERATION TO DOWNRIGHT OBSTRUCTION IN OUR ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO THESE FALSE CLAIMS AND TO DEFEND OURSELVES AND OUR HOME. \n\nWE HAVE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY, BY MULTIPLE THIRD PARTIES, INVOLVED RELEVANT PARTIES AND PREVIOUS OWNERS OF THIS DEBT, THAT THIS LOAN IS SIMPLY TOO OLD TO HAVE PROPER DOCUMENTATION ON THIS 14 YEAR OLD LOAN, YET THIS COMPLAINT IS BASED ON WHAT THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM IS SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION THAT IT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE IN ITS ENTIRETY. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO BILLING, INQUIRIES, ANNUAL STATEMENTS, NOTIFICATIONS, JUDGMENT, NOTHING FOR 8 PLUS YEARS CONCERNING THIS HELOC 2ND MORTGAGE UNTIL VERY RECENTLY FOR THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 1099-C, CANCELLATION STATEMENT FORM ISSUED BY XXXX XXXX  AND THE IRS, REQUIRING US TO PAY TAXES ON THIS CANCELLED DEBT IN XX/XX/XXXX. THE EFFORTS BY XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( NOW MERGED WITH XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX AND  XXXX XXXX XXXX ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ) HAVE ONLY FURTHER CREATED AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION FOR MY WIFE AND I IN OUR ABILITY TO PROPERLY DEFEND AND RESPOND TO THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT BY THEIR LACK OF PROPER RESPONSE FOR COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION OF THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS COLLECTION EFFORT. WE ARE UNABLE TO AFFORD AN ATTORNEY AND UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE REPRESENTATION OF AN ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME. BUT THAT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE, BASED ON NEW INFORMATION WE HAVE UNCOVERED IN OUR OWN RESEARCH AND DEFENSE OF THIS COMPLAINT. WE BELIEVE THIS CASE DESERVES TO BE INVESTIGATED AS TO REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD INFORM THE NEED FOR COUNTERCLAIMS / CROSS CLAIMS, RELATED TO MALFEASANCE, MISFEASANCE AND NONFEASANCE AND ITS BROADER IMPLICATIONS TO MOVE THE LAW TO THE BENEFIT OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF HOME OWNERS AND CONSUMERS VICTIMIZED BY THE ILLEGAL PRACTICES. \n\nADDITIONALLY, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SENT US A WARNING LETTER WITHOUT PROPER LANGUAGE CONCERNING OUR RIGHT TO DISPUTE. THE ORIGINAL COLLECTION LETTERS DID NOT TELL US WE HAD THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THEIR ALLEGATIONS AND COMPLAINT, BUT SPECIFICALLY STATED -- ONLY WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IF WE DID TRY TO DISPUTE THEIR CLAIMS. THE LETTER WAS VERY SPECIFIC AND STATES CLEARLY THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REINSTATE AFTER ACCELERATION AND OTHER STIPULATIONS BUT SOMEHOW FAILS TO CLEARLY STATE OUR RIGHTS TO DISPUTE -- CLEARLY STATED FOR THE CONSUMER. THIS IS VERY MISLEADING, BY OMISSION, TO MANY I AM SURE AND NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LAW AND WHAT IT IN FACT ACTUALLY REQUIRES WHICH IS TO INFORM US THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPUTE THIS DEBT IN COURT AND OTHERWISE. IT IS HARD IMAGINE WITH SUCH SPECIFICITY ON OTHER TOPICS AND RIGHTS CLEARLY STATED WITHIN THE DOCUMENT THAT THIS WAS SIMPLY AN OVERSIGHT AND NOT INTENDED TO DIMINISH AND MARGINALIZE A CONSUMERS RIGHTS TO DISPUTE AS REQUIRED BY LAW.! \n\n3. WHAT HAPPED? THE 1099-C CANCELLING OF DEBT, SENT BY THE IRS, DATED XX/XX/XXXX AND FILED BY XXXX XXXX, 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES, WAS NOT, AND HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED AND THEREFORE REPRESENT FRAUDULENT AND RECKLESS ABANDONMENT BY THE OWNERS OF THE LOAN, IN AN ATTEMPT WRITE OFF, CANCEL, DIVIDE THE LOAN, DISCHARGE MULTIPLE TIMES, TO ILLEGALLY TRANSFER A FRAUDULENT, ILL CONCEIVED DEBT, THAT CAN NOT BE SEPARATED OUT FROM THE OBVIOUS CONFUSION, CONFLICTS AND CONTRADICTION CREATED BY THE ORIGINATORS OF THE LOAN XXXX AND THE OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED IN WHAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD SEE AS A CONCERTED, COORDINATED, CONSISTENT RACKETEERING EFFORT TO UNLAWFULLY TRANSFER AND OR COLLECT WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE A NON EXISTENT, TIME BARRED, PREVIOULY CANCELLED DEBT, RIDDLED WITH FALSE & MISLEADING STATEMENTS, ORIGINATION AND TRANSFER IRREGULARITIES AND VIOLATIONS AND ILLEGALLY CREATED ORIGINATION IRREGULARITIES, OMISSIONS, AND VIOLATIONS HAVE CREATED AND GIVEN RISE TO MULTIPLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. WE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED DEMANDS FOR MULTIPLE CONFLICTING SUMS AND EXPERIENCED DUAL ACTIONS DURING THE NEGOTIATION OF OUR LOAN MODIFICATION WHICH DID NOT SHOW THE PROPER APPLICATION OF THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE INCLUDED. WHAT WE THEN THOUGHT TO BE A CANCELLED DEBT, IN OUR MODIFICATION NEGOTIATION, THEREFORE HARMING AND DAMAGING OUR LEGITIMATE FINANCIAL OPTIONS AND WELL BEING. XXXX XXXX HAS CONFIRMED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION THEY SENT TO THE IRS, BUT THEY, XXXX AND OTHERS THIRD PARTIES CLAIM THE LOAN IS TOO OLD AND CAN NOT OR WILL NOT PROVIDE REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR TRACKING THIS ACTION SO WE CAN CONFIRM RELEVANT DETAILS OF WHO, WHEN AND HOW THESE ILLEGAL ACTIONS TOOK PLACE. THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINTS ACCURACY IS VERY MUCH IN DOUBT, FROM THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED TO BE OWED, PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS AND LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE, TO ABUSE OF PROCESS, ILLEGAL AND MISLEADING TITLE TRANSFERS, AND MULTIPLE REDACTIONS RESTRICTING AND OBSTRUCTING OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES TO CLARIFY WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE DELIBERATE, DOCUMENTABLE COUNTER/CROSS CLAIMS ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, AS IT RELATES TO WHO WAS AND WAS NOT THE LEGAL OWNERS, WHO HAD STANDING TO COLLECT AND SERVICE THE ILLEGALLY CONCEIVED AND EXECUTED LOAN DURING 8 YEARS WITHOUT ANY COMMUNICATIONS. THERE IS TOTAL OBSTRUCTION OF ALL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE TIMING, OWNERSHIP AND LACK OF PROPER APPLICATION OF THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ISSUES AND THE ILLEGALITY OF ATTEMPTING TO TRANSFER A NON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. WE REQUESTED, BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE STATED OBSTRUCTION, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY GRANTED A 60 EXTENSION BY THE COURT, FOR THE SPECIFIC ABOVE STATED REASONS, IN HOPES OF UNTANGLING ALL THE AMBIGUITY, OBSTRUCTION, MISLEADING AND FRAUDULENT INFORMATION, FACILITATED BY PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER ABOVE STATED THIRD PARTIES IN A COORDINATED EFFORT TO DENY CONSUMERS ACCESS TO THIS RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION IF IT DOES IN FACT EVEN EXIST IN REALITY. I AM TOLD IT IS ONLY A DENIAL OF MY RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS IF PLAINTIFFS DONT SUPPLY THAT INFORMATION TO THE COURT BUT HOW WOULD THE AVERAGE CONSUMER COMPEL THAT RESPONSE WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL? THIS IS NOT JUSTICE, FAIR OR THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW IN SECURING CONSUMERS DUE PROCESS IN DEFENDING THEMSELVES, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO PROPER FORECLOSURE DEFENSE. WE HAVE DISCOVERED IN THIS PROCESS, ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT, AND MUCH TO OUR SURPRISE, THAT A XXXX CANCELLATION OF DEBT, ISSUED BY XXXX XXXX AND THE IRS THAT XXXX XXXX  WAS AWARE OF, WAS NOT PROPERLY APPLIED. IN FACT IT WAS NOT APPLIED AT ALL FROM WHAT WE HAVE FOUND. WE ASSUME SINCE THE 1099-C WAS ISSUED BY THE IRS, THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LOAN AT THAT TIME XXXX XXXX  OR BAYVIEW/ XXXX XXXX, THAT ALL PARTIES MUST HAVE BEEN AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS CANCELLATION OF DEBT ISSUED BY THE XXXX XXXX , WERE USED AS A TAX WRITE OFF FOR THE BANK BUT WERE NOT PROPERLY, IF AT ALL, APPLIED TO OUR LOAN, BUT WERE REALIZED BY XXXX XXXX/BAYVIEW/XXXX  BANK AND THEN LATER BENEFITED FROM SELLING THE LOAN TO OTHER PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF CANCELLED DEBT THAT WERE NOT APPLIED BY XXXX OR BAYVIEW/XXXX  TO OUR ACCOUNT AND IS THEREFORE MISSING FROM OUR ACCOUNT WHILE XXXX, WHO OWNED BOTH OUR 1ST MORTGAGE AND HELOC LOAN, HAVING COMMITTED GRAVE ORIGINATION ILLEGALITIES, DIVIDING AND SEPARATING WHAT ORIGINATED AS A SINGLE LOAN, WHEN CLOSING BOTH THESE NO DOC, INTEREST ONLY LOANS ON THE SAME DAY. XXXX SOLD OUR 1ST MORTGAGE IN XX/XX/XXXX. BUT AFTER THE 1ST MORTGAGE WAS SOLD, THE HELOC DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY, ONLY TO SUDDENLY RESURFACE IN LATE XXXX AFTER ALMOST 9 YEARS, EXCEPT FOR THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT DOCUMENT THAT WE RECEIVED IN XXXX, 3 PLUS MONTHS AFTER XXXX SOLD OUR MORTGAGE, LEADING US TO BELIEVE THE 1099-C HAD BEEN PROPERLY APPLIED TO OUR HELOC WHICH COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED OFF THE RADAR AT THAT SAME TIME. XXXX STATED IN RECORDINGS TO ME, THAT THEY DISCHARGED OUR HELOC IN XXXX, WHEN THEY SOLD OUR XXXX MORTGAGE AT THAT SAME TIME, THEN SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELLED OUR HELOC, BURIED IT WITH NO COMMUNICATIONS TO US, SOLD OUR LOANS TO OTHER COMPANIES, THEN GOT IT BACK, DISCHARGED IT AGAIN DUE TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN XX/XX/XXXX, THEN SOLD THIS HELOC AGAIN, AFTER 2 DISCHARGES AND 1 CANCELLATION OF THE DEBT, THEN SOLD IT IN LATE XXXX., AND ALL THE WHILE HAVING NOT PROPERLY APPLIED THE CANCELLATION OF DEBT ISSUED BY 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES. AGAIN, I HAVE ALL THESE STATEMENTS RECORDED AND THEREFORE CAN BE TRANSCRIBED FOR YOU AND THE COURT. WE HAVE APPLIED FOR NUMEROUS LOANS OVER THE YEARS, SINCE XXXX WHEN WE RECEIVED THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT AND THIS LOAN DID NOT SHOW UP ON OUR CREDIT REPORTS AND WAS NEVER MENTIONED AS EXISTING, DELINQUENT, DEFAULTED OR AS AN ISSUE OF ANY KIND IN THE LOAN APPLICATION PROCESS AND GRANTING OF THE LOANS. XXXX XXXX XXXX  GRANTED US A HOME EQUITY LOAN RECENTLY BUT THOSE FUNDS SEEM TO HAVE BEEN FROZEN UPON THE FILING OF THIS FRAUDULENT FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, THUS DAMAGING, HARMING AND LIMITING OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS THOSE FUNDS FOR NEEDED REPAIRS ON OUR HOME, AND CRIPPLED OUR FINANCIAL PLANNING IN PREPARING FOR OUR RETIREMENT WHICH WE BELIEVE CLEARLY CREATES DOCUMENTED LIABILITY FOR THOSE FILING THIS FRAUDULENT COMPLAINT AGAINST US AS WELL AS FOR OTHER 3RD PARTIES. IN CONCLUSION, SIMPLY STATED, IT IS EASILY VERIFIED THAT XXXX OWNED BOTH LOANS FROM XXXX, DISCHARGED OUR HELOC, IN LATE XXXX, TOOK THE TAX WRITE OFF, WAS AWARE OF THE XXXX XXXX AND IRS DIRECTED CANCELLATION OF DEBT TO OUR LOANS, THEN BURIED OUR HELOC, WITHOUT A WORD, FOR 9 YEARS, SOLD IT IN LATE XXXX, AND ACCORDING TO RECORDINGS I HAVE OF OUR CONVERSATIONS WHERE THEY STATED THAT THEY DISCHARGED IT AGAIN IN MAY OF XXXX, CULMINATING IN THEIR FRAUDULENTLY DISCHARGING OUR DEBT MULTIPLE TIMES, NOT PROPERLY CANCELLING AND APPLYING THE 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT, PER XXXX XXXX & IRS, 2 FEDERAL AGENCIES DIRECTIVES, AND THEN ILLEGALLY AND FRAUDULENTLY SELLING THIS DEBT 12 YEARS LATER. JUST IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO WE HAVE HEARD FROM 2 DIFFERENT LAW FIRMS, AND 3 DIFFERENT COLLECTION AGENCIES AND SERVICERS ON THE SAME CANCELLED DEBT INCLUDING DIFFERENT AMOUNTS DUE AND DIFFERENT INTERESTS RATES, NO PAYMENT HISTORIES TO SUPPORT THEIR FALSE CLAIMS OF HOW MUCH IS OWED AND AS TO WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THESE DIFFERING AMOUNTS AND WE ARE RELATIVELY SURE THERE WERE 2 OR MORE COLLECTION AGENCIES TRYING TO COLLECT ON THE SAME DEBT AND WITH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS REQUIRED. FURTHER, XXXX WAS PURSUING FORECLOSURE WHILE WE WERE TRYING TO WORK OUT A MODIFICATION AND MEDIATION WHICH WE KNOW IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION IN OHIO IS NOW BASED ON RETROACTIVELY APPLIED CHANGES MADE IN XXXX ESTABLISHING IT AS 6 YEARS FOR PROMISSORY NOTES AND/OR LOAN DOCUMENTS THAT FUNCTION AS PROMISSORY NOTES WHICH MAKES THIS NOTE TIME BARRED IN OHIO. \n\n4. WHAT COMPANY IS THIS COMPLAINT ABOUT? XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT THIS COMPLAINT INVOLVES XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, THE LOAN ORIGINATORS IN XX/XX/XXXX, UNTIL 09 WHEN THEY MERGED WITH XXXX, THEN IT SOLD TO XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, THEN TO XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. BECAUSE NO PROPER DUE DILIGENCE WAS DONE THESE WERE IMPROPERLY TRANSFERS OF THIS FRAUDULENT, DEFECTIVE AND ILLEGAL LOAN IN BETWEEN XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, BUT XXXX XXXX XXXX FILED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT VIA XXXX XXXX  XXXX, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS, XXXX XXXX XXXX, AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, OHIO, XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WHO SIGNED THE COMPLAINT IS NO LONGER WITH THAT FIRM AND SO OUR CERTIFIED MAIL, ADDRESSED TO BOTH ATTORNEYS HAS BEEN RETURNED TO US, LEAVING US AS PRO SE ATTORNEYS WONDERING WHO, WHAT, IF, WHEN AND HOW THIS COMPLAINT IS MOVING FORWARD AND IF OUR EFFORTS TO DEFEND OURSELVES ARE BEING IGNORED, SUBJUGATED, INVALIDATED, LOST, OR DISMISSED???? SERVICERS ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 5. WHO ARE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX -- ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BELOW XXXX, OHIO, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) 6. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING : A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO THIS HIGHLY IRREGULAR, VERY LIKELY FRAUDULENT AND DOCUMENTED FORECLOSURE ACTION BASED ON ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT. ALL DOCUMENT RELATING TO THIS COMPLAINT FROM ALL PARTIES LISTED IN THIS COMPLAINT TO INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING WHICH PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE TO PROPERLY SUPPORT CLAIMS ALLEGED IN THIS COMPLAINT. JUDGEMENT FROM THE COURT AGAINST DEFENDANTS DATED XX/XX/XXXX WITH ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND COMPLETE PAYMENT AND BILLING STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT CLAIMS OF XXXX OWED DATING FROM XX/XX/XXXX TO PRESENT- XX/XX/XXXX AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT. ALL ANNUAL STATEMENTS, BANKING RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS FROM ANY PERSON OR COMPANY THAT ENGAGED IN ANY WAY WITH THE ORIGINATION, PROCESSING, TAKING OF PAYMENTS, COLLECTIONS, SERVICING, OR OWNERSHIP OF THIS LOAN FROM ORIGINATION TO THE PRESENT XX/XX/XXXX PLAINTIFFS, LEGAL COUNSELS LICENSING TO REPRESENT OUT OF STATE COMPANIES IN COLLECTING DEBTS HERE IN OHIO. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, LICENSING AND PROOF OF STANDING TO PURSUE OUT OF STATE LEGAL ACTIONS INCLUDING FORECLOSURE ACTIONS HERE IN OHIO PROVIDE ANY AND ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION, DATES AND NAMES OF ALL PARTIES ENGAGED IN THE ORIGINATION, PROCESSING, TAKING OF PAYMENTS, COLLECTIONS, TRANSFERS, ASSIGNMENTS, ALLONGES OR OWNERSHIP TO SUPPORT AND DOCUMENT ALLEGATIONS ASSERTED IN PLAINTIFFS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT, WHICH ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULD ASSUME THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION IN ORDER TO SUPPORT ANY LEGITIMATE, LEGAL AND PROPER COMPLAINT TO FACILITATE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND JUSTIFY JUST CAUSE VIA PLAINTIFFS REQUIRED DUE DILIGENCE, RESPECT FOR THIS PROCESS AND BURDEN OF PROOF CLEARLY REQUIRED BY THE LAW AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. 7. IN CONCLUSION : WE BELIEVE PLAINTIFF PURCHASED A ILLEGITIMATE, NON TRANSFERABLE, CORRUPTED AND DEFECTIVE INSTRUMENT, DEFUNCT, COMPROMISED AND THEREFORE VOIDED LOAN THAT HAS MULTIPLE LEGAL ISSUES CREATING ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT THAT EXCLUDES THEM FROM HAVING ANY STANDING TO BUY, SELL, ATTEMPT TO COLLECT OR TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION INVOLVING THIS LOAN, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION DUE TO ITS AGE AND COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED HISTORY AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE PLEASE PROVIDE FULL DOCUMENTATION TO SATISFY WHAT THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE AS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS IN THIS COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFFS CANT EXPLAIN, MUCH LESS PROVE TO A JUDGE AND / OR JURY, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT HOW THE LEGITIMACY, ACCURACY, INTENTIONS, TIMELINESS, LEGALITY, PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY, PAYMENT HISTORY, 1099-C CANCELLATION OF DEBT FAILURES, AND OTHER ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT DOCUMENTED THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF OUR LOAN/LOANS THAT SEEM TO BE UNDERTAKEN TO, AND RESULTING IN, GROSS NONFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE REPEATEDLY HARMING DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. OUR DOCUMENTS WILL PROVE, GROSS NEGLECT AND MALFEASANCE AS PLAINTIFFS AND OTHER 3RD PARTIES INVOLVED, LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE RESULTED IN MANIPULATION AND CORRUPTION OF THE LOANS ORIGINATIONS, RANDOMLY DIVIDING THE LOAN INTO PIECES ON WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A SINGLE LOAN FROM ITS INCEPTION, TRANSFERS, THEIR FAILURE TO PROPERLY NOTIFY US ABOUT TRANSFERS, WE BELIEVE FRAUDULENTLY, WITH THE PROBABLE INTENT TO INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD, EVADE, GENERALLY CREATE AMBIGUITY, OMIT AND OBSCURE MATERIAL INFORMATION DESIGNED TO INTENTIONALLY HIDE INFORMATION AND TRACKING OF THE LOAN BY PRO SE DEFENDANTS AND THEREFORE DID HARM DEFENDANTS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO PROPERLY DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THIS FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ILLEGAL MISHANDLING OF THIS LOAN HAS BEEN INSTITUTIONALIZED THROUGHOUT THE LENDING, OWNERSHIP AND SERVICING PROCESS, CREATING AN INCENTIVE TO DISCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CONSUMERS AND HOMEOWNERS, FOR WHICH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO PROPERLY SERVE AND PROTECT AS THE FINAL STAKEHOLDER AND END USER OF THE TRANSACTION! THEREFORE FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS NECESSARY AND WANTING IN THIS FAMILIAR PRACTICE ATTEMPTED BY LARGE PRIVATE BANKS TO DEFRAUD HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS THROUGH AN UNNECESSARILY AND OVERLY BURDENSOME PROCESS TO ILLUMINATE THE ISSUES, FACTS AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE OUTSIDE OF COURT IF POSSIBLE OR THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM IF NECESSARY, THEREFORE SERIOUSLY HARMING AND DAMAGING HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS LEGAL RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS AND SELF DEFENSE AS IN THE CASE OF MY FAMILY AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS. IN THE CLEAR LIGHT AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW THIS COMPLAINT SHOULD AND MUST, BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS TO SUPPORT HOMEOWNERS AND CONSUMERS TO BE SURE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ILLUMINATE FOR THE HOMEOWNER AND CONSUMERS BENEFIT, AS A LAST RESORT AND RECOURSE AS PRO SE DEFENDANTS, TO FURTHER ATTAIN AND HELP CONFIRM THE TRUTH AND FACTS AS REQUIRED FOR JUSTICE TO BE SERVED IN DEED, IN LAW, IN PROCESS AND IN THE SPIRIT OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN HOPEFULLY MOVING THE LAW FORWARD FOR MANY FUTURE OUTCOMES, AND AS THE LAW REQUIRES IN ORDER TO FIND A FAIR, ACCOUNTABLE AND JUST OUTCOME FOR THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND FOR THOSE WHO IT CAN HELP TO PROTECT IN THE FUTURE. WE BELIEVE PLAINTIFF PURCHASED A ILLEGITIMATE, NON TRANSFERABLE, CORRUPTED AND DEFECTIVE INSTRUMENT, DEFUNCT, COMPROMISED AND THEREFORE VOIDED LOAN THAT HAS MULTIPLE LEGAL ISSUES CREATING ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT THAT EXCLUDES THEM FROM HAVING ANY STANDING TO BUY, SELL, ATTEMPT TO COLLECT OR TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION INVOLVING THIS LOAN, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION DUE TO ITS AGE AND COMPROMISED AND CORRUPTED HISTORY AND IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE PLEASE PROVIDE FULL DOCUMENTATION TO SATISFY WHAT THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE AS YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF OF YOUR ALLEGATIONS IN THIS COMPLAINT. IN RECENT YEARS EVENTS CLEARLY SHOWS THE CORRUPT CULTURE OF THE NATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM AND THE DAMAGE REPEATEDLY DONE TO CONSUMERS AND TO THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE. SINCERELY, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, OHIO, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-06-18T19:35:36.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"431XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3705418","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Community Loan Servicing, LLC (formerly known as Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC)","date_received":"2020-06-18T16:48:22.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["OUR DOCUMENTS WILL PROVE, GROSS NEGLECT AND MALFEASANCE AS PLAINTIFFS AND <em>OTHER</em> 3RD PARTIES INVOLVED, LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE RESULTED IN MANIPULATION AND CORRUPTION OF THE <em>LOANS</em> ORIGINATIONS, RANDOMLY DIVIDING THE <em>LOAN</em> INTO PIECES ON WHAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A SINGLE <em>LOAN</em> FROM ITS INCEPTION, <em>TRANSFERS</em>, THEIR FAILURE TO PROPERLY NOTIFY US ABOUT <em>TRANSFERS</em>, WE BELIEVE FRAUDULENTLY, WITH THE PROBABLE INTENT TO INTENTIONALLY <em>MISLEAD</em>, EVADE, GENERALLY CREATE AMBIGUITY, OMIT AND OBSCURE MATERIAL <em>INFORMATION</em>"],"company":["Community <em>Loan</em> <em>Servicing</em>, LLC (formerly known as Bayview <em>Loan</em> <em>Servicing</em>, LLC)"]},"sort":[15.647248,"3705418"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18649416","_score":15.60211,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns Select Portfolio Servicings ( SPS ) submission of materially misleading and incomplete information to CFPB during my prior complaint ( CFPB Case # XXXX ) SPS falsely claimed compliance with RESPA/QWR requirements and improperly closed my Successor-in-Interest ( SII ) review after acknowledging receipt of my complete probate package, causing financial harm to my mothers estate property address XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX TX XXXX As a result of SPSs conduct, the estate was forced to pay a payoff amount that has never been reconciled for escrow, insurance proceeds, prior-servicer errors, or overpayments. SPSs actions blocked the estates legal right to refunds, credits, and dispute resolution after payoff. \n\nRequest : CFPB Supervisory Review/ Enforcement + Corrective Action Plan I dispute Select Portfolio Servicings ( SPS ) response as inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. SPS claims it responded to my Qualified Written Request ( QWR ) and that no errors occurred ; however, SPSs own uploaded documents show it refused to investigate key issues, terminated successor rights, and failed to provide required reconciliations, which caused direct harm to my mothers estate.\n\n1 ) RESPA/QWR NON-COMPLIANCE Document dump and refusal to investigate Law : 12 CFR 1024.35 ( Notice of Error ) and 12 CFR 1024.36 ( Request for Information ) What SPS was required to do SPS was required to investigate and provide a substantive, issue-by-issue response to each error/information request, including payoff accuracy, escrow accounting, and any credits/insurance proceeds impacting the balance. \nWhat SPS did ( their own words ) In SPSs XXXX XXXX, XXXX response packet, SPS states it is a servicer and attempts to disclaim responsibility for core issues by pointing to the Note/servicing role rather than answering the specific questions raised. \nInstead of providing the payoff methodology, escrow reconciliation at payoff, suspense/unapplied funds history, insurance proceeds trace, or prior-servicer validation, SPS uploaded a bundle XXXX generic materials ( e.g., Note/Deed, transfer notices, payment coupon forms and other standard disclosures ) rather than a complete QWR investigation and accounting. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX None Harm to the estate Because SPS did not provide a compliant investigation and accounting, the estate was harmed by : Inability to verify whether the payoff amount was correct, including whether credits or insurance proceeds should have reduced principal. \nInability to confirm whether escrow funds were owed back to the estate at payoff ( surplus/overpayment ). \nLoss of standing and time : SPSs nonresponsive handling forced repeated follow-ups and delayed resolution while the estate was under pressure to close probate and sell. \n\nXXXX ) FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE MORTGAGE LIFE / XXXX / OPTIONAL INSURANCE IMPACTING THE LOAN BALANCE Law : 12 CFR 1024.36 ( requests for information ), and escrow/insurance servicing duties generally under Regulation X ( including 1024.17 as applicable to escrow administration ) What SPS admits in its own transfer notice SPSs own Notice of Servicing Transfer states that if the borrower had mortgage life or XXXX insurance or any other type of optional insurance, such services will not be continued after the transfer and the borrower should contact the insurer. \nXXXX XXXX None Why this is a servicing failure That notice confirms SPS was on notice that optional insurance may exist. A servicer can not refuse to investigate whether such insurance proceeds were payable/received and whether they should be credited to the loan balanceespecially after borrower death and a payoff event. \nHarm to the estate If mortgage-life/optional coverage existed, failure to investigate and trace proceeds could mean the estate paid funds that should have been covered, or paid more than necessary. \nThis is direct financial harm : unnecessary payoff or missing credits/refunds. \n\nXXXX ) ILLEGAL TERMINATION / OBSTRUCTION OF SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST ( SII ) RIGHTS Law : Regulation X servicing policies and procedures for successors ( including 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( vi ) and related CFPB successor-in-interest servicing requirements ) What SPSs own letters show ( timeline ) SPS opened the SII process and required documentation by a deadline . \nXXXX XXXX None SPS acknowledged receipt of the complete XXXX package on XX/XX/XXXX and stated it expected to complete the review within 30 days. \nXXXX XXXX None SPS then closed/withdrew the XXXX review XXXXating : We are not considering your request because the account was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX None Why this is unlawful and harmful Closing the XXXX review solely because the loan was paid blocks core successor rights, including the ability to : obtain complete accountings, receive and negotiate escrow refunds/surplus, pursue error resolution related to payoff accuracy, and pursue insurance proceeds/credits tied to the account. \nHarm to the estate SPSs closure of XXXX review after acknowledging the complete package prevented the estate from fully exercising its rights and XXXX have prevented recovery of estate funds owed ( escrow surplus/overpayments/credits/insurance proceeds ). \nIt forced the estate into a paid loan = closed door trap despite unresolved accounting disputes. \n\nXXXX ) FAILURE TO PROVIDE A FINAL PAYOFF RECONCILIATION + ESCROW DISPOSITION Law : 12 CFR 1024.17 ( escrow administration ; where applicable ) and 1024.36 ( information requests ) What SPS provided instead SPS uploaded escrow analysis statements showing taxes/insurance payments and escrow transactions over time.\n\nHowever, SPS did not provide a final reconciliation at payoff showing : XXXX XXXX None escrow balance as of payoff, whether an escrow surplus existed, whether a refund was issued, and a payoff ledger showing how the final payoff figure was computed ( principal, interest, fees, escrow, suspense/unapplied funds ). \nHarm to the estate Without payoff/escrow reconciliation, the estate can not confirm whether it is owed an escrow refund or whether charges/fees were improper. \nThis creates direct financial uncertainty and potential loss of estate assets. \n\nPROPER RESOLUTION REQUEST ( WHAT CFPB SHOULD REQUIRE SPS TO DO ) I am requesting CFPB Supervisory Review and a written corrective action plan requiring SPS to : A ) Provide a complete QWR-compliant accounting package ( not a document dump ) Full life-of-loan transaction history ( including imported prior-servicer history ) with clear definitions of all codes. \nSuspense/unapplied funds ledger and disposition. \nFee ledger ( assessment dates, reasons, reversals ). \nPayoff calculation worksheet for the payoff date ( principal + interest + fees + escrow adjustments ), including the methodology. \nFinal escrow accounting at payoff : beginning escrow, disbursements, required cushion, ending escrow, and refund amount/date ( or explanation why none was issued ). \nB ) Insurance / optional coverage investigation and trace Written confirmation of whether any mortgage-life/disability/optional insurance was associated with the loan at transfer ( as referenced in the transfer notice ) and whether any claim/proceeds were payable/received ; if so, provide dates, amounts, and crediting to the loan balance. \nC ) Successor-in-Interest correction Reopen and complete the XXXX review record ( XXXX issue a formal successor determination retroactively ) so the estates rights are not extinguished by payoff and to allow dispute/claims processing. \nD ) Monetary correction Refund all monies owed to the estate ( escrow surplus, overpayments, misapplied payments, improper fees, and/or insurance proceeds credits ), with interest where applicable, and provide a written explanation of all corrections.\n\nIMPACT STATEMENT SPSs actionsrefusal to investigate QWR issues, failure to provide payoff/escrow reconciliation, refusal to investigate insurance, and closure of successor review because the loan was paidcaused financial harm by potentially forcing the estate to pay amounts that may not have been owed and by obstructing recovery of funds owed to the estate ( including escrow surplus/overpayments/credits ). \n\nEXHIBIXXXX XXXX  EVIDENCE INDEX Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ( SPS ) Borrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( deceased ) Successor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX. SPS refused to investigate QWR issues ( RESPA violation ) Document : SPS XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Response File : XXXX What SPS Admitted Evidence SPS is only a servicer and does not validate origination, forgiveness, or prior servicing SPS relied on the Note and generic servicing docs instead of investigating errors Violation : 12 CFR 1024.35 & 1024.36 Harm : Estate deprived of validated payoff, escrow, credits, and insurance accounting.\n\n2. SPS admitted insurance existed but refused to investigate it Document : Notice of Servicing Transfer ( BOA SPS ) File : XXXX Evidence Transfer notice states mortgage life / XXXX or optional insurance existed Violation : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Harm : Estate XXXX have paid a debt already covered by insurance. \nXXXX. SPS closed the Successor-in-Interest review illegally Document : XXXX Acknowledgement + Closure File : XXXX Event Evidence XXXX opened and documents required SPS acknowledged receipt of complete SII package ( XX/XX/XXXX ) SPS closed XXXX solely because loan was paid Violation : 12 CFR 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( vi ) Harm : Estate blocked from escrow refunds, insurance proceeds, and dispute rights.\n\n4. SPS failed to provide escrow reconciliation at payoff Document : Escrow Analysis Statements File : XXXX Evidence Shows taxes & insurance paid but no final payoff escrow balance or refund Violation : XXXX XXXX XXXX Harm : Estate may be owed escrow surplus and was denied accounting.\n\n5. SPS misrepresented compliance to CFPB Document : SPS XXXX Response File : XXXX Evidence SPS claims issues resolved and payoff provided No payoff ledger, escrow reconciliation, or insurance trace included Violation : 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( UDAAP ) Harm : CFPB was misled while estate remained uncompensated.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-12T15:23:30.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"75154","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18649416","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2026-01-12T15:03:58.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX ) FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE MORTGAGE LIFE / XXXX / OPTIONAL INSURANCE IMPACTING THE <em>LOAN</em> BALANCE Law : 12 CFR 1024.36 ( requests for <em>information</em> ), and escrow/insurance <em>servicing</em> duties generally under Regulation X ( including 1024.17 as applicable to escrow administration ) What SPS admits in its own <em>transfer</em> notice SPSs own Notice of <em>Servicing</em> <em>Transfer</em> states that if the borrower had mortgage life or XXXX insurance or any <em>other</em> type of optional insurance, such <em>services</em> will not be continued after"],"company":["SELECT PORTFOLIO <em>SERVICING</em>, INC."]},"sort":[15.60211,"18649416"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2920725","_score":14.970859,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX and its subsidiaries never ever respond to clients. They intentionally failing borrowers at every stage of the mortgage servicing process. The modification was designed to help people and Ocwen tried to defraud people by increasing the monthly payments by 1700 % This is a criminal organization that must be closed. Ocwens years of widespread errors, shortcuts, and runarounds cost some borrowers money and others their homes. Ocwen allegedly botched basic functions like sending accurate monthly statements, properly crediting payments, and handling taxes and insurance. Allegedly, Ocwen also illegally foreclosed on a top-secret close door against XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure act and after it they find the proper moment to go in the house illegal and criminal and loot the entire property in case you complain too much. on struggling borrowers, ignored customer complaints, and sold off the servicing rights to loans without fully disclosing the mistakes it made in borrowers records. The NY. PA, Florida Attorney General took a similar action against Ocwen today in a separate lawsuit. Many state financial regulators are also independently issuing cease-and-desist and license revocation orders against Ocwen for escrow management and licensing issues today. \n\n\" Ocwen has repeatedly made mistakes and taken shortcuts at every stage of the mortgage servicing process, costing some consumers money and others their homes, '' said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. \" Borrowers have no say over who services their mortgage, so the Bureau will remain vigilant to ensure they get fair treatment. '' Ocwen, headquartered in XXXX XXXX XXXX, Fla., is one of the nations largest nonbank mortgage servicers. As of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Ocwen serviced almost XXXX XXXX loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of {$200.00} XXXX. It services loans for borrowers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. A mortgage servicer collects payments from the mortgage borrower and forwards those payments to the owner of the loan. It handles customer service, collections, loan modifications, and foreclosures. Ocwen specializes in servicing subprime or delinquent loans. \n\n////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// CFPB, State Authorities Order Ocwen to Provide {$2.00} XXXX in Relief to Homeowners for Servicing Wrongs XX/XX/XXXX Share this Share on XXXX Share on Twitter Share on XXXX Share on email Largest Nonbank Servicer Will Also Refund {$120.00} XXXX to Foreclosure Victims and Adhere to Significant New Homeowner Protections WASHINGTON, XXXX Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), authorities in 49 states, and the District of Columbia filed a proposed court order requiring the countrys largest nonbank mortgage loan servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and its subsidiary, Ocwen Loan Servicing, to provide {$2.00} XXXX in principal reduction to underwater borrowers. The consent order addresses Ocwens systemic misconduct at every stage of the mortgage servicing process. Ocwen must also refund {$120.00} XXXX to the nearly 185,000 borrowers who have already been foreclosed upon and it must adhere to significant new homeowner protections. \nDeceptions and shortcuts in mortgage servicing will not be tolerated, said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. Ocwen took advantage of borrowers at every stage of the process. Todays action sends a clear message that we will be vigilant about making sure that consumers are treated with the respect, dignity, and fairness they deserve. \nThe proposed Ocwen Consent Order is available at : http : //files.consumerfinance.govXXXX Ocwen, a publicly traded Florida corporation headquartered in XXXX, Ga., is the largest nonbank mortgage servicer and the fourth-largest servicer overall in the United States. As a mortgage servicer, it is responsible for collecting payments from the mortgage borrower and forwarding those payments to the owner of the loan. It handles customer service, collections, loan modifications, and foreclosures. \nOcwen specializes in servicing subprime or delinquent loans and places a major emphasis on resolving delinquency through loss mitigation or foreclosure. In recent years, it has acquired competitors including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( formerly American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It has also acquired the mortgage servicing rights from the portfolios of some of the countrys largest banks. \nThe CFPB is charged with enforcing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which protects consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by mortgage servicers whether they are a bank or nonbank. State financial regulators, state attorneys general, and the CFPB uncovered substantial evidence that Ocwen violated state laws and the Dodd-Frank Act. \nIn early XXXX, examinations by the XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is comprised of state financial regulators, identified potential violations at Ocwen. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission referred its investigation of Ocwen to the CFPB after the Bureau opened in XX/XX/XXXX. The Bureau then teamed with state attorneys general and state regulators to investigate and resolve the issues identified. Todays settlement is a multi-jurisdictional collaborative effort. \nBorrowers Pushed into Foreclosure by Servicing Errors The CFPB and its partner states believe that Ocwen was engaged in significant and systemic misconduct that occurred at every stage of the mortgage servicing process. According to the complaint filed in the federal district court in the District of Columbia, Ocwens violations of consumer financial protections put thousands of people across the country at risk of losing their homes. Specifically, the complaint says that Ocwen : Took advantage of homeowners with servicing shortcuts and unauthorized fees : Customers relied on Ocwen to, among other things, treat them fairly, give them accurate information, and appropriately charge for services. According to the complaint, Ocwen violated the law in a number of ways, including : o Failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements ; o Charging borrowers unauthorized fees for default-related services ; o Imposing force-placed insurance on consumers when Ocwen knew or should have known that they already had adequate home-insurance coverage ; and o Providing false or misleading information in response to consumer complaints. \nDeceived consumers about foreclosure alternatives and improperly denied loan modifications : Struggling homeowners generally turn to mortgage servicers, the link to the owners of the loans, as their only means of developing a plan for payment. Ocwen failed to effectively assist, and in fact impeded, struggling homeowners trying to save their homes. This included : o Failing to provide accurate information about loan modifications and other loss mitigation services ; o Failing to properly process borrowers applications and calculate their eligibility for loan modifications ; o Providing false or misleading reasons for denying loan modifications ; o Failing to honor previously agreed upon trial modifications with prior servicers ; and o Deceptively seeking to collect payments under the mortgages original unmodified terms after the consumer had already begun a loan modification with the prior servicer. \nEngaged in illegal foreclosure practices : One of the most important jobs of a mortgage servicer is managing the foreclosure process. But Ocwen mishandled foreclosures and provided consumers with false information. Specifically, Ocwen is accused of : o Providing false or misleading information to consumers about the status of foreclosure proceedings where the borrower was in good faith actively pursuing a loss mitigation alternative also offered by Ocwen ; and o Robo-signing foreclosure documents, including preparing, executing, notarizing, and filing affidavits in foreclosure proceedings with courts and government agencies without verifying the information.\n\nRemedies : Consumer Protections Todays proposed court order will bar Ocwen from committing such violations in the future. It requires Ocwen to provide {$120.00} XXXX in refunds to foreclosed-upon consumers and {$2.00} XXXX in loan modification relief to its customers through principal reduction. The refunds and relief also apply to consumers whose loans were previously serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. According to the proposed order, Ocwen must : Provide {$2.00} XXXX in relief to underwater borrowers : Over a three-year period, Ocwen must complete sustainable loan modifications that result in principal reductions totaling {$2.00} XXXX. For loan modification options, eligible borrowers may be contacted directly by Ocwen. Or borrowers may contact Ocwen to obtain more information about specific loan modification programs and to find out whether they may be impacted by this settlement. Ocwen can be reached at XXXX or XXXX. If Ocwen fails to meet this commitment, it must pay a cash penalty in the amount of any shortfall to the CFPB and the states. \nProvide {$120.00} XXXX in refunds to foreclosure victims : Ocwen must refund {$120.00} XXXX to consumers whose loans were being serviced by Ocwen, XXXX XXXX XXXX, or Litton Loan Servicing, and who lost their homes to foreclosure between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. All eligible consumers who submit valid claims will receive an equal share of the {$120.00}  XXXX. Borrowers who receive payments will not have to release any claims and will be free to seek additional relief in the courts. Ocwen will also pay {$2.00} XXXX to administer the refund process. Eligible consumers can expect to hear from the settlement administrator about potential payments. \nStop robo-signing official documents : Ocwen must ensure that facts asserted in its documents about borrowers loans used in foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings are accurate and supported by reliable evidence. Affidavits and sworn statements must be based on personal knowledge. \nAdhere to significant new homeowner protections : Ocwen must change the way it services mortgages to ensure that borrowers are protected from the illegal behavior that puts them in danger of losing their homes. To ensure this, the CFPB and the states are proposing that Ocwen follow the servicing standards set up by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with the five largest banks. Because of Ocwens track record of problems handling the large volume of  mortgage servicing rights it has quickly acquired in recent years, Ocwen is also being ordered to adhere to additional consumer protections, including how it manages transferred lans. Among other things, Ocwen must : o Properly process pending requests : For loans that are transferred to Ocwen, the company must determine the status of in-process loss mitigation requests pending within 60 days of transfer. Until then, Ocwen can not start, refer to, or proceed with foreclosure. \no Honor previous loan modification agreements : If the borrower has a loan modification agreement, Ocwen must honor it under the terms of the company that transferred the loan. \no Ensure continuity of contact for consumers : Ocwen will have to ensure that consumers get regular and dependable assistance when they call for help. This includes requiring more than just a single point of contact assigned to each borrower, but also that other Ocwen employees with access to the borrowers information be available if the borrower wants to speak to someone immediately. \no Restrict servicing fees : All servicing fees must be reasonable, bona fide, and disclosed in detail to borrowers. For example, Ocwen can not collect any late fees if a loan modification application is under review or if the borrower is making timely trial modification payments. \no Notify consumers of loss mitigation options and restrict dual tracking : Ocwen generally can not refer a borrowers account to foreclosure while the borrowers application for a loan modification is still pending. If the loan-modification request is denied, the borrower can appeal that decision and Ocwen can not proceed to foreclosure until that appeal has been resolved. \nIn XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB released new rules on mortgage servicing that will apply to every mortgage servicer. The standards that Ocwen must adhere to according to this court order are in addition to the protections offered to consumers under the new rules that take effect on XX/XX/XXXX. More information about the CFPBs new mortgage rules can be found at :  consumerfinance.gov/mortgage. \nA factsheet about the proposed order filed today can be found at : http : //files.consumerfinance.govXXXX Common consumer questions and answers about the order can be found at : http : //files.consumerfinance.govXXXX A copy of the Ocwen complaint that the CFPB and state attorneys general filed today can be found at : http : //files.consumerfinance.govXXXX The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The proposed federal court order will have the full force of law only when signed by the presiding judge. \n# # # The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov. \nUpdated on XX/XX/XXXX : The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX will mail claim forms to borrowers who lost their home to foreclosure between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and whose loans were serviced by Ocwen, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX ( also known as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or AHMSI ). Borrowers may submit claim forms online using their personalized claimant ID number, which is located on the claim form they receive. More information can be found at : XXXX Updated on XX/XX/XXXX : The Ocwen consent judgment entered by the court can be found at : http : //files.consumerfinance.govXX/XX/XXXX ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// CFPB Sues Ocwen for Failing Borrowers Throughout Mortgage Servicing Process Mortgage Servicers Widespread Errors, Shortcuts, and Runarounds Cost Borrowers Money, Homes XX/XX/XXXX Share this Share on XXXX Share on XXXX Share on XXXX Share on email WASHINGTON, D.C. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) today sued one of the countrys largest nonbank mortgage loan servicers, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and its subsidiaries for failing borrowers at every stage of the mortgage servicing process. The Bureau alleges that Ocwens years of widespread errors, shortcuts, and runarounds cost some borrowers money and others their homes. Ocwen allegedly botched basic functions like sending accurate monthly statements, properly crediting payments, and handling taxes and insurance. Allegedly, Ocwen also illegally foreclosed on struggling borrowers, ignored customer complaints, and sold off the servicing rights to loans without fully disclosing the mistakes it made in borrowers records. The Florida Attorney General took a similar action against Ocwen today in a separate lawsuit. Many state financial regulators are also independently issuing cease-and-desist and license revocation orders against Ocwen for escrow management and licensing issues today. \n\" Ocwen has repeatedly made mistakes and taken shortcuts at every stage of the mortgage servicing process, costing some consumers money and others their homes, '' said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. \" Borrowers have no say over who services their mortgage, so the Bureau  will remain vigilant to ensure they get fair treatment. '' Ocwen, headquartered in XXXX XXXX XXXX, Fla., is one of the nations largest nonbank mortgage servicers. As of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Ocwen serviced almost XXXX XXXX loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of {$200.00} XXXX. It services loans for borrowers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. A mortgage servicer collects payments from the mortgage borrower and forwards those payments to the owner of the loan. It handles customer service, collections, loan modifications, and foreclosures. Ocwen specializes in servicing subprime or delinquent loans. \nThe CFPB uncovered substantial evidence that Ocwen has engaged in significant and systemic misconduct at nearly every stage of the mortgage servicing process. The CFPB is charged with enforcing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which protects consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, and other federal consumer financial laws. In addition, the Bureau adopted common-sense rules for the mortgage servicing market that first took effect in XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPBs mortgage servicing rules require that servicers promptly credit payments and correct errors on request. The rules also include strong protections for struggling homeowners, including those facing foreclosure. In its lawsuit, the CFPB alleges that Ocwen : Serviced loans using error-riddled information : Ocwen uses a proprietary system called REALServicing to process and apply borrower payments, communicate payment information to borrowers, and maintain loan balance information. Ocwen allegedly loaded inaccurate and incomplete information into its REALServicing system. And even when data was accurate, REALServicing generated errors because of system failures and deficient programming. To manage this risk, Ocwen tried manual workarounds, but they often failed to correct inaccuracies and produced still more errors. Ocwen then used this faulty information to service borrowers loans. In XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwens head of servicing described its system as ridiculous and a train wreck. \nIllegally foreclosed on homeowners : Ocwen has long touted its ability to service and modify loans for troubled borrowers. But allegedly, Ocwen has failed to deliver required foreclosure protections. As a result, the Bureau alleges that Ocwen has wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings on at least 1,000 people, and has wrongfully held foreclosure sales. Among other illegal practices, Ocwen has initiated the foreclosure process before completing a review of borrowers loss mitigation applications. In other instances, Ocwen has asked borrowers to submit additional information within 30 days, but foreclosed on the borrowers before the deadline. Ocwen has also foreclosed on borrowers who were fulfilling their obligations under a loss mitigation agreement. \nFailed to credit borrowers payments : Ocwen has allegedly failed to appropriately credit payments made by numerous borrowers. Ocwen has also failed to send borrowers accurate periodic statements detailing the amount due, how payments were applied, total payments received, and other information. Ocwen has also failed to correct billing and payment errors. \nBotched escrow accounts : Ocwen manages escrow accounts for over 75 percent of the loans it services. Ocwen has allegedly botched basic tasks in managing these borrower accounts. Because of system breakdowns and an over-reliance on manually entering information, Ocwen has allegedly failed to conduct escrow analyses and sent some borrowers escrow statements late or not at all. Ocwen also allegedly failed to properly account for and apply payments by borrowers to address escrow shortages, such as changes in the account when property taxes go up. One result of this failure has been that some borrowers have paid inaccurate amounts. \nMishandled hazard insurance : If a servicer administers an escrow account for a borrower, a servicer must make timely insurance and/or tax payments on behalf of the borrower. Ocwen, however, has allegedly failed to make timely insurance payments to pay for borrowers home insurance premiums. Ocwens failures led to the lapse of homeowners insurance coverage for more than 10,000 borrowers. Some borrowers were pushed into force-placed insurance. \nBungled borrowers private mortgage insurance : Ocwen allegedly failed to cancel borrowers private mortgage insurance, or PMI, in a timely way, causing consumers to overpay. Generally, borrowers must purchase PMI when they obtain a mortgage with a down payment of less than 20 percent, or when they refinance their mortgage with less than 20 percent equity in their property. Servicers must end a borrowers requirement to pay PMI when the principal balance of the mortgage reaches 78 percent of the propertys original value. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has failed to end borrowers PMI on time after learning information in its REALServicing system was unreliable or missing altogether. Ocwen ultimately overcharged borrowers about {$1.00} XXXX for PMI premiums, and refunded this money only after the fact. \nDeceptively signed up and charged borrowers for add-on products : When servicing borrowers mortgage loans, Ocwen allegedly enrolled some consumers in add-on products through deceptive solicitations and without their consent. Ocwen then billed and collected payments from these consumers. \nFailed to assist heirs seeking foreclosure alternatives : Ocwen allegedly mishandled accounts for successors-in-interest, or heirs, to a deceased borrower. These consumers included widows, children, and other relatives. As a result, Ocwen failed to properly recognize individuals as heirs, and thereby denied assistance to help avoid foreclosure. In some instances, Ocwen foreclosed on individuals who may have been eligible to save these homes through a loan modification or other loss mitigation option. \nFailed to adequately investigate and respond to borrower complaints : If an error is made in the servicing of a mortgage loan, a servicer must generally either correct the error identified by the borrower, called a notice of error, or investigate the alleged error. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has allegedly routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate complaints, or make necessary corrections. Ocwen changed its policy in XX/XX/XXXX to address the difficulty its call center had in recognizing and escalating complaints, but these changes fell short. Under its new policy, borrowers still have to complain at least five times in nine days before Ocwen automatically escalates their complaint to be resolved. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has received more than 580,000 notices of error and complaints from more than 300,000 different borrowers. \nFailed to provide complete and accurate loan information to new servicers : Ocwen has allegedly failed to include complete and accurate borrower information when it sold its rights to service thousands of loans to new mortgage servicers. This has hampered the new servicers efforts to comply with laws and investor guidelines. \nThe Bureau also alleges that Ocwen has failed to remediate borrowers for the harm it has caused, including the problems it has created for struggling borrowers who were in default on their loans or who had filed for bankruptcy. For these groups of borrowers, Ocwens servicing errors have been particularly costly. \nThrough its complaint, filed in federal district court for the XXXX District of Florida, the CFPB seeks a court order requiring Ocwen to follow mortgage servicing law, provide relief for consumers, and pay penalties. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. \nThe lawsuit is available at : http : //files.consumerfinance.govXXXX # # # The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov. \n/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// CFPB Sues Ocwen for Failing Borrowers Throughout Mortgage Servicing Process Mortgage Servicers Widespread Errors, Shortcuts, and Runarounds Cost Borrowers Money, Homes XX/XX/XXXX Share this Share on XXXX Share on XXXX Share on XXXX Share on email WASHINGTON, D.C. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) today sued one of the countrys largest nonbank mortgage loan servicers, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and its subsidiaries for failing borrowers at every stage of the mortgage servicing process. The Bureau alleges that Ocwens years of widespread errors, shortcuts, and runarounds cost some borrowers money and others their  homes. Ocwen allegedly botched basic functions like sending accurate monthly statements, properly crediting payments, and handling taxes and insurance. Allegedly, Ocwen also illegally foreclosed on struggling borrowers, ignored customer complaints, and sold off the servicing rights to loans without fully disclosing the mistakes it made in borrowers records. The Florida Attorney General took a similar action against Ocwen today in a separate lawsuit. Many state financial regulators are also independently issuing cease-and-desist and license revocation orders against Ocwen for escrow management and licensing issues today. \n\" Ocwen has repeatedly made mistakes and taken shortcuts at every stage of the mortgage servicing process, costing some consumers money and others their homes, '' said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. \" Borrowers have no say over who services their mortgage, so the Bureau will remain vigilant to ensure they get fair treatment. '' Ocwen, headquartered in XXXX XXXX XXXX, Fla., is one of the nations largest nonbank mortgage servicers. As of XX/XX/XXXX Ocwen serviced almost XXXX XXXX loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of {$200.00} XXXX. It services loans for borrowers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. A mortgage servicer collects payments from the mortgage borrower and forwards those payments to the owner of the loan. It handles customer service, collections, loan modifications, and foreclosures. Ocwen specializes in servicing subprime or delinquent loans. \nThe CFPB uncovered substantial evidence that Ocwen has engaged in significant and systemic misconduct at nearly every stage of the mortgage servicing process. The CFPB is charged with enforcing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which protects consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, and other federal consumer financial laws. In addition, the Bureau adopted common-sense rules for the mortgage servicing market that first took effect in XX/XX/XXXX. The CFPBs mortgage servicing rules require that servicers promptly credit payments and correct errors on request. The rules also include strong protections for struggling homeowners, including those facing foreclosure. In its lawsuit, the CFPB alleges that Ocwen : Serviced loans using error-riddled information : Ocwen uses a proprietary system called REALServicing to process and apply borrower payments, communicate payment information to borrowers, and maintain loan balance information. Ocwen allegedly loaded inaccurate and incomplete information into its REALServicing system. And even when data was accurate, REALServicing generated errors because of system failures and deficient programming. To manage this risk, Ocwen tried manual workarounds, but they often failed to correct inaccuracies and produced still more errors. Ocwen then used this faulty information to service borrowers loans. In XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwens head of servicing described its system as ridiculous and a train wreck. \nIllegally foreclosed on homeowners : Ocwen has long touted its ability to service and modify loans for troubled borrowers. But allegedly, Ocwen has failed to deliver required foreclosure protections. As a result, the Bureau alleges that Ocwen has wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings on at least 1,000 people, and has wrongfully held foreclosure sales. Among other illegal practices, Ocwen has initiated the foreclosure process before completing a review of borrowers loss mitigation applications. In other instances, Ocwen has asked borrowers to submit additional information within 30 days, but foreclosed on the borrowers before the deadline. Ocwen has also foreclosed on borrowers who were fulfilling their obligations under a loss mitigation agreement. \nFailed to credit borrowers payments : Ocwen has allegedly failed to appropriately credit payments made by numerous borrowers. Ocwen has also failed to send borrowers accurate periodic statements detailing the amount due, how payments were applied, total payments received, and other information. Ocwen has also failed to correct billing and payment errors. \nBotched escrow accounts : Ocwen manages escrow accounts for over 75 percent of the loans it services. Ocwen has allegedly botched basic tasks in managing these borrower accounts. Because of system breakdowns and an over-reliance on manually entering information, Ocwen has allegedly failed to conduct escrow analyses and sent some borrowers escrow statements late or not at all. Ocwen also allegedly failed to properly account for and apply payments by borrowers to address escrow shortages, such as changes in the account when property taxes go up. One result of this failure has been that some borrowers have paid inaccurate amounts.\n\nMishandled hazard insurance : If a servicer administers an escrow account for a borrower, a servicer must make timely insurance and/or tax payments on behalf of the borrower. Ocwen, however, has allegedly failed to make timely insurance payments to pay for borrowers home insurance premiums. Ocwens failures led to the lapse of homeowners insurance coverage for more than 10,000 borrowers. Some borrowers were pushed into force-placed insurance.\n\nBungled borrowers private mortgage insurance : Ocwen allegedly failed to cancel borrowers private mortgage insurance, or PMI, in a timely way, causing consumers to overpay. Generally, borrowers must purchase PMI when they obtain a mortgage with a down payment of less than 20 percent, or when they refinance their mortgage with less than 20 percent equity in their property. Servicers must end a borrowers requirement to pay PMI when the principal balance of the mortgage reaches 78 percent of the propertys original value. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has failed to end borrowers PMI on time after learning information in its REALServicing system was unreliable or missing altogether. Ocwen ultimately overcharged borrowers about {$1.00} XXXX for PMI premiums, and refunded this money only after the fact. \nDeceptively signed up and charged borrowers for add-on products : When servicing borrowers mortgage loans, Ocwen allegedly enrolled some consumers in add-on products through deceptive solicitations and without their consent. Ocwen then billed and collected payments from these consumers. \nFailed to assist heirs seeking foreclosure alternatives : Ocwen allegedly mishandled accounts for successors-in-interest, or heirs, to a deceased borrower. These consumers included widows, children, and other relatives. As a result, Ocwen failed to properly recognize individuals as heirs, and thereby denied assistance to help avoid foreclosure. In some instances, Ocwen foreclosed on individuals who may have been eligible to save these homes through a loan modification or other loss mitigation option. \nFailed to adequately investigate and r","date_sent_to_company":"2018-05-30T05:18:46.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"11375","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2920725","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2018-05-30T01:09:17.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This included : o Failing to provide accurate <em>information</em> about <em>loan</em> modifications and <em>other</em> loss mitigation <em>services</em> ; o Failing to properly process borrowers applications and calculate their eligibility for <em>loan</em> modifications ; o Providing false or <em>misleading</em> reasons for <em>denying</em> <em>loan</em> modifications ; o Failing to honor previously agreed upon trial modifications with prior <em>servicers</em> ; and o Deceptively seeking to collect payments under the mortgages original unmodified terms after the consumer had"]},"sort":[14.970859,"2920725"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18553189","_score":14.644575,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal complaint against Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing ( dba NewRez LLC ) for repeated inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive servicing practices regarding my mortgage loan. \nThis includes falsely acknowledging and responding to inquiries/disputes I never submitted, mischaracterizing prior communications sent to other servicers ( XXXX XXXX XXXX and NewRez LLC ) as directed to them, and providing contradictory/inaccurate information about loan ownership and status. \nThis also includes sending a deficient inquiry response masquerading as a \" Validation of Debt '' letter, which fails to meet FDCPA requirements for proper debt validation and instead frames it as a reply to a non-existent QWR/dispute under RESPA/Regulation X XXXX \nBelow, I outline all the key issues in detail, including the concrete limitations of Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX letter as a claimed \" Validation of Debt '' notice, broken down point-by-point using the exact requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) validation notice under 15 U.S.C. 1692g and Regulation F ( 12 CFR 1006.34 ). These issues demonstrate systemic inaccuracies that have created material errors in my loan records, potentially impacting servicing, credit reporting, payments, or future obligations. \nDetailed Outline of Key Issues : XXXX. No Correspondence Sent to Shellpoint by Me I never sent any inquiries, Qualified Written Requests ( QWRs ), Notices of Error, written disputes, or other correspondence to Shellpoint. All prior requests went to XXXX XXXX XXXX and NewRez LLC only. Despite this, Shellpoint has falsely characterized and responded to non-existent submissions as if they were formal disputes directed to them under RESPA/Regulation X. This mischaracterization is a foundational inaccuracy in their communications. \nXXXX. False Acknowledgment in the XX/XX/XXXX Letter Shellpoint 's XX/XX/XXXX letter falsely states : \" this letter is to acknowledge your recent inquiry regarding the above referenced loan. '' It also claims that, if seeking creditor information, the owner is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. No assignment to XXXX XXXX Loan XXXX XXXX is recorded in public county records. This letter invents a \" recent inquiry '' from me that never occurred, creating a false record of borrower-servicer interaction. \nXXXX. Inaccuracies and Deficiencies in the XX/XX/XXXX \" Validation of Debt '' Letter ( Reference No. XXXX ) This letter, titled \" Validation of Debt '' but not functioning as such, falsely states it is \" in response to your inquiry '' ( none sent ) and claims Shellpoint is/was the servicer for XXXX XXXX Loan Acquisition LP ( \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' ). It lists the loan owner as \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, with details including principal balance {$0.00} ( exclusive of accrued interest, fees, or charges ), origination XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX XXXX, original principal {$580000.00}, maturity XX/XX/XXXX, and notes the loan transferred from Shellpoint servicing to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. Enclosures included Note, Deed of Trust, \" Goodby Letter, '' and Loan History. \no The \" FNMA XXXX XXXX '' reference is inaccurate/misleading : Fannie Mae sold non-performing loan pools ( FNMA XXXX XXXX ) in bulk to private investors ( e.g., RCF II-associated entities ), removing them from Fannie Mae ownership. \" FNMA XXXX XXXX '' is a historical sale identifier, not a current owner. Ownership claims conflict with no recorded assignment to RCF II and public practices for such pools. \no Shellpoint treated non-existent submissions as formal disputes under XXXX XXXX, claimed to investigate them as QWRs, asserted they lacked sufficient detail, and denied servicing errorsdespite no submission from me. \no As a purported debt validation, the letter is deficient and masquerading as compliant. \nConcrete Limitations of the XX/XX/XXXX Shellpoint Letter as a Claimed \" Validation of Debt '' Notice XXXX. Missing the mandatory \" debt collector '' disclosure Required : The letter must clearly state that it is from a debt collector ( or use language substantially similar to : \" This communication is from a debt collector '' ). \nIn this letter : Completely absent. Nowhere does it say Shellpoint is acting as a debt collector or that the communication is from XXXX. \nResult : Fatal defect. This alone disqualifies it as a valid FDCPA validation notice. \nXXXX. No statement of XXXX dispute rights Required : Must include clear language such as : '' Unless you notify this office within XXXX  days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector. '' \" If you notify this office in writing within XXXX  days from receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof, this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment against you and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to you by the debt collector. '' \" Upon your written request within the XXXX period, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. '' In this letter : XXXX mention of any XXXX dispute window, verification process, or original creditor request. Instead, it tells me the alleged \" dispute '' ( which I never sent ) lacks detail and that they found no servicing error. \nResult : No dispute rights are communicated not a validation notice. \nXXXX. No \" validation period end date '' or clear XXXX clock Required : The letter must specify when the XXXX period ends ( or at minimum make the timeline obvious ). \nIn this letter : No date is given for when any dispute period starts or ends. \nResult : No clock is set fails. \nXXXX. Incomplete / non-compliant debt amount and itemization Required : The current amount of the debt as of a specific date, plus either : A full itemization ( principal, interest, fees, etc. ), or A reference to a recent periodic statement under Reg Z 1026.41 ( for mortgages ). \nIn this letter : Only gives \" {$0.00} ( exclusive of accrued interest, fees, or other charges ) ''. No total amount due is stated. No itemization of the excluded items ( e.g., accrued interest at 7.00 %, fees, or other charges ). No reference to a recent periodic statement under Regulation Z. The exclusions make the figure meaningless for debt validation purposes. \nResult : Does not provide the actual debt amount I would need to dispute or pay. \nXXXX. Wrong framing and timing Required : A validation notice must be sent within XXXX  days of the debt collectors initial communication with the consumer regarding the collection of the debt ( or be the initial communication itself ). \nIn this letter : Explicitly frames itself as a response to \" your inquiry '' and \" your dispute '' meaning it assumes prior contact and treats this as a follow-up. A true validation notice is proactive, not reactive. \nResult : Can not be an initial validation notice because it presupposes prior communication. \nXXXX. XXXX language dominates not FDCPA What it does instead : Spends most of the letter explaining why certain questions are outside the scope of a Qualified Written Request under RESPA/Regulation X , directing me to public records ( SEC , county recorder ), refusing to provide internal documents, and concluding no servicing error occurred. \nResult : This is clearly written as a RESPA response letter ( or partial denial ), not an FDCPA validation notice. The XXXX laws have different triggers, obligations, and content requirements. \nBottom-line concrete summary : This letter is not and can not reasonably be considered a valid FDCPA debt validation notice because it fails every single core mandatory element : No debt collector disclosure ; No XXXX dispute/verification language ; No end date for the validation period ; No complete debt amount or proper itemization ; Wrong timing and framing ( response, not initial notice ) ; Focused on RESPA limits instead of FDCPA rights XXXX It is a defective RESPA/QWR response that Shellpoint has dressed up with the label \" Validation of Debt '' but it does not satisfy the legal requirements to trigger the FDCPA 's validation protections or obligations. Shellpoint failed to properly validate the debt under FDCPA. It is not a compliant validation, so any collection activity after an actual FDCPA dispute could remain improper until they send a proper notice and verify. \nXXXX. Shellpoint 's Well-Documented Pattern of Similar Issues and Complaints Shellpoint has a history of engaging in the types of practices described above, as evidenced by high volumes of consumer complaints and regulatory actions : o High volumes of CFPB complaints : Frequently tops or ranks high in mortgage/home-equity complaints ( e.g., XXXX in XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XXXX XXXX, XXXX in XXXX XXXX for home-equity alone ; earlier peaks like XXXX in certain quarters post-acquisitions/transfers ). Common themes include trouble during payment process, inaccurate information, struggling to pay mortgage, servicing transfer errors, misapplied payments, deceptive communications, and inadequate responses. \no Enforcement actions : CFPB fined Shellpoint {$2.00} XXXX in XXXX for misrepresenting loan modification program terms to borrowers. \no Class action settlements : {$500000.00} in XXXX for misleading mortgage statements sent to CARES Act forbearance participants ( violating FDCPA/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Other suits involve illegal inspection fees ( e.g., XXXX findings of over {$270000.00} unlawfully charged ), unauthorized forbearance placements, inaccurate credit reporting, force-placed insurance errors, and deceptive default notices. \no Ongoing litigation/complaints : Multiple class actions and consumer reports allege deceptive practices, unauthorized fees, inaccurate debt validation/ownership claims, poor record-keeping during transfers, and failure to correct errors ( e.g., high XXXXConsumer ratings averaging XXXX stars, with hundreds of reviews citing fraud, unethical behavior, and predatory servicing ). \nI have sent Shellpoint a corrective letter disputing these inaccuracies and putting them on notice of this CFPB complaint. However, I have escalated to the CFPB for formal investigation and resolution.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-08T01:38:11.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"89014","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18553189","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2026-01-08T01:18:08.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am submitting this formal complaint against Shellpoint Mortgage <em>Servicing</em> ( dba NewRez LLC ) for repeated inaccurate, <em>misleading</em>, and deceptive <em>servicing</em> practices regarding my mortgage <em>loan</em>. \nThis includes falsely acknowledging and responding to inquiries/disputes I never submitted, mischaracterizing prior communications sent to <em>other</em> <em>servicers</em> ( XXXX XXXX XXXX and NewRez LLC ) as directed to them, and providing contradictory/inaccurate <em>information</em> about <em>loan</em> ownership and status."]},"sort":[14.644575,"18553189"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2971572","_score":14.30409,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"RESPONSE : XX/XX/2018 Per XXXX  and Citibank Unauthorized Transfers from XXXX XXXX XXXX   To Whom It May Concern : Per conversation with both banks they admitted that these schemes involving bank fraud is happening to thousands of people. Meaning its not safe, yet how could it not be comprehensible and obvious that these scammers are targeting banks for the reason that there is a flaw with their External wire transfers service. \n\nThe incident began when the first {$1000.00} was allowed to be transferred to my bank account without signatory validation. These banks gave me the money from what I believed was another business/ persons account and a confirmation number which indicated to me that : my name is on the account, the account has the requested funds, I am authorized and this was a valid transaction. There were no messages that stated anything otherwise. \n\n>External wire transfer means that money is being taken from an outside bank account and its being put into another bank account. Two bank accounts are involved for bank to bank transfers. \n\nAn External wire transfer service is what was used when funds were transferred from outside bank XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX  and Citibank. However XXXX commented in their response about an ACH system, Im not familiar with ACH system definition, system origination, who uses it and for what reason. \n\nA loophole for unverified fraudulent transactions to occur exists and its allowing scammers to take advantage and nothing is being done to stop this fraud. I believe that the stolen bank account numbers were used by scammers because they knew the banks were not going to verify whether or not the accounts were authorized before funds were transferred, and that banks delayed verification without notifying consumers, this is the loophole, and they were right! \n\nXXXX  response letter dated XX/XX/2018 stated it takes 60 days to dispute a withdrawal to verify whether or not sender/receiver is authorized. First of all if it takes this time frame to validate an account, then no funds should have been put into my account until verified especially due to the awareness of fraud occurring this rapidly by this means. If banks know these rules they could of used a hold or alerts to control and stop fraudulent banking. Second, the message given with the confirmation numbers after transfers, has failed to educate nor mention this essential 60 day rule. This may have provided protection for uneducated consumers. \n\nThe point of my complaint is to show : If I go to a bank and ask for money from another persons account it would be inconceivable and an error that an educated bank would give me access if Im not the owner. This is the basics of the banking the foundation, they the banks are in control not I. \n\nNote : These banks are attempting to misdirect blame for these fraudulent banking schemes on uneducated consumers ; the person who made the purchases ; the online fraudulent probationary employer who stole the bank account numbers and blame cell phone mobile banking. However these are all trivial, impractical, an improbability and smokescreens to not take responsibility for the real problem which is they have created loopholes for banking fraud to occur. My purchases are the outcome initiated because I received $ XXXX funds from these banks without them verifying bank account ownership. \nThus the error and elephant in the room : If I go to a bank or ATM to withdraw funds they would verify owner before and not 60 days after giving me the money. A response to accept a withdrawal from an account is immediate after a common sense owner validation it would be either rejected or allowed- no in-between delayed responses/confirmations. If this process is no longer being used then consumers are not being educated. \n\nIve not been educated about any other banking policy/protocols, therefore what has changed from then to now has not been disclosed. As far as I know, banks would require of someone trying to access another person 's account to be a signatory to that person 's account. This was accomplished thru a \" signatory index card. The bank would pull the index card and confirm the ID presented from the requestor on the index card, if they were not, the transaction would be immediately denied. However with these online banking transactions consumers are not aware/ educated/mislead that the External bank accounts are not being verified before funds are transferred to their bank account. \n\nShow me my name was a signatory on any of the bank accounts before these banks initiated transferring money to my bank account. Only banks control account owner verification however they are delaying this process without informing consumers. If this system was still in place and the banks didnt provide the unauthorized money supply \" none of these fraudulent transactions '' would have ever made it thru the banks front door. \n\nCitibank Response statements XX/XX/2018 : Sent a letter to the customer to explain that payments totaling {$18000.00} were made to their The Home Depot account with bank account information submitted by the customer via our Account Online service and the payments were returned XX/XX/18 as unauthorized. \n\nCitibank Letter XX/XX/2018 : \" When a payment is made to your The Home Depot account via Account Online, a confirmation number is provided for the payment after it has been submitted. Citibank then submits the payment to the financial institution on which the payment is drawn and the payment may be returned due to various reasons. '' Citibank admitted above in their response dated XX/XX/2018, that when funds/payments are transferred from an External Bank Account Online ( XXXX XXXX ), a confirmation number is provided after the payment is submitted to my bank account. They further state Citibank then submits the payment to the financial institution on which the payment is drawn and the payment may be returned due to various reasons. \n\nHere lays the problem with these transactions : Citibank put funds into my bank account Before verifying if I owned the External bank account then After they depositing funds they submitted a signatory verification request to XXXX XXXX XXXX. Meaning they give me the money to spend before verifying I was authorized without warning funds were never verified. I Respectfully disagree that these protocols were within my control. \n\nConclusion : As I have stated Only banks control account owner verification and who an account belongs too. Im not responsible for these banks putting funds in my account if I was not verified as a signatory on External bank account. \n\nWhat initiated the fraudulent transactions was the bank putting funds in my account without disclosure it was a bank loan because they were unable to verify if I was a signatory on External bank account. The $ XXXX funding for purchases came from these banks not I. It was their responsibility to verify sender/receiver before providing funding into my account this shows the system is flawed. If bank account verification cant be done before a transfer then consumers will need to be warned because there are no consumer protections being provided by banks to stop these increasing fraudulent schemes creating victims like me. \n\nConfirmation numbers are given for External payment transfers without verifying authorization and this is misleading consumers to believe that the transfer is safe. There are no messages/education that confirmation numbers were bogus because it only shows that bank put funds in your bank account and not that the transfer is authorized. \nXXXX  responded, it takes banks 60 days to flag yet they allow External transfers to continue with misleading confirmation numbers when what would have protected consumers was placing a hold then validate or providing education for safety protections. I the victim should not be held responsible to pay for fraud banks are allowing and based on the interest thats going to be charged on the fraudulent balance, they will be profiting. \n\nWhen these transactions were submitted, I had no knowledge/education that I was being given random funds meaning bank loans until the External bank account signatory could be verified nor the time it would take of 60 days for verification ; I did not request a loan until a verification could be completed nor did I agree or signed a promissory note to pay back the funds if determined to be unauthorized. As stated, I only received a confirmation number from XXXX  and Citibank bank that the funds were transferred to my bank account from the External XXXX XXXX bank account> This indicated to me that I was authorized and the bank accounts were valid. If instead of holding the transfer until verified they processed a bank loan then this was without disclosure that they were doing so and without an agreement that I would owe the bank if funds were found to be unauthorized. \n\nI firmly disagree that I was involved in this process nor in control or responsible for these banking undisclosed business practices. These banks were unauthorized to put funds in my bank account without disclosure that they were bank loans. Giving a bank loan before verifying signatory was not what the advertised intent of the External wire transfer transaction used. Confirmation numbers were Falsely given to mislead that the bank account transfer transaction was valid. When in fact it was never verified and it actually takes months to verify. There were no consumer warnings that these banks were unable to validate the bank account ownership and the money transferred was just bank loans until they could validated signatory. Additionally if the transfer is found to be unauthorized the consumer will have to pay back the bank loan, this was never disclosed. Therefore I should not owe for the fraudulent balances because these banks gave funds without notice/agreement that they were loaning me the money ; that was spent, months before verifying signatory of the External bank accounts. They improperly gave me the money without disclosure then say its my fault- Further that I owe them back the money because it was spent. Banks are in control not I the victim of these banking errors. \n\n\n\n\n\nStatus of my accounts : XXXX  : Response I have to pay because of purchases made. They have not accepted a payment plan until issue resolved. They stand to profit by charging interest and fees on the fraudulent balance and they continue to lock my savings. \n\nCitibank : Closed credit without warning claiming the notice attached to their response to this complaint was mailed. \nThe reason for closing my account they sited is for : One or more occurrences of late or returned payment in the last 6 months. \nSo they are trying to ruing my credit because they allowed unauthorized funds into my account before verifying signatory and without warning. Now blaming me. \nCitibank also stated I have to pay for fraudulent balance because I made the purchase. Note they also stand to profit by charging interest and fees on the fraudulent balance.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-07-24T20:07:55.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"085XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2971572","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2018-07-24T19:59:08.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These banks were unauthorized to put funds in my bank account without disclosure that they were bank <em>loans</em>. Giving a bank <em>loan</em> before verifying signatory was not what the advertised intent of the External wire <em>transfer</em> transaction used. Confirmation numbers were Falsely given to <em>mislead</em> that the bank account <em>transfer</em> transaction was valid. When in fact it was never verified and it actually takes months to verify."],"product":["Money <em>transfer</em>, virtual currency, or money <em>service</em>"],"issue":["<em>Other</em> transaction problem"],"sub_product":["Domestic (US) money <em>transfer</em>"]},"sort":[14.30409,"2971572"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14733269","_score":13.6968155,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Submitted by : private and on record Date : XX/XX/XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's multiple Federal and state law violations Against : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) Loan : Auto Loan Ending in XXXX Collateral : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Summary of Complaint : I respectfully submit this formal claim with verifiable new evidence provided and request for reinvestigation and am filing a new claim against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) regarding their deceptive XX/XX/XXXX response to the CFPB. I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau take immediate action to demand full deletion of this tradeline from all my consumer credit reports. as it can not be resolved by mere updates or corrections. If this does not provide a resolution I will escalate this matter for further legal action My complaint was closed without a solution caused by XXXX 's refusal to provide me with all requested loan documentation up until I filed the complaint ; verification emails are attached as evidence. Their response contains numerous falsehoods, omissions, and deceptive statements that contradict XXXX own records and the statement itself; violating their duty to report information with maximum possible accuracy and violating several state and federal laws. \nThe long term damage caused by XXXX false and conflicting credit reporting, misapplied payments, improper repossession, and deceptive servicing practices along with multiple, ongoing, and irreparable violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Washington State consumer protection laws, and CFPB reporting standards warrant a full investigation of XXXX 's lending practices ( especially within the state of WA ) and a full deletion resolution with monetary compensation. \n\n-- The tradeline is not only factually inaccurate, but also misleading and incomplete as defined under 15 U.S. Code 1681s-2 and numerous other violations as follows with evidence attached; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX STATEMENT TO THE CFPB REGARDING ADMITTED SKIP PAYMENT TO THE LOAN ( misapplied ) To the best of my knowledge and based on all records and receipts, I did not request or authorize a skip payment for XX/XX/XXXX. I made payment that month and an overpayment the previous month. Despite this, XXXX improperly applied a skip payment to XXXX. \n\nAt the time, I was told by a XXXX representative that I qualified for a skip payment as a reward for 12 months of on-time payments, and I accepted that reward for XX/XX/XXXX. I planned my finances accordingly and made no payment in XXXX trusting the skip was valid and applied as promised, otherwise I would have. \n\nInstead, XXXX recently silently moved the skip to XXXX in their new modified billing history they submitted to the CFPBwhere it was not needed or requestedand reported XXXX as 30 days late. This deceptive shift in servicing created a false delinquency timeline that caused progressive credit damage into XXXX, even though I made timely payments throughout. \n\nThis servicing error, coupled with the misrepresentation of the skip policy, constitutes a deceptive and harmful practice in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and CFPB consumer protection standards. \n\nThis false delinquency must not only be correctedit is further evidence that the entire tradeline is compromised and must be deleted. \n\n\nLegal & Regulatory Implications 1. Violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) and ( b ) : They reported a late payment for XX/XX/XXXX that was verbally contractually skipped, Misrepresented XX/XX/XXXX as skipped ( which I didnt request ) as timely combined payments were made This creates a false delinquency timeline. \n\n\nXXXX. Deceptive and Unfair Servicing CFPB UDAAP Standard Presenting a skip payment as a reward, then applying it in a different month without notice, is deceptive. \n\nIt violates reasonable expectations and causes harm via negative credit reporting. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 'S FALSIFIED STATEMENT TO THE CFPB REGARDING ADMITTED WAIVED FEES ( hidden in payment structure ) XXXX XXXX own response to the CFPB dated XX/XX/XXXX, falsely claims that late fees were waived. However, their updated billing history they submitted to the CFPB contradicts this claim. One example being, my XX/XX/XXXX payment of {$420.00}, which is verifiable by XXXX 's own original documents and my own receipt as I have provided, was incorrectly applied as {$390.00} in their updated new billing statement. This manufactured a {$29.00} shortfall that was then used to justify a fraudulent late fee and delinquency snowball effect. \n\nThis misapplication of payments repeats throughout their entire billing history. \n\nThat late fee was not waived as claimed, nor were barely anythey were buried in the adjusted misapplied payments within XXXX manipulated new billing statements where they remain listed. \n\nThe mismatch between the actual payments, their online account history, and the altered ledger proves XXXX  knowingly furnished inaccurate information, in direct violation of : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Furnishing information known or believed to be inaccurate ; FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failing to correct disputed information after receiving evidence ; FCRA 1681e ( b ) : Failing to maintain maximum possible accuracy ; CFPB UDAAP rules : Misrepresenting fees and falsifying servicing records to cover unlawful charges. \n\n\nThis deliberate misrepresentation, both to me and to the CFPB, undermines XXXX credibility as a furnisher of credit data. Their refusal to correct or even acknowledge the misapplied payments further supports my request for complete deletion of this tradeline from all consumer credit reports. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX STATEMENT TO THE CFPB REGARDING LATE FEES WAIVED AS COURTESY ( incorrect and irrelevant as they violated Federal laws ) I have submitted verifiable documentations which clearly show that payments were made in full, on time, and consecutively throughout the entire loan. The records support that the late fees waived were not as a courtesy as XXXX falsely claims in their statement to the CFPB but rather confirms continuous billing errors and technical difficulties that were systematically applied by XXXX invalidly ; adding that XXXX representatives misled me to believe the account was delinquent. These records prove that the loan was never legitimately delinquent. Instead, XXXX misapplication of on-time automatic payments, improper reclassification of valid overpayments, double, extra payments and false reporting of a skip payment without my request triggered continued artificial fees and delinquencies. \n\nThese false delinquencies were then perpetuated through manipulated billing histories and concealed late fees, allowing XXXX to inflate the loan balance, deny hardship relief, and obscure the true account status to justify wrongful repossession and continued damage to my credit profile. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 'S STATEMENT TO THE CFPB REGARDING DENIAL OF HARDSHIP RELIEF ( offered then denied, misrepresented with account actually being current ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX contradictory statement to the CFPB claims they offer hardship relief and are committed to helping members in distress. However, this assertion is contradicted by my experience and their own admittance in that same statement of denying that they offered me any. In reality they caused hardship on top of one as the account was not delinquent. After being misled into believing my loan was in defaultdue to XXXX own misapplied payments, altered billing history, wrongful delinquency reporting and technical difficultiesI was indeed offered hardship assistance by representatives, including a bump payment plan in XX/XX/XXXX. Under duress, I agreed to this catch-up payment arrangement, which allowed for three consecutive payments to reset the loan and move any deficiency to the end of the term and applied for hardship thereafter in XXXX as XXXX continued billing manipulation, even refusing full {$1200.00} bump payment. \n\n-These agreements and conversations between me and XXXX representatives can surely be confirmed via XXXX 's monitored and recorded phone records. \n\nMy original complaint statement to the CFPB asserting that I indeed make every attempt to make payments on time and that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) rather intentionally or due to technical difficulties prevented me from doing so. Adding that I had automatic payments set up that can be seen clearly posted in XX/XX/XXXX ( my first bump payment ) XXXX automatic payment missing regardless of receipt and a denied {$1200.00} offer to pay off bump payment plan in full as I was not locked out of my account at that time ; as they constantly blocked and unblocked my account unnecessarily. \n\nDespite this, XXXX falsely claims they have no record of placing me on any hardship or bump payment plan or was eligible for such accommodations, when their own assertion of loan delinquency contradicts their statement. \n\nThese actions constitute a deceptive and unfair practice in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) prohibiting UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ), and violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 ) for failure to acknowledge and process a valid hardship application. \n\nMy documented payments, receipts, and timeline show the loan was never truly delinquentfurther proving that XXXX denied me any meaningful relief whatsoever while manipulating the loan status to justify wrongful collection, loan inflation and repossession of the vehicle. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX STATEMENT TO THE CFPB REGARDING APPLIED PRORATED GAP INSURANCE REFUND ( missing ) In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to the CFPB, they falsely claimed that a prorated Guaranteed Asset Protection ( GAP ) insurance refund was properly credited back to the loan account. However, after review of their new modified billing history they submitted to the CFPBshows no such credit applied at any point. This omission contradicts their written representation and deprives me of funds I am rightfully owed. \n\nThe failure to issue or apply the GAP refund constitutes a deceptive act in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ), the Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) due to the misrepresentation of account balances. Under Washington State law, this also violates the Consumer Protection Act ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  by engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce. \n\nThe GAP refund is a contractual right triggered by loan termination or vehicle loss, and its absence from both the loan payoff calculation and billing records indicates intentional concealment to inflate the remaining balance owed.\n\nRe-emphasizing that all of this deception combined verifies the fact that the account can not be merely just corrected but rather it needs to be fully deleted off of all my Consumer Credit files. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 'S STATEMENT WITH DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO THE CFPB REGARDING WRONGFULLY CHARGED CPI ( Illegal use of expired insurance ) In XX/XX/XXXX, as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) was preparing to wrongfully repossess the vehicle, they improperly added a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) charge to intentionally inflate the loan. I never received notice until I was finally provided with all the documentation that I had been continuously denied until provoked by my CFPB complaint. They cite a long-expired XXXX XXXX policy they provided to the CFPB as evidence as justification to apply this unnecessary charge to the loan in XXXX. I maintained valid auto insurance coverage throughout the entire loan with XXXX listed as the lien holder, and no lawful basis existed for this retroactive charge. The XXXX assessment was used to artificially inflate the balance of the loan further and falsely justify default status. \n\nThis action constitutes an unfair, deceptive, and abusive act or practice ( UDAAP ) in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ), as well as a violation of the Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq. ) for misrepresenting the loan balance and terms. Under Washington State law, it further violates the Consumer Protection Act ( XXXX XXXX ) for deceptive conduct and improper debt servicing. \n\n-The use of XXXX expired documentation to justify inflated charges in 2023without notice or valid legal basisis clear evidence of bad faith and predatory servicing behavior. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 'S STATEMENT AND DOCUMENT TO THE CFPB REGARDING INTENT TO SELL LETTER AFTER REPOSSESSION PRIVATE SALE VS. DAA PUBLIC AUCTION AND SURPLUS APPLIED WITH FALSE SALE REPRESENTATION, UNDISCLOSED AFFILIATE TRANSACTION, AND UNLAWFUL NOTICE PLUS LACK THEREOF VIOLATIONS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) falsely represented in its XX/XX/XXXX response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the repossessed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was sold at a public auction for {$3500.00} applying surplus of {$2000.00} in accordance with applicable laws. This claim is demonstrably false based on the official title history, vehicle resale records and vehicle history reports. \n\nRecords Indicate Direct Title Transfer to CarStars For Resale No Auction Appears to Have Occurred The vehicle history report clearly shows only one title transfer after repossession : directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a dealership located in Washington State. There is no record of the vehicle being processed through XXXX XXXX public auction, and no intermediary auction buyer appears on any record or title. This directly contradicts XXXX claim that an auction sale occurred. \n\nAdditionally, CarStars is a known affiliate of XXXX, publicly listed as a partner dealership in the PenFed Car Buying Service Experience, enabling them to buy and sell vehicles through PenFeds retail programs. This affiliation raises serious concerns about conflict of interest, commercial reasonableness, and truthful disclosure of proceeds under the Uniform Commercial Code and state law. \n\nConcealment of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX listed the vehicle for {$10000.00}, and based on average dealer markup rates ( 10 % 35 % ), XXXX likely received between {$8000.00} and {$9900.00} for the resale. However, only {$2000.00} was credited to the loan balance ; {$6000.00} {$7900.00} in vehicle proceeds are unaccounted for, in direct violation of : XXXX XXXX ( Application of Proceeds ) RCW XXXX ( Required Explanation of Deficiency ) Truth in Lending Act ( TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1638 ) UDAAP provisions under Dodd-Frank ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) The failure to provide a complete post-sale explanation showing gross sale price, expenses, and net credit to the account constitutes both unfair and deceptive conduct and a material omission of fact ; as the PAR partners and asset recovery sales recap statement is more than likely misleading and equally recognized as non-compliant. \n\nInvalid and Misleading Notice of Intent to Sell The Notice of Intent to Sell Property XXXX  claims to have issued on XX/XX/XXXX was both procedurally and substantively defective : It failed to disclose the true method of intended sale ( auction vs. private sale ) as it was seemingly already set to go to auction according to XXXX 's submitted document, yet states private sale. \n\nIt did not identify the location, date, or time which must be listed on the NOI to be legally compliant and if truly sold at auction denied consumer the opportunity to bid in direct violation of law It misstated the timeline, did not explain the borrower 's right to redeem or reinstate, and omitted required disclosures under XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \n\nThis renders the notice legally invalid and the repossession and sale unlawful. \n\n- Additionally, XXXX claims they sold the vehicle in a commercially reasonable legal manner based on the vehicle 's condition yet all documents I am providing ; even their own they submitted clearly prove otherwise. The vehicle had been thoroughly maintained with recent maintenance, new brakes and a thorough complete inspection, XXXX records, inspection report, vehicle history report and XXXX selling the vehicle at XXXX XXXX XXXX value of {$10000.00} after repossession support this. \n\nThe resale of the repossessed vehicle was conducted in a commercially unreasonable manner, violating UCC 9-610 and Washington 's XXXX XXXX. The vehicle was sold significantly below fair market value, with no transparency, raising concerns of bad faith and unfair surplus distribution. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 'S STATEMENT TO THE CFPB REGARDING DENYING MY REQUESTS FOR ALL LOAN INFORMATION AND DEBT RESOLUTION ( deceptive statements ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX falsely claimed in their XX/XX/XXXX CFPB response that I had not requested any loan documents prior to XX/XX/XXXX. This is undeniably false as I have provided emails proving otherwise. I made multiple detailed requests for my full account history, fee breakdowns, repossession records, GAP documentation, and 'bump payment ' terms as early as XX/XX/XXXX and was continuously denied. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX XXXX XXXX recovery specialist I have included as evidence, clearly acknowledges my request for a settlement offer, and confirms that it was refused, not merely ignored. Thats direct evidence that XXXX 's statement to the CFPB is false and deceptive. \n\nXXXX falsely claimed in its XX/XX/XXXX response to the CFPB that I was given the opportunity to make payment arrangements or resolve the alleged balance. This is directly contradicted by documented evidence that I have provided. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Recovery Specialist at XXXX, responded to my inquiry and explicitly acknowledged my request regarding a settlement offer. His written response stated that the account had been assigned to a third-party collection agency as XXXX XXXX and that I would need to speak with them instead. In other words, XXXX rejected my settlement offer outright and denied me the ability to resolve the matter directly with them. \n\nThen, on XX/XX/XXXX, I followed up with another email to XXXX XXXX XXXX  recovery specialist, urgently reiterating my denial of my request for full documentation of the loan, including : My payment history ; GAP and insurance records ; The sale amount of the repossessed vehicle ; A full loan ledger with all fees and balances. \n\n\nI also restated my concern that without this information, I was being blocked from resolving the issue, and explicitly raised potential legal violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). In response, XXXX XXXX XXXX recovery specialist again refused to provide the requested documents, stating I would have to go through XXXX XXXX a third-party debt collector. \n\nXXXX effectively shut me out of the resolution process while continuing to report negative tradelines on my credit report. \n\nDespite my written attempt to settle the debt and resolve the matter in good faith, XXXX  : Refused to accept payment or negotiate a resolution ; Denied me access to my account records and legal disclosures ; Misrepresented this entire sequence of events in their CFPB response, stating that I never made any such requests prior to XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n\nThese actions are not only deceptive, but also constitute : A violation of the FCRA for inaccurate reporting and failure to provide supporting documentation ; A violation of the XXXX under XXXX standards for obstructive and unfair practices ; A violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) by misleading a consumer and interfering with the ability to resolve a debt ; A violation of Washington State consumer protection laws, including XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, by refusing to negotiate and denying access to essential loan information. \n\n\nI respectfully request that the CFPB include this critical evidence of XXXX false statement, refusal to negotiate, and intentional obstruction of payment resolution in the reinvestigation of this case. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 'S STATEMENT TO THE CFPB REGARDING TRANSFER OF DEBT TO XXXX XXXX ( Statement Regarding False Representation of Debt Ownership and Deceptive Blocking of Resolution ) In XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response to the CFPB, they falsely stated that the account was assigned to a collection agency ( XXXX XXXX ) in XX/XX/XXXX and implied they were no longer responsible for account resolution. This is factually and provably false. \n\nI am submitting direct written proof that contradicts this claim. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  Recovery Specialist XXXX XXXX emailed me stating : XXXX The account was recalled back from XXXX XXXX and is now solely in house within XXXX. \n\nThis email confirms that XXXX had full control over the account at the time they denied my settlement offer and refused to provide documentation. Their claim to the CFPB that I needed to resolve the matter through XXXX XXXX was knowingly false and appears to have been made to evade responsibility, delay resolution, and continue furnishing derogatory credit data while obstructing my ability to dispute or pay the debt. \n\nThis conduct violates multiple federal and state consumer protection laws, including : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 of the FCRA, which prohibits furnishing inaccurate information to credit bureaus ; 15 U.S.C. 1692e of the FDCPA, which bars false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with debt collection ; 12 U.S.C. 5531 of the CFPA, under which this conduct qualifies as a deceptive and abusive act or practice ( UDAAP ) ; And likely RCW XXXX of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce. \n\n\nBy falsely shifting responsibility to a third-party collector that no longer had control of the account, XXXX intentionally blocked my legal right to dispute, resolve, or verify the debtand then misled a federal agency about it. \n\nI respectfully ask that the CFPB review this email and hold XXXX accountable for knowingly providing false and deceptive information in response to a federal investigation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AND FCRA VIOLATIONS XXXX  has continued to report this loan as charged-off with a large deficiency balance to national credit bureaus, including Equifax and XXXX. Because the reported balance does not reflect the full resale value of the vehicle, nor any GAP or CPI refunds that XXXX  falsely claimed were issued, the credit reporting is inaccurate and incomplete, in violation of : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) Duty to investigate and correct disputed information Duty to furnish complete and accurate information Summary of Federal and State Law Violations Committed by XXXX  : XXXX XXXX Failure to conduct sale in a commercially reasonable manner XXXX XXXX & XXXX Deficient and misleading Notice of Sale XXXX XXXX Failure to apply full proceeds from resale RCW XXXX Failure to provide required deficiency explanation TILA ( 15 U.S.C. 1638 ) Misrepresentation of post-default finance terms UDAAP ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) Unfair and deceptive conduct in debt collection and resale FCRA ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) Inaccurate tradeline reporting, failure to correct disputed data Requested Relief and Enforcement Recap I respectfully request the following remedies : XXXX. Full deletion of the tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies. \n\n\nXXXX. Reimbursement or cancellation of any alleged deficiency balance, including misapplied fees. \n\n\n3. Regulatory enforcement for the numerous violations outlined above. \n\n\nXXXX. Formal investigation into XXXX repossession and resale practices, including its relationship with affiliated dealerships and their failure to follow state and federal law. \n\nXXXX. Resolution of my claims with a final and possible monetary compensation for me","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-18T07:03:26.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"985XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14733269","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-18T07:02:57.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["and <em>denying</em> access to essential <em>loan</em> <em>information</em>."],"product":["Credit reporting or <em>other</em> personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect <em>information</em> on your report"],"sub_issue":["Account <em>information</em> incorrect"]},"sort":[13.6968155,"14733269"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11739617","_score":13.08606,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint due to Comenity Banks repeated and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Despite my formal dispute sent on XX/XX/year>, the bank has failed to correct inaccuracies or ensure proper reporting of my account across the credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ). This inaction constitutes not only negligence but willful non-compliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n.\n\nKey Issues Identified : - Failure to Ensure Maximum Possible Accuracy ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Inconsistent and inaccurate reporting was found in all three credit reports, including unclear or conflicting information about payment history and account status. \n- Failure to Correct Inaccuracies ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ) : Comenity Bank failed to investigate or correct errors after receiving a formal dispute, despite being obligated to do so by law.\n\n- Failure to Delete Inaccurate Information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) ) : Information that is unverifiable or incorrect has not been removed from the credit reports, contrary to statutory requirements.\n\n- Improper Handling of Charge-Offs ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : Despite selling the account, Comenity Bank continued reporting it as a \" charge-off, '' misleadingly implying an unresolved financial obligation.\n\n- Willful Non-Compliance ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) : The banks ongoing failure to address clear violations despite multiple notices demonstrates willful disregard for its obligations under the FCRA. \n\nSupporting Evidence : - Experian Report : Shows conflicting information regarding the charge-off status and payment history. \n- XXXX Report : Lists a balance of {$270.00} as \" charge-off '' over an extended period, even after the account was transferred. \n- XXXX Report : Reflects the account as \" charge-off '' with no clear resolution, despite being sold to another lender. \n\nThe inaccurate and willfully misleading reporting by Comenity Bank has caused significant harm to me in the following ways : - Damage to Creditworthiness : The erroneous and inconsistent information across all three credit bureaus has lowered my credit score, reducing my ability to qualify for loans, credit cards, or favorable financial products. This has negatively impacted my financial standing and opportunities. \n\n- Financial Stress : I have incurred unnecessary stress and frustration due to XXXX Banks failure to address these inaccuracies despite repeated disputes. Their actions have caused me to spend time and resources addressing this issue, including correspondence, document preparation, and consultations. \n\n- Emotional Distress : The prolonged impact of having a poor credit profile has caused significant XXXX XXXX XXXX, and a sense of powerlessness, knowing that my attempts to resolve these issues have been disregarded. \n\n- Denial of Credit Opportunities : I have been denied access to essential financial services due to the inaccuracies in my credit reports, which portray me as a high-risk borrower unfairly. These denials have disrupted my financial planning and life goals. \nReputational Harm : The inaccuracies in my credit reports suggest a history of financial irresponsibility, harming my reputation with lenders and other financial institutions.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-23T21:20:49.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11739617","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-23T20:25:35.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["- Failure to Delete Inaccurate <em>Information</em> ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 5 ) ) : <em>Information</em> that is unverifiable or incorrect has not been removed from the credit reports, contrary to statutory requirements.\n\n- <em>Improper</em> Handling of Charge-Offs ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ) : Despite selling the account, Comenity Bank continued reporting it as a \" charge-off, '' <em>misleadingly</em> implying an unresolved financial obligation."],"product":["Credit reporting or <em>other</em> personal consumer reports"]},"sort":[13.08606,"11739617"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3720266","_score":12.880765,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, DIFS, XXXX, Federal Reserve Please find my complaint against PennyMac Home Loan, LLC, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX who operate a massive fraud with XXXX XXXX 's securities backed by thin-air borrowers ' data masqueraded as \" backed by loans '' - which are currently SOLD to Federal Reserve by XXXX XXXX en mass, without any Notices to homeowners. \n\nSince XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  Federal Reserve purchased at least {$700.00} Billion Mortgage Backed Bonds from XXXX, including XXXX XXXX. But loans or Trusts where these loans are held as securities were never mentioned in this PURCHASE. Moreover, no Servicer or Trustee was mentioned as a part of this sale According to a XXXX  tale, XXXX are backed by mortgages ( aka debt ) which are pooled into mysterious Trusts who issue certificates which are sold to Investors and guaranteed by XXXX  ( who are now acting as \" Owners/Investors '' who SELL their XXXX bonds to Federal Reserve. \n\nIn other words, XXXX purchased a loan which was pooled into XXXX XXXX 's Trust, became a creditor an Investor in this LOAN, guarantee timely payments to investors ; and now sold their parts of the loans to Federal Reserve who became the new owner of the debt backed by XXXX  ; and therefore a new Creditor. All without any notices to the homeowners. \n\nBut first thing first - who sold these XXXX  to XXXX? Was it a Trust which XXXX XXXX guarantees? So, they are guarantors/investors in their XXXX  bonds? \n\nWhen the next question is - who were the OWNERS of the debt who issued and sold XXXX XXXX certificates backed by mortgages? \n\nWhat will happen to the loans in XXXX XXXX Trusts if XXXX  SOLD their XXXX bonds purportedly backed by loans, to Federal Reserve, meaning a change of ownership of the debt? \n\nDoes it mean that when XXXX  sold their XXXX  to Federal reserve, these loans must be removed from XXXX Trust and assigned to Federal Reserve as a new Creditor? By whom? XXXX? Trustee XXXX? Servicers? or owners of the Trust - who are always remain undisclosed? Someone must be a beneficiary who settled this Trust to be able to issue XXXX  backed by loans pooled into these Trust and sell them to XXXX XXXX. \n\nShouldn't TRUSTS, who suppose to be an owner acting on behalf of investors, be involved in these sales of XXXX  to Federal Reserve? And remove them from their assets and accounting books as paid in full since they are SOLD? Why borrowers are not informed? \n\nWhy \" creditor/investor/owner/issuer \" PennyMacLoan Servicing LLC who purportedly \" purchased '' my LOAN from someone whom PennyMac is unable to identify, was not mentioned in transaction with Federal Reserve ? If PennyMac is the OWNER of my debt who collects from me payments to be distributed to Investors ( here : PennyMac ) who purchased certificates backed by my loan pooled in some XXXX XXXX Trust, they must be a part of the deal with Federal Reserve, who is now a Buyer of XXXX XXXX XXXX bonds. \n\nShouldn't Trustees ( here XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) be involved in this sale since they are purportedly responsible for the collateral of the XXXX? \n\nBut Trusts or Trustees are not even mentioned in this sale, as well as XXXX who can not even tell who sold them my loan. \n\nSo, if XXXX are no longer \" investors '' or \" owners '' of the debt - means they have no interest in loans - when who is? Is an investor/owner now Federal Reserve? But homeowners, including myself, never received any notices about change of OWNERSHIP of the debt. \n\nPennyMac continues to pretend that they are \" servicing '' some undisclosed \" Trust '' on behalf of investors - ( here : PennyMac, as they claimed ), while all evidence - including recent case filed by XXXX XXXX who claims to be a Servicer for XXXX XXXX  of all loans, and who operates ALL financial activities such as collection of my payments ( not PennyMac ) ; manipulations with escrow accounts ( not PennyMac ) ; sending Default Notices ( not PennyMac ) ; approving forbearances ( not PennyMac ), ect. \n\nAll that PennyMac has is an access to XXXX XXXX system where they can print some accounting entries done by XXXX XXXX and defraud homeowners about \" ownership '' of the debt - which PennyMac never had. \n\nPennyMac never mentioned to me that the recipient of my payments ( presumably a Trustee for the Trust ) is no longer receive money to distribute it to XXXX  Investors because the Investor now if Federal Reserve whom XXXX XXXX SOLD their interest in my loan. So, whom PennyMac is now \" servicing? '' Summary of Facts. On XX/XX/XXXX I approached a mortgage company, XXXX Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX who pretended to be a Lender who sell mortgage loans. In fact, XXXX was not a XXXX, and not even originator of my loan. XXXX merely collected my information to pass it to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Wholesale branch in XXXX XXXX XXXX, where XXXX originated this transaction. It is evident from my Application which both XXXX and XXXX signed on someone ' server located in XXXX XXXX. In other words, XXXX started to mislead and defraud me from day XXXX about their role as a \" Lender '' whom I will owe a substantial amount of money for 30 years period, as well as about the real nature of my transaction - a payment to participation in a securitization scheme where I will be an Original Issuer of a Promissory Note used by Stock as a base of their Ponzi Scheme. Thus, my contract with XXXX was originally void since XXXX was not a real party. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX XXXX sent me a Commitment Letter which stated that I will buy XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, 30 years fixed. I did not know that XXXX XXXX former XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX operated by XXXX XXXX XXXX is another intermediary for a Stockbroker ( here XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX BOA ) who passed funds from XXXX 's pool ( aka table funding, illegal in California ) to me via sham conduits XXXX and XXXX, as a one-time payment for my financial services such as being an issuer of Promissory Note and a Mortgage which will initiate a securitization scheme with XXXX times more profits to Stockbrokers ; and for assuming all risks and hardship to be a main part of in Big Banks ' scam with data-backed securities which is specifically designed to push borrowers in foreclosures as soon as possible to launder fatally defective Titles though the Court. Thus, while I intended to get a loan, I was lured into a totally different, highly illegal dangerous transaction - {$12.00} Quadrillion Ponzi scheme operated by XXXX Banks. Thus, my contract with XXXX for not for a loan, but for t financial serves from me as an XXXX of XXXX Note and Mortgage. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX XXXX gave me forged RESPA disclosure where XXXX removed XXXX XXXX when I signed it and never mentioned any other parties such as XXXX Knight, XXXX, Bank XXXX XXXX, XXXX, First XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. except XXXX as a Lender ; and XXXX XXXX as a XXXX insurance issuers. Both were fake parties. The \" Lender '' was a pool of money collected by XXXX XXXX  from investors known as table funding ; and the Title Insurance Issuer was XXXX  - who never appeared in any documents in my closing. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, my closing day, XXXX, who still acted as a XXXX, committed XXXX fraudulent transfers without disclosures to me. First, XXXX transferred by loan to XXXX as a XXXX. XXXX has no rights to accept any loans in XXXX  since this private off-shore operated company has no business registration in the State of XXXX. XXXX  can not be a Mortgagee for XXXX XXXX loans since XXXX  only serves its members and XXXX XXXX never was XXXX  member, thus have no Agency relationship. XXXX  never acknowledged its status as a Mortgage are required by XXXX. According to the laws of XXXX, mortgage is a contract and must be signed by ALL parties of interest. XXXX  never signed my contract with fake \" XXXX '' XXXX, never confirmed its status as a XXXX, and never obtained my consent to have XXXX  as a XXXX. \n\nAnother fraudulent transfer was an XXXX  to my Note which stated that XXXX transferred its \" interest '' to XXXX XXXX Loans, XXXX by Collateral Shipper XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, or at the closing or soon thereafter. Bear to repeat, XXXX never signed any mortgage with me ; never disclosed its presence as a Lender as required by RESPA ; and not even confirmed this transfer on XX/XX/XXXX. According to XXXX, they obtained \" Servicing '' rights from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, and it was their first involvement in my loan. \n\nXXXX also did not signed my Mortgage as a party of the contract. It merely mentioned that XXXX is a \" XXXX '' while they were not. So, the only party who appeared at the Closing and signed this contract was me. \n\nMy loan was purportedly \" pooled with XXXX XXXX XXXX '' which holds it now as a securitiy for the benefit of investors ( here, for PennyMac ). \n\nTrusts do not appear by itself and must be established by someone who have rights to pool any loans into it as a collateral. XXXX simply had no time to create any Trusts since they immediately passed its interest to XXXX and XXXX at the same time, which was not only a fraudulent transfer, but it was not even confirmed by any of recipients of interest of my debt. XXXX had no rights to be a XXXX, XXXX repeatedly deny its involvement until XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nHere is no evidence if anyone created any Trust who can appoint XXXX as a Servicer who passed \" servicing rights '' to XXXX who passed Servicing Rights to PennyMac. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX PennyMac appeared in my loan and started to lie relentlessly that they \" purchased '' my loan from someone whom PennyMac can not identify ; and now PennyMac is \" owner/investror/purchaser/creditor/issuer '' of XXXX XXXX XXXX and a Servicer who collects my payments for the benefit of investors ( here PennyMac ) which are distributed to PennyMac by Trustee Bank XXXX New York XXXX who was appointed by someone who should establish the Trust. \n\nAll PennyMac lies were rebutted by XXXX XXXX who has no idea who issued their Bonds - and said it was done by XXXX ; who does not know who sold my performing loan to PennyMac while PennyMac insisted that XXXX XXXX does not sell performing loans. \n\nBut more importantly, PennyMac 's lies were confronted by By XXXX XXXX who sue PennyMac for stealing borrowers data from their secretive system where XXXX was merely given a password for a limited access. XXXX is a sham conduit designed to advance the false illusion that they represent creditors. If you look at their financial statements you can easily see how the XXXX XXXX banks basically keep them afloat just to preserve the illusion of a corporate veil.It is very clearly stated in XXXX 's XXXX. \n\nBased on all evidence, including XXXX XXXX 's sale of XXXX bonds ( which are purportedly \" owned '' by Investor PennyMac ) to Federal Reserve without any participation of Trusts, Trustees or even \" owners/Investors '' PennyMac it is evident that XXXX making False Claims as Servicers : XXXX XXXX, the king of fabricated documents is behind XXXX XXXX of all servicing records. \nXXXX and XXXX XXXX both are renamed XXXX XXXX XXXX claiming to be servicers are not servicers although they perform some servicing functions as clients of XXXX XXXX. \nNew Servicers simply log on to the XXXX XXXX system to create an impression of \" sales '' of the debt - which never happened since loans never moved from XXXX XXXX database. \n\nIn the case filed in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX not only admits the truth of the matter asserted but affirmatively alleges it in a lawsuit against PennyMac. \n\nXXXX XXXX is never mentioned in any mortgages although they facilitate basically the entire process acting on behalf of \" Lenders '' ; never named in any lawsuit as a servicer. It does not show up in court as the source of servicing records. It does not send any robowitness to court to say that he/she is familiar with the books and records of this company. And yet, here is XXXX XXXX, formerly XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX infamy ( XXXX XXXX, President went to jail ) who helped Big Banks to steal millions of homes as their tax-free revenue. \n\nIn a lawsuit XXXX XXXX asserts that PennyMac infringed upon its proprietary system that supplies the servicing records for XXXX XXXX of all servicing performed in the U.S., and that means that in XXXX XXXX of all foreclosures, the companies that were proffered as servicers were not the servicers or at least did not perform all servicing functions especially, as you read the complaint, as to payment histories and relevant documents for foreclosure. \n\nAccording to XXXX XXXX, Pursuant to that certain Master Agreement entered into as of XX/XX/XXXX, together with any addenda thereto ( the Master Agreement ), XXXX became a registered user of the XXXX  System and was granted a limited right to access and use the XXXX  XXXX. LIMITED RIGHTS to use XXXX XXXX system. Not \" ownership '' of any loans. \n\nIn disregard of contractual restrictions and the trust that had been placed in PennyMac, PennyMac instituted a secret project to create a copy of the XXXX XXXX for its own benefit in lieu of the XXXX XXXX. In furtherance of this scheme, it not only used the information shared with it in confidence by XXXX XXXX, it also improperly shared access credentials with individuals who were not authorized to use the XXXX XXXX under the terms of the Master Agreement. In other words, PennyMac STOLE information about my loan from XXXX XXXX, who collects my payments for stockbrokers, manipulates Escrow Accounts to create bogus \" deficiencies '' ; sends Default Notices ; forge documents to facilitate foreclosures, ect.. PennyMac is one of many mortgage servicers to which XXXX XXXX has granted a limited right to access and use the XXXX XXXX, in exchange for and subject to the payment of contractual fees. \n\nXXXX XXXX ( who was one of real parties in my transactions ) is the only company that was ever caught red handed with fabricating, falsifying, recording, forging, robosigning false transaction documents. They changed their name but not their business model. Their business model is being the central repository of all the data that is created, stored, and manipulated with respect to XXXX XXXX of all alleged loans. \n\nThat makes PennyMacv and other loan servicers liars. XXXX XXXX owns, operates, maintains all servers with an iron hand as directed by the investment banks who like XXXX XXXX want to be out of sight and therefore out of mind of any borrower, court or Regulators. \n\nThe fact is that the two parties who are not mentioned the investment bank who started and controls the securitization scheme and XXXX XXXX who is the central repository for all data to make sure that there is no public competition for claiming the same loan, are the only ones that actually out as real parties unknown by homeowners like myself. \n\nSo then we come to the fact that claims of servicing by PennyMac are completely false.According to the XXXX, PennyMac is acting under XXXX XXXX. PennyMac XXXX get to make certain entries which in turn are tested by XXXX XXXX and PennyMac may get to print out copies of reports that are produced by certain algorithms at XXXX XXXX but PennyMac has no role in creation or maintenance of business records on XXXX XXXX, who in turn does not do anything for trusts because it has no contracts with trusts. it has contracts with investment banks. \n\nNow PennyMac 's lies are rebutted by XXXX XXXX ' sales of \" mortgage backed '' bonds to Federal Reserve - without involvement of ANY Trusts who suppose to \" own '' loans which are pooled to be collateral for XXXX sold to Investors ( as claimed by XXXX ). Here is no Trustee who suppose to hold these loans. No Servicers who purportedly \" service '' any XXXX XXXX Trusts. No \" investor '' XXXX. \n\nOnly Federal Reserve who spent about {$700.00} billion on XXXX 's XXXX bonds - while secretly pumps billions to Big Banks since XX/XX/XXXX as new bailouts backed by XXXX taxpayers like myself. \n\nI respectfully demand PennyMac to ( 1 ) identify the Seller of my loan to PennyMac ; ( 2 ) provide me a proof of value paid by PennyMac for my loan, as required by XXXX ) ; ( 3 ) provide me a copy of written consent from MERS to be a Mortgagee for my loan ; ( 4 ) provide me a copy of MERS valid registration to conduct business in Michigan ; ( 5 ) provide me the name of the Trust which holds my loan as Securitiy ; ( 6 ) provide explanations why XXXX XXXX sold PennyMac my PERFORMING loan - or it was sold as a defaulted loan? provide me disclosures regarding the current sale of XXXX XXXX ' bonds to Federal Reserve and proof who is the lawful owner of my debt ( if it was a debt ) if XXXX XXXX SOLD their XXXX  to Federal Reserve, without Notices to me. Disclose how much securities were sold using my data as a collateral, pay me XXXX XXXX of all trades under XXXX XXXX ; fine XXXX executives, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, PennyMac, XXXX XXXX, XXXX  and other parties XXXX damages for contract fraud and treble damages for racket. Declare my \" mortgage '' as a \" payment for participation in securitization scheme '' ; return all money collected as today ; remove this \" mortgage '' as a fraudulent lien from my Title.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-06-28T12:14:12.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3720266","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","date_received":"2020-06-28T10:04:26.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In <em>other</em> words, PennyMac STOLE <em>information</em> about my <em>loan</em> from XXXX XXXX, who collects my payments for stockbrokers, manipulates Escrow Accounts to create bogus \" deficiencies '' ; sends Default Notices ; forge documents to facilitate foreclosures, ect.. PennyMac is one of many mortgage <em>servicers</em> to which XXXX XXXX has granted a limited right to access and use the XXXX XXXX, in exchange for and subject to the payment of contractual fees."],"company":["PENNYMAC <em>LOAN</em> <em>SERVICES</em>, LLC."]},"sort":[12.880765,"3720266"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13696276","_score":12.599497,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Against Central Research , Inc. ( Federal Student Loan Servicing ) Complainant : XXXX XXXX ( Federal Student Loan Borrower ) Company : Central Research , Inc. ( CRI ) Student Loan Servicer Issue : Improper reporting of 90-day late payments without required mailed notices Summary of the Issue I am filing a formal complaint against Central Research , Inc. ( CRI ) for reporting four of my federal student loan accounts as 90 days late to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX without providing the legally required written delinquency notices via mail. In early XXXX CRI furnished negative information ( 90-day delinquencies ) on my student loans to the credit bureaus, yet I never received any mailed notice warning me of these delinquencies or the impending negative credit reporting. This lack of notice denied me the opportunity to address the issue before severe damage was done to my credit. \n\n\n\nThese unwarranted derogatory marks have severely harmed my credit score and financial standing, especially since I was never properly informed or given a chance to avoid them. CRIs actions appear to violate multiple federal consumer protection laws and U.S. Department of Education regulations, as detailed below. \n\n\n\nFailure to Provide Required Mailed Notices No Mailed Delinquency Warnings : I did not receive any letters or physical mail from CRI informing me that my loans were delinquent or at risk of being reported late. My current mailing address ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, TX ) is on file with CRI, yet no delinquency notices were sent to that address before CRI reported the 90-day late payments. The first indication I had of any problem was discovering the late marks on my credit reports.\n\nMonthly Billing Statements Are Not Delinquency Notices : CRI also asserts that it mailed my monthly billing statements during this period. Even if those statements were sent, a routine billing statement does not satisfy the federal requirements for specific delinquency notices. Billing statements are generic and do not contain the mandatory warnings or content that a delinquency notice must include under the law. Moreover, I did not receive any billing statements by mail either ; if they were sent, they did not reach me. CRI provided no proof of mailing or delivery for any billing statements or notices.\n\nNo Proof of Delivery or Diligence : CRI has no evidence that it sent any physical delinquency notice to me at all. They did not use certified mail, tracking, or any form of delivery confirmation to ensure I received the notice. In their response, CRI failed to provide a copy of any mailed notice or a postal receipt. This suggests that CRI did not exercise due diligence in notifying me of the delinquency. Given the known importance of these notices, failing to send them properly or at all is a serious oversight and a violation of federal requirements.\n\nViolations of Federal Law and Regulations CRIs failure to provide written notices before damaging my credit is not only unfair it is illegal. The following laws and regulations were likely violated : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s2 ( a ) ( 7 ) : This provision requires that any furnisher of credit information who reports negative information about a consumer to a credit bureau must send the consumer a written notice about the negative report either before or within 30 days of furnishing it. CRI furnished negative information ( 90-day late payments ) but never provided me any written notice within the required timeframe. By failing to notify me in writing of the negative credit reporting, CRI violated the FCRAs notice requirement.\n\nDepartment of Education Regulations 34 C.F.R. 682.411 : As a federal student loan servicer under the FFEL program, CRI must follow the Department of Educations due diligence regulations. 34 C.F.R. 682.411 mandates that servicers send multiple written delinquency notices to a borrower at specific intervals as the loan becomes delinquent. By roughly the 90th day of delinquency, the servicer should have sent at least four separate collection letters urging the borrower to cure the delinquency, and at least two of those letters must warn that failure to pay will lead to credit bureau reporting of a default. In my case, XXXX failed to mail any of the required delinquency letters to my current address. They reported my loans as 90-days late without ever sending the series of notices required by 682.411. This lack of mailed notices is a clear breach of the federal due diligence standards for student loan servicing.\n\nHigher Education Act 20 U.S.C. 1083 ( e ) : Federal law requires student loan lenders/servicers to provide borrowers with important disclosures in writing during repayment. This includes informing borrowers of their repayment obligations and options in writing, especially when loans are transferred to a new servicer and \nwhen a borrower becomes delinquent. CRI appears to have taken over servicing of my loans ( or at least was servicing them during the relevant time ) yet never provided a written notice of my repayment schedule or options after the transfer, as required by 20 U.S.C. 1083 ( e ). Furthermore, when I became 60 days delinquent, CRI should have sent a written notice detailing how to avoid default ( including the default date and minimum payment to prevent default ). CRI sent no such notices. By failing to notify me in writing of my obligations after taking over my loans and by failing to send the 60-day delinquency notice, CRI violated the Higher Education Acts servicing requirements.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Act ( UDAAP ) 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) : It is unlawful for a financial services company to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. CRIs conduct here was unfair and deceptive. It was unfair for CRI to damage my credit by reporting late payments while withholding the very notices that would have enabled me to prevent that harm. It was deceptive ( and misleading ) for CRI to assert compliance by referencing an email and routine statements, while in reality it failed to provide the required clear, mailed warning of negative reporting. By violating the above federal laws and failing to meet basic notice standards, CRI has also violated the Consumer Financial Protection Acts prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices.\n\nEach of these violations is serious on its own. Taken together, they paint a picture of systemic non-compliance by CRI with the rules meant to protect student borrowers. CRIs failure to follow federal notice requirements not only broke the law but also directly resulted in significant harm to me ( severe credit report damage without notice ).\n\nBecause of CRIs actions, my student loan trade lines now show 90 days late in my credit reports. These are major derogatory marks that have drastically lowered my credit score. I have been financially responsible and would have addressed any missed payments immediately had I known about them. Instead, due to CRIs lack of communication, I was blindsided by these negative reports. This has affected my ability to obtain credit on fair terms and could impact other areas of my financial life ( such as insurance or employment background checks ) due to the damaged credit. It is fundamentally unfair that my credit was harmed in this way when I was never given the legally required warnings. \n\n\n\nMoreover, the loans in question are federal student loans, which come with numerous options ( forbearance, deferment, income-driven plans ) to help avoid delinquency. Had CRI contacted me properly, I could have pursued one of those options. CRIs failure to communicate effectively meant I lost the chance to take action, which is precisely the outcome the federal notice requirements are designed to prevent.\n\nRequested Resolution To resolve this complaint, I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) ensure the following actions are taken : Removal of Negative Credit Marks : Immediately remove all 90-day late payment notations that CRI furnished XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding my student loans. These late marks should be deleted in their entirety from each credit bureaus files. This correction is warranted because the negative reporting was done in violation of federal law ( no prior notice to me ).\n\nPreservation of Account History : In removing the late marks, do not close or delete the underlying loan accounts. The accounts should remain open/active ( or in whatever status they were prior to the\ndelinquency reporting ) and retain their full positive payment history and original opening date. I am only disputing the negative late payment entries, not the existence of the loans themselves. The loans should continue to report as open and in good standing, as they were before this incident, to avoid any further credit score impact from loss of account age/history.\n\nProof of Mailed Notice or Removal : If CRI believes it did send any required delinquency notices, it must provide proof. Such proof should be a copy of the actual mailed notice and evidence of mailing with tracking or delivery confirmation to my address. If CRI can not produce concrete proof ( e.g., certified mail receipts, USPS tracking, or similar ) that it sent me the required written notices to my correct address, then CRI must remove the negative credit marks and cease any claim that I was properly notified. In short, without proof of compliance with the notice requirements, the 90-day late marks must be deleted due to CRIs noncompliance with federal law.\n\nAdditionally, I request that CRI review and improve its notification procedures so that no other borrowers face this problem. CRI should verify borrower contact information and use reliable mailing methods ( with delivery tracking ) for delinquency notices, to ensure compliance with the law and prevent unfair credit reporting.\n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I am providing documentation of CRIs response ( which admits to sending only an email and billing statements ) and any relevant account records. I urge the CFPB to take appropriate action to resolve my complaint and prevent such violations from recurring.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-24T06:28:47.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"79936","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13696276","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Central Research Inc","date_received":"2025-05-24T05:57:41.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB Complaint Against Central Research , Inc. ( Federal Student <em>Loan</em> <em>Servicing</em> ) Complainant : XXXX XXXX ( Federal Student <em>Loan</em> Borrower ) Company : Central Research , Inc. ( CRI ) Student <em>Loan</em> <em>Servicer</em> Issue : <em>Improper</em> reporting of 90-day late payments without required mailed notices Summary of the Issue I am filing a formal complaint against Central Research , Inc. ( CRI ) for reporting four of my federal student <em>loan</em> accounts as 90 days late to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX without providing the legally"],"product":["Credit reporting or <em>other</em> personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Incorrect <em>information</em> on your report"]},"sort":[12.599497,"13696276"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6476378","_score":12.3812895,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Attention, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, their employers, supervisors, managers, et al. not excluding their successors, predecessors, assigns, owners, partners or related or non-related whatever ( hereinafter respondents ), Please, affirm or deny the following in writing, point by point using facts of law and do deliver such to our ministry under penalty of perjury, within seventy-two ( 72 ) hours, or be held liable and in default that a JUDGEMENT be sought in a UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT before a jury of twelve for the respondents crimes against our sister, the XXXX XXXX  ( hereinafter victim ), in VIOLATION of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and in VIOLATION of the ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT of 1970 ( XXXX ). Should the respondents choose silence as a response, said silent response will be noted as an insufficient response, and an insufficient response will be recorded as a non-response pertaining to respondents conspiracy to commit organized crimes in VIOLATION of the laws of the UNITED STATES. \n\nI allege XXXX XXXX XXXX and/or SHELLPOINT by successor in ownership, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX singularly and/or collectively violated provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX5 U.S.C. 1640, 1666 and 1681, by wrongfully, improperly and illegally reporting negative information as to me to one or more Credit Reporting Agencies, resulting in my having negative information on my credit reports and the lowering of my XXXX XXXX XXXX ( FICO ) score. I hereby dispute any debt and demand YOU to change any and all negative information reported to Credit Reporting Agencies or YOU will be in violation of The Truth In Lending Act 15 U.S.C. 1601, Privacy Act Title 5 U.S.C. 552 ( b ) ( 4 ), and Title 12 U.S.C. 2605. \nI hereby question the authenticity of ALL dates and/or ALL signatures by ALL parties on ALL documents, including without limitations, notarized documents, contracts, deeds, titles, affidavits, and/or the like, including without limitations the dates and/or signatures by notary publics, officers, employees, and any and ALL parties attesting to any and ALL claims, facts, accounting, transfers, recordings, publications, and/or the like, etc. I disavow any and ALL implied and/or conferred and/or inferred understanding of legalese terms now and at the time of the signing of any and ALL of the documents pertaining to the purported Mortgage. \n\nWhereas in deviation from the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX wherein section XXXX it does clearly state, And be it further enacted, That it shall be unlawful for any officer acting under the provisions of this act to countersign or deliver to any association, or to any other company or person, any circulating notes contemplated by this act, except as herein before provided, and in accordance with the true intent and meaning of this act. And any officer who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding double the amount so countersigned and delivered, and imprisonment not less than one year and not exceeding fifteen years, at the discretion of the court in which he shall be tried. \n\nIn addition, whereas XXXX XXXX XXXX as TRUSTEES of the UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY acting as TRUSTEES of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did commit a crime through their UNLAWFUL CONVERSION of the victims signed mark into a financial instrument that will shortly be reported to the CRIMES INVESTIGATION DIVISION of the IRS, the ILLINOIS COMPTROLLER and the UNITED STATES COMPTROLLER of the CURRENCY, XXXX either, knew, should know or should have known that any CONVERSION by the XXXX XXXX XXXX concerning the PROMISSORY NOTE bearing the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX into a FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT through which XXXX XXXX XXXX did obtain PAYMENT of over {$80000.00} UNITED STATES TREASURY DOLLARS without negotiation with the victim would be unlawful, XXXX XXXX XXXX did perform an UNLAWFUL CONVERSION once the victims PROMISSORY NOTE was CONVERTED into a FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT without DISCLOSURE to or NEGOTIATION with the victim in VIOLATION of the heretofore mentioned ACT, whereas, in addition, XXXX XXXX XXXX did FURNISH a DECEPTIVE FORM in VIOLATION of said ACT with WILLFUL INTENT to mislead the victim concerning the true source of funding. \nWhereas XXXX XXXX XXXX, its successors, assigns or other can not prove anything to the contrary, XXXX XXXX XXXX did not loan the victim {$80000.00} as the RESPONDENTS bookkeeping would indicate, as the money secured by XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of the victim was not applied to the victims debt, as the UNITED STATES would intend but was claimed as an asset belonging to the RESPONDENT although the RESPONDENT had not right or entitlement to claim such thus making the RESPONDENT guilty of IDENTITY THEFT with INTENT to EMBEZZLE UNITED STATES SECURITIES. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX also had no RIGHT or ENTITLEMENT to OBTAIN FUNDS in the name of the VICTIM by VIOLATING said ACT in any capacity. In addition, nor had the RESPONDENT right or entitlement to enforce any FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, COMMERCIAL OBLIGATION or SALE resulting from the ILLEGALITY of the UNLAWFUL CONVERSION herein referenced nor did the RESPONDENT have right to TRANSFER anyright or ENTITLEMENT to MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SERVICES, or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( formerly known as ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who in turn had no entitlement right to receive or transfer said ILL-GOTTEN INSTRUMENT to neither XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX WHO IN TURN HAD NO RIGHT to TRANSFER any XXXX RIGHT, ENTITLEMENT or OFFICE to GREENTREE SERVICING XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX whom had not right or entitlement to receive or transfer said ILL-GOTTEN ASSIGNMENT to NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT who , in turn had not right to TRANSFER any INTEREST to the RESPONDENT, thus making all of the above participant accomplices to that crime initiated by the RESPONDENT UNTIL the victims property has been returned, as the RESPONDENT is liable for RESPONDENTS creation and enforcement of a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX through which the victim was FINANCIALLY HARMED and the XXXX kept from that lawful CREDIT GRANTED to the XXXX XXXX XXXX SOCIAL SECURITY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by the UNITED STATES TREASURY unbeknownst to the victim. \n\nPursuant to XXXX ILCS XXXX et seq respondents or any other responsible agent of RESPONDENT must produce or facilitate the viewing of an original contract signed in blue, wet ink by the legal representative of the complainant, a living flesh and blood agent of RESPONDENT and a non- interested third party as witness to said contract may exonerate respondents from the claims of identity theft and commercial fraud of which respondents on behalf of RESPONDENT are being accused. \nWhereas RESPONDENTS INDIVIDUALS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS and REPRESENTATIVES, are directed, controlled, financed, subsidized and/or compensated for aiding, abetting, counseling, commanding, representing, and procuring the gathering of information, soliciting, collecting, disbursing, dispensing contributions, loans, money, currency, or other things of value for, or in interest of INTERNATIONAL BANKS pursuant to TITLE XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE XXXX XXXX al, are in fact engaged in inter-agency, international stipulations, agreements and commerce with the respondent and/or the INTERNATIONAL BANK for RECONSTRUCTION and XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX many- faceted subsidiary, artificial beings, Further, due to the residency and collateral fact that the RESPONDENTS and RESPONDENTS FOREIGN PRINCIPALS, ORGANIZATIONS, ASSOCIATIONS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTATIVES, SERVANTS, or other INDIVIDUALS acting under their DIRECTION and CONTROL, are incapable of maintaining the integrity of the, Lawful, Constitutional Monetary System of the de XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX United States of America, and XXXX not XXXX in Law or by birthright, i.e. Posterity, and have contributed to cause the victim grievous harm, damage and injury under pretense and colors, and are in breach of numerous legal duties imposed upon our Public Offices, making the RESPONDENT, by XXXX barred, estopped and precluded under the \" XXXX Hands doctrine, '' from making any claim or right, title, or interest thereon. ( See : XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). \nRespondent is hereby given further NOTICE of this ministrys INTENT to SEEK, COMMERCIAL, and CRIMINAL PROSECUTION all those responsible under all applicable provisions and Mandates of the Ordained Constitution for the Union of several States of the United States of America, and Laws made in pursuance thereof, including, but not limited to 18 U.S.C. 219, 241, 242, 645, 654, 912, 951, and 1001. \nLET THIS NOTICE SERVE AS AN ESTOPPEL ON ALL CLAIMS, RESCISSION of ALL SIGNATURES AND OBJECTION OF ALL EFFORTS TO ENFORCE SAID UNLAWFUL CONVERSION CONCERNING THIS ACCOUNT AS FRAUD VITIATES ALL IT TOUCHES. DO NOT SELL, TRADE OR TRANSFER THE VICTIMS INFORMATION CONCERNING SAID ACCOUNT. \nSINCERELY,","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-23T19:23:20.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"60659","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6476378","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2023-01-23T19:01:13.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["DO NOT SELL, TRADE OR <em>TRANSFER</em> THE VICTIMS <em>INFORMATION</em> CONCERNING SAID ACCOUNT. \nSINCERELY,"]},"sort":[12.3812895,"6476378"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3560496","_score":12.125806,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit this information as I continue my next steps in regards to my home.. I want to ensure this was reported in case others are going through this. I was not aware of this bureau until two weeks ago. I am a service connected Veteran who purchased a VA home loan through USAA a few years ago.I love USAA. I never had any issues with USAA if I did, they were always helpful in resolving them. Ive been a member since XXXX if I can recall. \n\nXXXX I received a notice from USAA that XXXX XXXX  XXXX a subservicer of USAA was transferring the servicing of my mortgage loan to a new subservicer XXXX  effective. I never knew XXXX was a subservicer of my loan, I've never received any documentation on XXXX or statements. Once the loan was serviced by XXXX I noticed a lot of changes to include escrow statements and I was not happy with their practices even when I questioned my escrow account statements. \n\nXXXX I had setbacks and I was recovering from a lot of major changes and unexpected circumstances from the prior year and I was working to get things back on track. In the midst of all of this I applied to several jobs and started working, however the income was nothing compared to what I used to make. \n\nXXXX Refusal to accept Mortgage Payments I was behind on my mortgage 60 days as my income was adjusting. I was sent a notice of being behind from XXXX Subservicer of USAA in addition to a statement of late fees recurring. I was advised I had until XX/XX/XXXX to bring my mortgage current. At that time my mortgage was {$1000.00} per month and I was behind two months. I also received additional letters from XXXX  Servicer of USAA advising me that my home will be set for foreclosure by XXXX XXXX in XXXX, if I did not bring my account current. \n\nI went online to USAA.com to pay my past due mortgage as I've always done. I was able to login to all of my USAA accounts except my Mortgage account. I called tech support as I thought there was something wrong with my overall login. Tech Support informed me there are no blocks on logging into USAA and I should check with the mortgage company the next day. since were closed since I called in the evening I called XXXX and I was informed that I was not allowed to make any payments online and I was blocked from making payments and my account is set for foreclosure. This is what led me to where I am today unfortunately. I asked the representative how I could bring my account current if I am unable to make a payment online or even over the phone. I was denied. I did not receive any notice stating I would be blocked from making online or over the phone payments. I have made online payments or over the phone payments for years at this time. I even informed them that the notification stated I had until XX/XX/XXXX. I was not allowed to make any payments online, and was completely blocked from my account. I could only view. \n\nI called XXXX XXXX constantly and they also called asking for payments. I always stated how am I supposed to pay? In addition if I have the money to pay, I do not know how to pay if I am being blocked. This back and forth went on for quite some time. I was appalled and very frustrated. \n\nRefusal of requests for Loan Modification A month or so went by and my past due increased in addition to lawyer fees piled up. I still could not make a payment online or wasn't advised where my payments could be sent to. By this time I was at {$6000.00} to include lawyer fees for 3 months. I received a statement packet in the mail. In the statement packet I was sent an Uniformed Borrower Assistance Package. I applied and requested for forbearance or loan modification. The first application I was denied. I contacted my local HUD office since I was unfamiliar with the overall process. I was advised to speak to loss mitigation. HUD spoke on my behalf and I was able to apply to get a loan modification as at that time I had a roommate and I am foreign to these documents or process and I did not know I could include them in the initial application. The Veterans Administration was also involved throughout. \n\nI applied numerous times for a loan modification and was constantly denied. The denial reason was always the same. I appealed every time except the last application.Each time even in less than 30 days my credit was pulled. After the denial I had no other choice but to file bankruptcy to save my home. \n\nForbearance Plan, Affordable Modification, & Standard Modification all denied each time due to their response below. \n\nDue to excessive obligations, we are unable to offer you a modification plan because we are unable to create an affordable payment without changing the terms of your loan beyond the requirements of the program I could not understand why I constantly kept getting denied. I know I was able to afford a loan modification. In addition I informed XXXX that I was going to be receiving extra income soon with one of the jobs I applied for in XXXX. I was still denied all except the options to sell my home which I do not want to do or go into foreclosure. \n\nThe Veteran Administration intervened and assisted tremendously. I can not thank them enough. I was in a situation I never wanted to be in, but life happened for me. I have plenty of emails and conversations with the Veteran Administration, myself and XXXX aka XXXX XXXX. I did not know XXXX was XXXX XXXX until the emails back and forth from the member specialist and the Veteran Administration listed as XXXX XXXX. \n\nBankruptcy & Deductions of Reinstatement Amount I filed Bankruptcy I never wanted to file bankruptcy but XXXX did not give me any choice.. In less than 30 days of filing bankruptcy, I paid a total of {$3000.00} to include the first mortgage payment after filing bankruptcy, filing fee and bankruptcy payment. The total lawyer fee was {$5000.00} which was paid in 90 days. My bankruptcy payments were high, almost {$2000.00} each month in addition to my regular bills. I could not understand how I was able to file bankruptcy and not receive an affordable loan modification from XXXX  subservicer of USAA.. During this time I received a statement that my mortgage payment increased from {$960.00} to {$960.00}. \n\n\nESCROW TAXES & INSURANCE ACCOUNT In filing bankruptcy the lawyer questioned the total amount that was past due at filing per XXXX  The amount past due per XXXX  was {$3300.00} less than my last statement from XXXX prior to filing bankruptcy. The lawyer asked me where the payment come from and did I pay that? I advised I did not know. \n\nDid XXXX used my escrow to pay off part of my reinstatement balance prior to filing bankruptcy?. XXXX also Falsified documents and stated prior to filing the total amount was {$19000.00} which is incorrect. This is also listed on the notice of default to courts which is incorrect. \n\nMy recent Escrow & Interests Statement received XX/XX/XXXX indicates my current mortgage is {$1000.00} which is incorrect. I did not receive any statement that my payment changed from {$960.00} to {$1000.00} My home insurance is not paid through my mortgage payment. I pay this monthly on my own. Where is this insurance money going to? \n\nXXXX Improper allocation of mortgage payments during bankruptcy to purposely attempt to foreclose and put me in default. \n\nI received my first informational statement after making my first mortgage payment during bankruptcy as the next month was due in a few weeks. I called XXXX  subservicer of USAA and quickly questioned why my current mortgage payments were listed as unapplied and partial payments. XXXX Subservicer of USAA advised me that all of my current payments that will be made will be going to my past due payments, not current mortgage. I argued that this was incorrect as I pay the trustee my past due payments during my bankruptcy. Any payments that I make directly should be going to my current mortgage so I will not be in default. I requested a corrected statement that states applied.. I never received a corrected statement. \n\nI contacted my attorney to advise and sent them the information of my first payment. I informed I will not pay twice to past due, as this would cause me to be in default and in more debt. I will not pay until it is corrected and statement indicating my payments made directly will go to current not past due which is in bankruptcy. XXXX  subservicer of USAA filed a notice of default and wanted to foreclose on my home as I suspected they would. My lawyers intervened and both parties agreed that I would pay on top of my current mortgage during bankruptcy an additional amount each month following the next month for the past due. This still was not resolved. This was becoming expensive at the fault of XXXX and I was consistently getting in more debt. I paid my first payment again and the statement was still not corrected. It still listed unapplied and partial. I made my second payment which was split as the additional funds for me came later in the month to pay the additional agreed amount. I paid for two months after the agreement with one late fee.\n\nI met with an attorney to go over my income so far during bankruptcy. .My income increased for about 4 weeks from one of my income sources and I also lost income as my car needed repairs.\n\nI informed my lawyer and expected this information to be relayed to the trustee ; it was not, the lawyer only reported increases from one source of income, which was not permanent, not overall income changes.. Due to  XXXX falsely filing a default letter I did not get an opportunity to go over my changed income in court.\n\nBankruptcy was becoming expensive. I spoke with one of the attorneys who advised me to let my case be dismissed and start over with this new information. I argued that it would be another {$5000.00} for me to pay when they could resolve this now and report the correct information to the Trustee and judge and lower my bankruptcy payments. \n\nIn order to assist me further, they wanted more money. I refused. My Bankruptcy case was dismissed. They asked me to retain them again, I refused. \n\nIn less than a year Ive paid a total of {$11000.00} to bankruptcy and lawyer fees alone not including my other bills to live. All of this could have gone to my mortgage, but XXXX constantly denied my loan modification and refused to approve my loan modification and correct the total amount due and refused to apply my payments made to my mortgage. This is causing hardship and prejudice to constantly continue to go through this no matter what I do just to manufacture reasons to foreclose on my home. These are deliberately unfair practices. This is also preventing me from getting other opportunities in reference to mortgage assistance which is harmful to my stability. \n\nXXXX Misleading, Falsifying information, payments court documents, and deceptive practices to attempt to foreclose on my home. \n\nDuring bankruptcy XXXX Subservicer filed a notice of default indicating I did not make my first payment after the agreement between XXXX and my attorney. I sent my attorney at the time my bank statements of my payments to prove that I paid as XXXX reported that I did not pay which I did. \n\nXXXX argued that they will not accept partial payments. Two months later I received a letter from XXXX indicating that funds I paid to my mortgage account prior are in an unapplied account and that I need to pay a total past due of {$24000.00} to reinstate my loan by the 35th day from the notice or my house will go to foreclosure There is a next payment due date of XXXX on this noticed which is completely incorrect. This also includes almost {$7000.00} in fees. This is deceptive practices by choosing to once again not accept my payments even in bankruptcy and allocate my funds to another account to list me in default.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-04-06T14:20:24.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"23666","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3560496","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2020-03-10T02:09:45.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX I received a notice from USAA that XXXX XXXX  XXXX a subservicer of USAA was <em>transferring</em> the <em>servicing</em> of my mortgage <em>loan</em> to a new subservicer XXXX  effective. I never knew XXXX was a subservicer of my <em>loan</em>, I've never received any documentation on XXXX or statements. Once the <em>loan</em> was <em>serviced</em> by XXXX I noticed a lot of changes to include escrow statements and I was not happy with their practices even when I questioned my escrow account statements."],"company":["UNITED <em>SERVICES</em> AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[12.125806,"3560496"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12388263","_score":11.447315,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally request the discharge of my student loan due to significant documentation deficiencies that have led to financial hardship and emotional distress. \n\nUnder the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. ), I am entitled to complete and accurate documentation regarding my loan. However, since XXXX took over my loan in XXXX, I have faced considerable confusion and lack of clarity about my loan status, particularly regarding the transition from XXXX to XXXX and the subsequent claims made by XXXX. The paperwork provided lacks crucial details, including a lender number tied to a mortgage company in Florida and verifiable loan information. \n\nMoreover, the shutdown of XXXX due to poor loan servicing practices and my unsuccessful attempts to obtain documentation over the past XXXX years only exacerbate my concerns regarding the validity of my loan. My records show no evidence of payments made from XXXX to XXXX, despite having utilized forbearances and deferments. \n\n# # # Legal Framework and Supporting Case Law 1. **Borrower Defense to Repayment Rule** : Under **34 C.F.R. 685.206**, borrowers are protected when misled by their educational institutions or when there are violations of applicable laws. This rule allows borrowers like myself to seek a discharge of student loans for inadequate documentation or servicer non-compliance with federal regulations. \n\n2. **Colorado Higher Education Statute ( C.R.S. 23-3.1-2003 ) ** : This statute delineates the responsibilities of higher education institutions and loan servicers to maintain precise and verifiable records. It mandates that loan servicers ensure documentation is up-to-date and readily accessible to borrowers. Failure to follow this statute can provide grounds for loan discharge.\n\n3. **Senate Bill 19-002** : Recently enacted legislation aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in the student loan servicing process, this bill clarifies that borrowers are entitled to discharge if adequate documentation has not been maintained or provided upon request.\n\nSupporting case law further emphasizes the necessity for clear documentation. For example, in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) **, the court affirmed the need for transparency in loan servicing. \n\nGiven the ongoing emotional and financial burden caused by these issues, coupled with the absence of proper documentation, I respectfully request the immediate discharge of my loan and compensation for the distress experienced. \n\nAs a borrower of federal student loans, I am entitled to certain fundamental rights under federal law, including the right to receive complete, accurate documentation related to my loan. Specifically, under the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. ), borrowers are granted significant protections that ensure proper loan servicing and access to accurate information regarding the terms and conditions of their loans. The lack of original documents hampers my ability to understand the specifics of my loan obligations and hinders my rights as a borrower. \n\nTo provide further context, it is important to note that XXXX allegedly took over my loan in XXXX, while XXXX changed its name to XXXX in XXXX and subsequently closed in XXXX. During the period from XXXX to XXXX, I was making payments to XXXX, yet XXXX claims they had my loan and placed their name on the records with XXXX from XXXX before XXXX was involved. Additionally, the paperwork I received from XXXX in XXXX was lacking crucial information, including a lender number associated with a mortgage company based in Florida. There was no specific connection provided to validate my loan, and the consolidating loan information was not clearly included. \n\nFurthermore, there was a lawsuit that led to the shutdown of XXXX ( formerly known as XXXXXXXX  ) due to poor handling of loans. Despite my attempts to gather appropriate documentation over the past five years, I have not received adequate or legitimate information regarding my loan payments from XXXX to XXXX. My records do not reflect any evidence of payments, which is deeply concerning, especially since my loan was supposed to have a cap of 3 %. I also took out several forbearances and deferments, maximizing those options, but have received no clarity on my loan status or terms. \n\nThe absence of proper documentation raises serious concerns regarding the validity of this loan, leaving me feeling deceived and trapped. The stress and confusion that this lack of clarity has generated are profoundly alarming and unacceptable. As a result, I believe that I am entitled to not only the discharge of this loan but also compensation for the unnecessary distress it has caused me. \n\n# # # Supporting Case Law Numerous court cases underscore the need for transparency and proper documentation in the loan servicing process : XXXX. *XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ** : This case affirmed the need for accurate documentation in loan servicing and the obligation of servicers to provide clear records to borrowers. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The court ruled that borrowers have the right to challenge their loans when they do not receive adequate documentation from the servicer. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ** : The court determined borrowers could seek loan discharges if the servicer failed to provide necessary documentation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : This case supported borrowers ' rights to contest their obligations when denied access to essential loan documents. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The ruling affirmed that borrowers are entitled to rely on their servicers to produce required documentation. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The court highlighted that servicers must ensure that their records accurately reflect loan terms. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX* : Additionally, in the recent class-action lawsuit against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) regarding improper documentation and loan servicing practices, it was alleged that borrowers were misled about their repayment obligations. The court found substantial evidence indicating that XXXX failed to comply with federal documentation requirements, similar to the issues I have faced. This case highlights the potential for borrowers like myself to claim discharge on the grounds that servicers compromised our rights through their inadequate practices. \n\n# # # Personal Impact The experience of navigating this loan has been overwhelming and distressing due to the lack of accurate information. I have made multiple requests for documentation regarding my loan, including payment history, loan terms, and borrower rights, but have not received satisfactory responses. This gap in responsibility has resulted in confusion regarding my repayment obligations and has adversely affected my financial well-being. \n\nAs a borrower of federal student loans, I am entitled to certain fundamental rights under federal law, including the right to receive complete, accurate documentation related to my loan. Specifically, under the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. ), borrowers are granted significant protections that ensure proper loan servicing and access to accurate information regarding the terms and conditions of their loans. The lack of original documents hampers my ability to understand the specifics of my loan obligations and hinders my rights as a borrower. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ** : This case established that educational institutions could be held responsible for misleading information that affects students ' financial decisions. The principle emphasizes that borrowers are entitled to accurate representations regarding their loans. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ** : While originally about political representation, the ruling emphasized the principle of accountability in compliance with established laws, which can be applied to loan servicers who fail to meet federal and state regulations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) ** : This bankruptcy case underscores the need for loan servicers to adhere to disclosure requirements and emphasizes borrowers rights if they are misled or inadequately informed. \n\nTo provide further context, it is important to note that XXXX allegedly took over my loan in XXXX, while XXXX changed its name to XXXX in XXXX and subsequently closed in XXXX. During the period from XXXX to XXXX, I was making payments to XXXX, yet XXXX claims they had my loan and placed their name on the records with XXXX from XXXX before XXXX was involved. Additionally, the paperwork I received from XXXX in XXXX was lacking crucial information, including a lender number associated with a mortgage company based in Florida. There was no specific connection provided to validate my loan, and the consolidating loan information was not clearly included. \n\nFurthermore, there was a lawsuit that led to the shutdown of XXXX ( formerly known as XXXX XXXX due to poor handling of loans. Despite my attempts to gather appropriate documentation over the past XXXX years, I have not received adequate or legitimate information regarding my loan payments from XXXX to XXXX. My records do not reflect any evidence of payments, which is deeply concerning, especially since my loan was supposed to have a cap of 3 %. I also took out several forbearances and deferments, maximizing those options, but have received no clarity on my loan status or terms. \n\ni would like to reference the Borrower Defense to Repayment rule, codified under 34 C.F.R. 685.206, which provides critical protections for borrowers misled by their educational institutions or in cases of violations of applicable laws. This federal rule enables borrowers like myself to seek discharge of their loans when documentation is lacking or when servicers fail to comply with federal regulations. The case of *XXXX XXXX  U.S. Department of Education , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ** further illustrates the impact of ineffective loan servicing on borrowers, reinforcing the need for accountability in such situations. \nMoreover, I would like to draw your attention to the recent Senate Bill 19-002, designed to enhance transparency and accountability in the student loan servicing process. This legislation emphasizes that borrowers are entitled to loan discharge in cases where adequate documentation has not been maintained or provided upon request. This concept is further supported by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) **, which highlighted the significance of maintaining accurate records in the servicing of loans. \n\nThe Colorado Higher Education Statute ( C.R.S. 23-3.1-2003 ) delineates the responsibilities of both higher education institutions and loan servicers in maintaining accurate and verifiable records. This statute mandates that loan servicers ensure that all documentation related to loans is up-to-date and readily accessible to borrowers upon request. \n\nIn addition, the Federal Student Aid ( FSA ) guidelines explicitly require loan servicers to maintain and provide adequate documentation to validate loans. The principles established in **Auer v. Robbins , 51XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ** stress the importance of transparency and compliance with regulatory requirements in protecting borrower rights. \n\nFurthermore, the case oXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) ** emphasizes that loan servicers must adhere to disclosure requirements. Failing to do so can constitute grounds for loan discharge, as every borrower has the right to clear and accurate information concerning their loans. \n\nGiven the above circumstances, including the serious implications of lacking the required documentation as noted in both case law and legislation, I kindly request that you initiate the discharge process for my loan. Taking this action will not only adhere to regulatory requirements but also uphold my rights as a borrower as exemplified by **In re : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) **, which underscores the necessity for loan servicers to comply with documentation mandates The absence of proper documentation raises serious concerns regarding the validity of this loan, leaving me feeling deceived and trapped. The stress and confusion that this lack of clarity has generated are profoundly alarming and unacceptable. As a result, I believe that I am entitled to not only the discharge of this loan but also compensation for the unnecessary distress it has caused me. \n\nXXXX relevant case is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) **, which held that students have rights to accurate and accessible information related to their loans, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation in safeguarding borrower interests. \n\nAdditionally, in XXXX XXXX XXXX Dept. of EducXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the court underscored the importance of maintaining accurate records for the integrity of the loan servicing process. The ruling underlined that any failure to provide appropriate documentation could lead to adverse implications for the borrower. \n\nGiven these precedents and the serious implications of lacking the required documentation, I respectfully request that you initiate the discharge process for my loan. Not only will this action adhere to regulatory requirements, but it will also uphold my rights as a borrower, reinforcing the accountability highlighted in these significant cases. \nI urge you to consider the gravity of this situation. The ongoing uncertainty and the impact on my financial health make it imperative that this matter be resolved without further delay. Failure to address these serious concerns may compel me to pursue legal action to protect my rights and seek appropriate damages for the harm I have experienced.\n\nIn addition to the federal protections I've mentioned, Colorado state law provides several additional regulations that underscore my position. The Colorado Student Loan Servicer Licensing Act ( C.R.S. 12-60-1001 et seq. ) establishes rigorous standards for student loan servicers operating within the state. This law requires servicers, including XXXX and its predecessors, to maintain accurate records and provide clear and comprehensive information to borrowers. Failure to meet these obligations may constitute a violation of this Act. \n\nAnother crucial case is *XXXX XXXXXXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where the court ruled that improper loan servicing practices, including inadequate record maintenance, can result in significant adverse outcomes for borrowers, reinforcing the need for accountability in loan management. \n\nIn light of these cases, which collectively emphasize the importance of accurate documentation and borrower protection, I kindly request that you initiate the discharge process for my loan. This action will not only comply with regulatory requirements but also uphold the rights established through binding legal precedent that underscores the necessity for transparency and accountability in the student loan servicing process. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) ** : In this case, the court emphasized that the failure of loan servicers to maintain proper documentation can undermine the borrower 's rights, allowing for potential discharge of the loan in light of inadequate servicing practices. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The court ruled that borrowers deserve transparency in their loan terms and should be able to access accurate documentation. Lack of such documentation can lead to a presumption against the loan servicer regarding the validity of the debt. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX. U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : Here, the court acknowledged that borrowers may seek remedies when loan servicers fail to provide adequate and timely information about their loans, emphasizing the borrowers right to clarity and transparency. \n\nTo further reinforce my claim, I would like to include the following relevant case law : XXXX XXXX XXXX  U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ** : The court emphasized the importance of transparency in loan servicing, stating that a lack of proper documentation can constitute grounds for borrowers to seek relief under federal regulations. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ** : This case highlighted the responsibilities of loan servicers to provide accurate and current documentation to borrowers, reinforcing the idea that failure to do so could result in significant legal repercussions. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX. U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : The court ruled in favor of the borrower based on inadequate documentation. This ruling demonstrated that borrowers are entitled to full disclosure and that the absence of documentation undermines the credibility of the loan. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** : This case reinforced the necessity of proper documentation for effective loan servicing, establishing that borrowers can seek discharge when lenders fail to provide the requisite information. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX has faced scrutiny regarding its handling of student loans dating back to XXXX. Due to persistent complaints, the Department of Education reassigned many loans to different servicers. Since the Department of Education owns Direct Loans, they have the authority to choose the loan servicer, and they opted to sever ties with XXXX. \n\nMore recently, the State of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against XXXX, resulting in a settlement due to the company 's consistent failure to help students access appropriate repayment plans. For example, borrowers attempting to switch to income-based repayment plans were often incorrectly told by XXXX representatives that they could not, leaving them stuck in high-cost repayment plans they could not afford. \n\nFor borrowers frustrated with their loan servicer, online platforms serve as a rare outlet for expressing concerns. A comment from a borrower named XXXX from a year ago highlighted their dissatisfaction with the service, emphasizing that the situation has not improved since then.. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, formerly XXXX XXXX XXXX, managed private, government, and campus-based student debt until it went out of business on XX/XX/XXXX. If your loans were managed by XXXX, heres what you need to know. \n\nXXXX acted as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers, handling billing, payments, payment plans, customer service, and reporting to credit bureaus. The company changed ownership several times, with XXXX becoming part of XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX after a series of acquisitions. \n\nBoth XXXX and XXXX faced multiple lawsuits and fines. Notably, in XXXX, Massachusetts fined XXXX {$2.00} XXXX for improper loan management. In XXXX, XXXX settled with the New York attorney general over complaints related to expensive loan options and incorrect payment applications. In XXXX, they settled with the Department of Education for providing false information. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX, previously operating as XXXX XXXX XXXX, was a firm that facilitated the management of private, government, and campus-based student debt. The company ceased operations on XX/XX/XXXX, resulting in the transfer of its loan portfolio to other servicing entities. This document outlines critical information regarding XXXX 's role, legal challenges, and important instructions for borrowers whose loans were previously managed by XXXX. \n\nXXXX*Company Background*XXXX XXXX operated as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers, providing essential services that included billing, payment processing, management of payment plans, customer service, and the reporting of loan information to credit bureaus. The company underwent several changes in ownership throughout its history ; it was acquired by XXXX in XXXX, subsequently becoming part of XXXX XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. Following the termination of its contract with the Department of Education in XXXX, XXXX continued to manage select Federal Family Education Loans ( FFEL ), XXXX Loans, and private student loans. \n\nThese cases highlight the necessity of adequate communication and notification protocols when transitioning loan servicers. If you are facing issues with your loan servicer after a change, you may want to seek legal advice regarding your situation and potential remedies. \n\n\n# # # Legal Framework and Supporting Case Law XXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Dept. of Education, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ** : Found that inadequate documentation provided by a loan servicing agency constituted grounds for a discharge of the borrower 's obligations. \n\nXXXX XXXX  XXXX. U.S. Dept. of Education, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX ) ** : Addressed the consequences for servicers when they fail to maintain accurate and complete records of borrower interactions and payment history. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ** This case establishes that agencies have discretion in enforcing regulations, which implies that loan servicers are required to provide notice and proper communication regarding changes to borrowers. If a borrower claims they did not receive a notice, it could raise questions about the servicers adherence to regulatory responsibilities. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** In matters of servicer changes, this case emphasizes the importance of transparent communication and documentation in the relationship between borrowers and loan servicers. If your servicer fails to inform you, it could potentially lead to disputes regarding the borrowers rights and obligations. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX U.S. Department of Education XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ** This case underlines the need for federal entities to comply with notification procedures when managing federal loans. If a servicer changes without proper notice, it could prompt legal scrutiny under federal law. \n\nGiven the compounded emotional and financial distress caused by these ongoing issues, coupled with the absence of proper documentation, I respectfully request the immediate discharge of my student loan. This request includes consideration for compensation related to the distress experienced as a result of inadequate servicing and documentation. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response. \n\nI hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to formally request a discharge of my loan, [ Loan Number ], due to the failure to provide the original documentation that is required under our loan agreement. The absence of this critical documentation raises serious concerns regarding the validity and enforceability of my loan, and I believe it is crucial to address this issue promptly. \n\nAs a borrower of federal student loans, I am entitled to certain fundamental rights under federal law, including the right to receive complete, accurate documentation related to my loan. Specifically, under the Higher Education Act of 1965 ( 20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq. ), borrowers are granted significant protections that ensure proper loan servicing and access to accurate information regarding the terms and conditions of their loans. The lack of original documents hampers my ability to understand the specifics of my loan obligations and hinders my rights as a borrower.\n\nIn addition, the Borrower Defense to Repayment rule, codified under 34 C.F.R. 685.206, provides critical protections for borrowers who may have been misled by their educational institutions or if there have been violations of applicable laws. This federal rule allows borrowers like myself to seek discharge of their loans when documentation is lacking or when servicers do not comply with federal regulations. \n\nFurthermore, I would like to draw your attention to the recent Senate Bill 19-002, which was enacted to enhance transparency and accountability in the student loan servicing process. This important legislation emphasizes the need for loan servicers to provide timely access to documentation and clearly outlines that borrowers are eligible for loan discharge if adequate documentation has not been maintained or provided upon request.\n\nAt the state level, the Colorado Student Loan Servicer Licensing Act ( C.R.S. 12-60-1001 et seq. ) establishes rigorous regulations for student loan servicers operating within Colorado. This law requires that servicers obtain a state license and adhere to strict consumer protection standards. Among these standards is the obligation to provide borrowers with clear, accurate, and comprehensive information about loan repayment options, terms, and obligations.\n\nAdditionally, the Colorado Higher Education Statute ( C.R.S. 23-3.1-2003 ) delineates the responsibilities of both higher education institutions and loan servicers in maintaining accurate and verifiable records. This statute mandates that loan servicers must ensure that all documentation related to loans is up-to-date and readily accessible to borrowers upon request, thus further protecting borrowers rights. \n\nMoreover, the Federal Student Aid ( FSA ) guidelines explicitly require loan servicers to maintain and provide adequate documentation to validate loans. These guidelines stress the importance of having original documents that reflect accurate loan terms, amounts, and borrower 's rightsessential information that enables borrowers to manage their loans effectively. \n\nGiven the above circumstances and the serious implications of lacking the required documentation, I kindly request that you initiate the discharge process for my loan. Taking this action will not only adhere to regulatory requirements but also uphold my rights as a borrower. \n\nI sincerely appreciate your attention to this pressing matter and look forward to your prompt response. Should you require any further information or additional documentation from my side to facilitate this process, please feel free to reach out to me directly at your convenience. \n\nThank you for your assistance. \nXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX   Furthermore, I have never received a statement from any institution regarding my loan, balance, interest, paymetns etc... \n\n\nWhat I am entitled and not limited too ... ... A student loan agreement includes several important details that outline the terms and conditions of the loan. Here are the key components typically found in a student loan agreement : 1. **Borrower Information** : This includes the name, address, and contact information of the borrower.\n\n2. **Lender Information** : Details about the lender or loan servicer, including their contact information. \n\n3. **Loan Amount** : The total amount of money you are borrowing.\n\n4. **Interest Rate** : The percentage rate at which interest will accrue on the loan. This could be fixed or variable.\n\n5. **Loan Type** : Whether the loan is federal, private, subsidized, or unsubsidized.\n\n6. **Repayment Terms** : This section details the repayment schedule, including the length of the repayment period, monthly payment amounts, and due dates.\n\n7. **Grace Period** : Information about any grace period before repayments begin after you graduate, leave school, or drop below half-time enrollment.\n\n8. **Fees** : Any loan fees that may apply, such as origination fees or late payment fees. \n\n9. **Disbursement Information** : Describes how and when the loan funds will be disbursed to you or your school.\n\n10. **Deferment and Forbearance Options** : Information on options for postponing payments without penalty under certain circumstances.\n\n11. **Default Consequences** : The implications of failing to meet your repayment obligations, including potential damage to your credit score and collections actions.\n\n12. **Consumer Rights** : A summary of your rights as a borrower, including the right to receive disclosures and the right to ask questions.\n\n13. **Signatures** : Places for you and possibly a cosigner to sign, confirming agreement to the terms of the loan.\n\nA disclosure agreement for a student loan, often referred to as a \" Loan Disclosure Statement, '' provides important information about the terms and conditions of the loan. Heres what you can typically find in a student loan disclosure agreement : 1. **Loan Information** : - **Loan Amount** : The total amount you are borrowing.\n\n- **Interest Rate** : The percentage charged on the principal amount, which can be fixed or variable.\n\n2. **Repayment Terms** : - **Repayment Period** : The length of time you will have to repay the loan.\n\n- **Monthly Payment Amount** : The estimated amount you will need to pay each month.\n\n- **First Payment Due Date** : The date when your first payment is expected.\n\n3. **Loan Fees** : - **Origination Fees** : Any fees charged for processing the loan.\n\n- **Late Payment Fees** : Fees that may apply if you do not make your payments on time.\n\n4. **Total Cost of the Loan** : - **Total Interest Paid** : An estimate of the total interest you will pay over the life of the loan.\n\n- **Total Amount That Will Be Repaid** : The total of the loan amount plus interest and fees.\n\n5. **Promissory Note** : Information indicating that you agree to repay the loan as outlined in the document. ORIGINAL WHAT I HAVE IS NOT MY INFO AND IT IS NOT FILLED OUT, I HAVE ALWAYS WORKED 2 JOBS EVEN WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL I WORKED FULL TIME, I NEVER WAS WITHOUT A JOB 6. **Grace Period** : Details about the time period after you graduate or leave school during which you are not required to make payments.\n\n7. **Deferment and Forbearance Options** : Information on options to temporarily postpone or reduce payments if you encounter financial hardship.\n\n8. **Prepayment Options** : Information on whether you can pay off your loan early without penalties.\n\n9. **Contact Information** : Details on how to reach the lender or loan servicer for questions or assistance.\n\n10. **Borrower Rights** : Summary of your rights as a borrower, including the right to receive clear information and assistance if needed.\n\nUnderstanding the details in the disclosure agreement can help you make informed decisions about borrowing and repayment. If you have any questions about the specifics of your loan disclosure, its a good idea to contact your lender or financial aid office for clarification.\n\nWhen you fill out a student loan application, you should expect to receive several key documents : 1. **Loan Agreement** : This is the most important document. It outlines the terms of the loan, including the amount borrowed, interest rate, repayment schedule, and any fees involved.\n\n2. **Disclosure Statement** : This document provides details about the loan, including total loan costs and the estimated monthly payment amount. It helps you understand the financial implications of the loan.\n\n3. **Promissory Note** : You will sign this legal document that binds you to repay the loan according to the agreed terms. It may contain specific conditions of the loan and details about deferment and cancellation options.\n\nAs for tracking payments and interest, lenders typically maintain records in several ways","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-09T20:35:37.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"496XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12388263","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ECMC GROUP, INC.","date_received":"2025-03-09T20:20:04.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Don't agree with the fees charged"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The company ceased operations on XX/XX/XXXX, resulting in the <em>transfer</em> of its <em>loan</em> portfolio to <em>other</em> <em>servicing</em> entities. This document outlines critical <em>information</em> regarding XXXX 's role, legal challenges, and important instructions for borrowers whose <em>loans</em> were previously managed by XXXX."],"product":["Student <em>loan</em>"],"sub_product":["Federal student <em>loan</em> servicing"]},"sort":[11.447315,"12388263"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3376285","_score":10.076669,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"After finalizing the we were notified that Countrywide a new mortgage lender now owned the mortgage note. We began paying countrywide. At one point there was a question of the disposition of funds paid by us, but rather than respond to our requests for information we were advised that Bank of America now owned the loan, thus leaving the us no known recourse for what we believed was misapplication of funds. \nAfter investigating what has happened, we later wonder, Why else have Countywide remain known publicly as Countrywide ; rather than Bank Of America but for to confuse and mislead applicants and possible creditors? We feel there is no other purpose but misrepresentation, as most mergers and acquisitions are made public such that the public is aware one party or entity has become another.\n\nMoreover the acquisition purchase or agreements between Countrywide and Bank Of America though done in were allegedly completed in XX/XX/XXXXthough it appears they began preXX/XX/XXXX and potentially before the our loan was sold to Countrywide. Only later notified us the note had SOLD to Bank Of America but for all intents and purposes Bank Of America had previously acquired it in the first place via merger. \nWe filed for a reinstatement and those funds were not applied as per the information from Bank Of America. Loan modification which caused multiple pulls to the credit reports increased the balance but also petitioner later discovered large sums added to which there was no accountability. Contacting the bank I was not able to gain any answers. \nGoing forward and when interest rates went down, virtually half of the rate at which our loan was then set, we filed several applications for a refinance with Bank of America. The bank failed to respond not even sending out application documents though we had filled them out online and even called to inquire the status and to no avail. \nAt one point Bank Of America had sent us a check for around {$400.00}, as unknown to us we were identified and include in part of a settlement in a class action for loan violations following the big bank bailout. \nAt one point we had also paid a month in advance which was returned by Bank Of America though it had been sent as a full mortgage payment. At that point Bank Of America was in \" breach of contract '' refusing the additional payment though it was specifically allowed by the contract. \nWe had as often as possible paid extra funds with our payments noting the additional funds were to be paid against the principal. But we then noticed that additional sums paid to the principal balance were not listed in the principal column but were in fact noted as MISC on the account page we had with Bank Of America. We called and asked why and was told it was just the way they listed amounts above the payment. We also noted that it didnt seem to change the interest amount due though the principal balance was going down but when we called asked Bank Of America about this we were told it would work out at the end of the mortgage. \nMy husband also on the mortgage was later diagnosed with XX/XX/XXXX and given 8 weeks to get his affairs in order, but was able to survive 22 months as I watched my husband slowly XXXX XXXX XXXX eventually succumbing to the aggressive and incurable form of XXXX. \nDuring the latter part of my husbands XXXX treatments I paid several payments in advance on our home, myself being XXXX and that it would take some time for me to get XXXX and pension accounts in place. Unknown to me, Bank Of America had spontaneously and without notice applied our mortgage payments elsewhere. I called Bank Of America and spoke with several different agents in several different departments getting no answer as to what had happened to my prepayments which again were allowed by contract. When I was finally advised by agent for Bank Of America that the funds were applied elsewhere I raised concerns that Bank Of America had not advise us in advance and further that the funds had been wrongfully and possibly illegally misapplied elsewhere because I had paid full mortgage payments amounts intended as future payments and that Bank of America had not been authorized to apply them elsewhere. I advised Bank Of America it was in breach of contract and had applied the funds elsewhere without express consent and in violation of payment instruction. \nAfter numerous calls and emails to Bank Of America I reached one agent who talked to his supervisor and returned to advise me to send a letter requesting that the payment be moved back to her mortgage account as a payment, however now this would not bring us current. ( By this time the my current XXXX and resume accounts were not yet in place and we were in arrears but still in contact with Bank Of America personnel ). \nI noted that returning the payment to the mortgage account did not also revise the all of the interest shed been charge during that period when the payment has been misapplied and so the balances due were yet incorrect. I continued to call and email Bank Of America for correction to no avail. However during this period I was able to contact yet another agent, a customer service representative and explained that I was awaiting the lumps sums for back payments due to this XXXX and for my husbands service-connected XXXX following his death. \nNext after waiting literally two hours on hold in a looped phone menu, I spoke to yet another agent who said not to worry that Bank Of America would just put the missed payments at the end of the loan and I would be okay. \nBut being told being late was ok and not to worry, I began to feel that Bank Of America intended to take advantage of me and force me out of my home because I was now a XXXX senior, due to their failure to acknowledge and fully address my concerns. This was confirmed by the fact that at one point the Petitioner was in receipt of a letter form Bank Of America that I could cure the loan in 30 days. On the XXXX day of the 30 days I called Bank Of America to cure and they refused to accept my payment in full over the phone though I had actually been instructed to do so. I even read the letter to the Bank Of America employee over the phone but she refused to take the payment. I was given another number to call and when I did, was told the same thing and when I disputed the response but Bank of America again refused to acknowledge what I read to him from the Bank Of America letter and the employee simply hung up on me. Having the letter in hand giving me another 17 days to cure the loan, I decided to send a cashier 's check and again called Bank Of America to get a mailing address at which time I was told they could not accept the payment. When I asked why, I was informed that the debt had been sent away to collections and the was no way for them to transfer me to that department nor was there a number for me to contact. \nMeanwhile Id asked for a full accounting, line by line for each payment denoting/identifying the disposition of funds to principal and interest and noting specifically that a summary should not be sufficient. In response Bank Of America did not comply but sent me a summary so Iwas not able to audit what they had done with my payments. \nI got a letter from an attorney for Bank Of America with what I believed was an inaccurate balance due and responded to the same. My dispute was not addressed this time either. Nor were my request for documents. \nI was then told that XXXX XXXX had obtained my mortgage. Next I was led to believe I had no recourse with Bank Of America that they had sold my loan to get out of answering my disputes. \nAt which point I applied for a loan modification. While on the phone with a XXXX employee I asked specifically if this XXXX was working on behalf of Bank Of America. The woman responded asking me what I meant. So I then asked if XXXX was servicing the note or if they owned it outright. The employee responded that it belonged to XXXX, further voluntarily expressing that Bank Of America had nothing to do with the loan anymore it was owned outright by XXXX. To me this meant I had no recourse with Bank Of America to dispute the amount due for which I was now forced to apply for modification. \nThe modification process was not simply frustrating for any reasonable person it was fraught with inefficiencies, improper and ultimately illegal processes in the form of repetitious demands for documents that had been sent repeatedly per XXXX XXXX  own instruction. I contacted XXXX on a daily basis for the loan application status and was repeatedly informed that they did not have all of my documents. \nI began documenting the successive requests for documents that had already been sent my mail and email to XXXX. Then I noticed several inquiries on my credit report by an unknown party which negatively impacted my credit score. I  investigated and discovered that it was for XXXX XXXX via a 3rd party and that there had been several inquiries each about the time XXXX Mortgage should have received my documents. Each time there was an inquiry I sustained injury as my credit score took a hit and I lost points on my credit scores. \nI emailed XXXX XXXX to complain that I was aware they only need one Credit score report in a 30 day period and that by pulling multiple reports my score was taking negative hits. \nXXXX XXXX  continued to ask for documents so the I reviewed everything I had sent noting I had effectively and efficiently answered every request in a timely manner. So I called and contacted a customer serviced representative and asked the employee to walk through the documents with me one by one and this XXXX employee finally saw that all the documents were in place and said she would send word over to home retention. Note : I had to ask for help from customer service because applicants are not given any contact information for any one reviewing the documents XXXX XXXX received. Her note to home retention was no avail. Consequently I thought about it and reviewed every request and every documents sent in response. Seeing this process seemed to be getting frivolously repeated at my expense, I then decided rather than send the documents titled as to what they actually were, to rename them to accommodate the same titles as the requests. IE. ( bank name ) .Bank Statement would become Bank Statement , Bank Name and date ', and so on with each document as the Id figured out that XXXX XXXX was not crediting me for sending the documents they requested unless the had the title they wanted on the attachment. ( This is not unlike the blitz reported by a whistleblower as Id later discover, where volume of loans were ordered denied without cause but that anywhere from 600 to 1500 applications would be randomly denied, and this amounted to mortgage fraud and was pursued by DOJ and FBI ). It did not matter that they were getting exactly what they asked for, it mattered only if I changed the title of the attachment. On one occasion they asked for a legible copy of a document. When I sent a new copy in a 2nd attachment. Later when I looked at the original email and reviewed the document it was perfectly legible. I realized XXXX XXXX  was engaging in dilatory tactics ( tantamount to if not actual mortgage fraud for profit ) to prevent me from getting the better interest rate Id qualified and applied for, and also that by pulling my credit score multiple times they effectually prevented me from applying with any other lender because by lowering my score I would no longer qualify with other lenders. Hence XXXX XXXX had effectually and obviously with intent had created a situation where I was trapped and had no other choice than agree to the loan modification they sent to me even though XXXX XXXX had engaged in fraud by reporting they had not received the documents though in fact they had received some of the same documents up to three or more times at my expense and then only offered the  current modification verse the VAIRRRL Id qualified for before the negative hit to my credit score. Moreover I believe that XXXX XXXX has a role as a fiduciary being the middle man man between the Petitioner and Bank of America and failed to shop my loan through the various programs for the purpose of forcing me into what is otherwise no less than a predatory loan in addition to instances of what bears the marks of mortgage fraud for profit. I believe these acts by Bank Of America as Countrywide, BAC, Bank Of America, and XXXX XXXX  equates to mortgage fraud for profit as investigated for previously by the Federal Bureau Of Investigation. \nFraud for profit : Those who commit this type of mortgage fraud are often industry insiders using their specialized knowledge or authority to commit or facilitate the fraud. Current investigations and widespread reporting indicate a high percentage of mortgage fraud involves collusion by industry insiders, such as bank officers, appraisers, mortgage brokers, attorneys, loan originators, and other professionals engaged in the industry. Fraud for profit aims not to secure housing, but rather to misuse the mortgage lending process to steal cash and equity from lenders or homeowners. \nThis effectually ended with my being approved for a much higher interest rate and payment than I would have gotten with a VA IRRRL for which I had initialed applied. Moreover XXXX not only raised the interest rate on contract to above a VAIRRRL rate but they also raised my payment roughly {$300.00} rather than lowering it and/or extending the end date of the loan though XXXX XXXX was well aware I was applying in light of a hardship for which I was seeking relief and which was created in large part by the actions of Bank Of America in the first place. Due to the predatory nature of the multiple pulls of my XXXXredit score by  XXXX XXXX and the negative impact costing me roughly 50 point on my scores I no longer could qualify with other lenders. I believe this is a routine predatory practice to force applicants to take the only loan available. The lender had raised my payment amount to the extent of my ability to pay. Additionally, immediately after the modification a new reoccurring charge to XXXX took place lowering her total monthly income by over {$100.00}. \nAfter the loan was finally approved I finally was able to take a respite from 27 months of traumas with banks and began to suffer delayed response to my husbands death which I had not yet otherwise had time to deal with nor had I been able to even grieve and mourn the loss being wrapped up in the pass the buck game I was forced to endure with Bank Of America and then XXXX XXXX Home Retention division. \nI believes these acts by Bank Of America as Countrywide, BAC, Bank Of America Mortgage, and XXXX XXXX   are multiple instances of mortgage fraud as investigated by the Federal Bureau Of Investigation and that the mortgage fraud for profit I was initially a victim of, did not cease with DOJ investigation and settlement with Bank Of America but perpetuated and is still on going.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-27T13:24:59.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"59602","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3376285","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2019-09-16T22:18:27.000Z","state":"MT","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":["At one point there was a question of the disposition of funds paid by us, but rather than respond to our requests for <em>information</em> we were advised that Bank of America now owned the <em>loan</em>, thus leaving the us no known recourse for what we believed was misapplication of funds. \nAfter investigating what has happened, we later wonder, Why else have Countywide remain known publicly as Countrywide ; rather than Bank Of America but for to confuse and <em>mislead</em> applicants and possible creditors?"]},"sort":[10.076669,"3376285"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19583190","_score":10.0231905,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"CRITICAL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE : SYSTEMATIC PAYMENT THEFT THROUGH \" UNAPPLIED FUNDS '' WELLS FARGO HAS BEEN HOLDING MY PAYMENTS IN \" UNAPPLIED '' STATUS SINCE XXXX I have documentary evidence ( which I am uploading ) showing Wells Fargo has systematically held my payments in \" UNAPPLIED FUNDS '' status instead of applying them to my loan principal and interest. \nWHAT \" UNAPPLIED FUNDS '' MEANS : When I make a payment, Wells Fargo receives the money but does NOT apply it to : Principal balance Interest charges Escrow account Instead, they hold it in a suspense account called \" unapplied funds '' where it generates NO benefit to me but allows Wells Fargo to : Continue charging me interest on the full balance Claim I'm delinquent or short-paying Eventually steal the money through fees and charges Report me as late to credit bureaus THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE XXXX - OVER 20 YEARS I have been making payments faithfully since XXXX. My payments total approximately {$280000.00} over XXXX years. \nWells Fargo claims I still owe {$100000.00}. \nWHERE DID MY {$280000.00} GO? \nWells Fargo 's own documents show large amounts in \" UNAPPLIED FUNDS '' that were NEVER properly applied to my account. \nWELLS FARGO 'S XX/XX/XXXX RESPONSE ADMITS THIS FRAUD In their response to CFPB ( which they sent me ), Wells Fargo admits : \" You expressed concerns about funds for the XX/XX/XXXX, through XX/XX/XXXX payment were held in an unapplied account. We have provided a breakdown of how those funds were applied to the account. '' Then they show : XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Applied {$1100.00} from unapplied to XXXX payment XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Applied {$1100.00} from unapplied to XXXX payment XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Applied {$1100.00} from unapplied to XXXX payment XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Applied {$1100.00} from unapplied to XXXX payment XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Received {$640.00} placed into unapplied funds XX/XX/XXXX : Applied {$1100.00} from unapplied to XXXX payment THIS IS PAYMENT MANIPULATION FRAUD Questions Wells Fargo refuses to answer : WHY were my payments held in unapplied instead of being applied immediately? \nWhere did the \" remaining {$100.00} from unapplied funds to principal balance '' go each month? \nHow much total money is STILL sitting in unapplied funds? \nHas this been happening for ALL XXXX years, not just XXXX XXXX? \nHow much interest have I been charged on money that was sitting in unapplied instead of reducing my principal? \n\nWELLS FARGO 'S \" EXPLANATION '' PROVES THE FRAUD Wells Fargo claims the unapplied funds manipulation was legitimate. But their own explanation shows : They received my payments They held them in suspense They applied them LATER Meanwhile, they continued charging me interest on the FULL balance I was being charged interest on money I HAD ALREADY PAID This is theft through payment manipulation. \nI HAVE COPIES OF UNAPPLIED FUNDS STATEMENTS I am uploading documentary evidence showing \" UNAPPLIED FUNDS '' on my account statements going back years. \nThis proves : Wells Fargo received my payments Wells Fargo refused to apply them properly Wells Fargo held them in suspense to generate extra interest charges Wells Fargo has been doing this systematically for XXXX years WHY WELLS FARGO DOES THIS By holding payments in \" unapplied funds, '' Wells Fargo : Continues charging interest on the full balance ( even though I paid ) Can claim borrower is \" delinquent '' or \" short-paying '' Can impose late fees and other charges Can report negative information to credit bureaus Eventually steals the money through various fees Extends the loan term by delaying principal reduction THIS IS SYSTEMATIC THEFT AFFECTING MILLIONS OF BORROWERS Wells Fargo has a history of systematic consumer fraud ( fake accounts scandal, etc. ). The \" unapplied funds '' scheme is another systematic fraud : Affects millions of mortgage borrowers Generates billions in extra interest charges Allows Wells Fargo to steal payments while claiming \" compliance '' Is designed to be confusing so borrowers don't understand they're being robbed ADDITIONAL DAMAGES FROM PAYMENT MANIPULATION Beyond the {$590000.00} in direct damages I calculated, the \" unapplied funds '' manipulation adds : Interest charges on money already paid : $ XXXX ( estimated ) Extended loan term from delayed principal application : Additional years added to mortgage Late fees and charges from unapplied payments : $ XXXX ( estimated ) Credit damage from false delinquency reporting : Incalculable Total additional damages from payment manipulation : {$55000.00} - $ XXXX CFPB MUST INVESTIGATE THIS SYSTEMATICALLY I am not the only Wells Fargo mortgage customer with \" unapplied funds '' on my account. This is a SYSTEMATIC SCHEME affecting potentially millions of borrowers. \nCFPB should : Investigate Wells Fargo 's \" unapplied funds '' practices across ALL mortgages Determine how many borrowers have been affected Calculate total amount stolen through this scheme Order restitution to ALL affected borrowers Impose maximum penalties Refer for criminal prosecution WELLS FARGO 'S RESPONSE DID NOT ADDRESS THIS Wells Fargo 's XX/XX/XXXX response shows the XXXX XXXX unapplied funds manipulation but provides NO explanation for : Why payments were held in unapplied in the first place Whether this happened in other time periods ( IT DID- I have proof ) How much total money is in unapplied funds Why I was charged interest on money already paid Why they're STILL doing this I DEMAND : Complete accounting of ALL unapplied funds from XXXX Explanation of why EVERY payment was or was not applied immediately Calculation of excess interest charged due to payment manipulation Return of all unapplied funds PLUS interest Investigation of systematic unapplied funds scheme Criminal referral for payment theft THIS IS WHY I STILL OWE {$100000.00} AFTER PAYING {$280000.00} The \" unapplied funds '' scheme explains where my money went : I paid {$280000.00} Wells Fargo held it in `` unapplied '' Charged me interest on the full balance as if I hadn't paid Eventually applied some of it ( months or years late ) Stole the rest through fees and manipulation Result : After XXXX years of payments, I own almost nothing WELLS FARGO CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS Either : They applied my payments properly then I should owe ~ {$48000.00} and own 60 % of my home OR they held payments in unapplied then they committed systematic theft Their own documents prove the second option. \nWELLS FARGO REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH CFPB INVESTIGATION - WITHHOLDING CRITICAL EVIDENCE RE : Original Complaint XXXX I am filing this complaint because Wells Fargo is NOT complying with CFPB 's investigation, is withholding critical evidence, and is attempting to close the investigation through submission of false and incomplete responses. \nWELLS FARGO 'S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CFPB REGULATIONS Under CFPB regulations, when a consumer files a complaint, the company must : Provide a complete and truthful response Address ALL issues raised by the consumer Provide ALL requested documentation Not provide false or misleading information Wells Fargo has violated ALL of these requirements. \nVIOLATION # XXXX : INCOMPLETE RESPONSE - CRITICAL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD In my original complaint ( XXXX ), I specifically requested : Complete chain of title documentation Explanation of MERS deactivation ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Explanation of XXXX XXXX  cancellation ( XX/XX/XXXX ) All cancelled checks showing payments between loans Complete payment history showing application of funds XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Settlement Statement Documentation explaining how my {$120000.00} purchase became a {$140000.00} loan WHAT WELLS FARGO PROVIDED : Wells Fargo sent approximately XXXX XXXX of documents on XX/XX/XXXX. However, they deliberately EXCLUDED the most critical documents : MISSING : Explanation of XXXX  purge ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - They provided XXXX explanation for why XXXX  XXXX shows loan was \" purged '' and marked \" Inactive - all other data has been purged '' MISSING : Explanation of XXXX  cancellation ( XX/XX/XXXX ) - They provided XXXX explanation for why XXXX XXXX XXXX stamped the mortgage \" CANCELLED BY NOTE on XX/XX/XXXX '' MISSING : Cancelled checks - They provided NO copies of checks showing payments between loans or to the XXXX  MISSING : Complete chain of title - They did not provide recorded assignments showing valid transfer of the mortgage MISSING : Explanation of loan inflation - They did not explain how my {$120000.00} purchase price ( documented in public records ) became a {$140000.00} loan in 7 months This is deliberate withholding of evidence. Wells Fargo is hiding the documents that would prove the fraud I reported. \nVIOLATION # XXXX : FALSE STATEMENTS TO CFPB Wells Fargo 's XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB contains demonstrably false statements : FALSE CLAIM # XXXX : \" Loan has been serviced in compliance with federal & VA servicing requirements '' TRUTH : Their own documents show : XXXX  purged the loan XX/XX/XXXX XXXX cancelled the mortgage XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo continued collecting for 15 YEARS after cancellation This is NOT \" compliance '' - this is THEFT FALSE CLAIM # XXXX : \" We found no evidence of improper conduct, predatory terms, or regulatory violations '' TRUTH : Their own XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( which they buried in the XXXX pages ) shows : I purchased property for {$120000.00} ( public record ) Loan amount : {$140000.00} Inflation : {$27000.00} ( 22.9 % ) This IS predatory lending and loan inflation fraud FALSE CLAIM # XXXX : \" Service transfers and loan number changes are administrative and do not affect loan ownership or borrower obligations '' TRUTH : XXXX  purge is NOT administrative- it means loan was deactivated Parish cancellation is NOT administrative- it means mortgage was terminated Wells Fargo deliberately mischaracterized these critical events Wells Fargo is lying to CFPB to cover up fraud. This violates CFPB regulations and constitutes obstruction of the investigation. \nVIOLATION # XXXX : ATTEMPTING TO CLOSE INVESTIGATION WITH INSUFFICIENT RESPONSE Wells Fargo 's strategy is clear : Send XXXX pages of filler documents to create appearance of cooperation Withhold the XXXX  XXXX evidence Make false statements denying fraud Hope CFPB closes the investigation based on incomplete response This is not good faith compliance with CFPB investigation. This is deliberate obstruction. \nVIOLATION # XXXX : REFUSAL TO ADDRESS CONSUMER 'S SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS My original complaint raised these specific issues : Issue # XXXX : Loan inflation - {$120000.00} purchase became {$140000.00} loan Wells Fargo 's response : IGNORED - provided no explanation Issue # XXXX : MERS purge and Parish cancellation in XXXX Wells Fargo 's response : IGNORED - claimed these were \" administrative '' Issue # XXXX : Continued collection after loan cancellation Wells Fargo 's response : DENIED - falsely claimed \" compliance with servicing requirements '' Issue # XXXX : Loan churning - fraudulent \" refinances '' in XXXX and XXXX Wells Fargo 's response : MISREPRESENTED - claimed I \" voluntarily authorized '' when I was deceived Issue # XXXX : Request for compensation and debt discharge Wells Fargo 's response : REFUSED - stated \" we respectfully decline your request for compensation '' Wells Fargo did not address my allegations. They deflected, denied, and lied. \nVIOLATION # XXXX : RETALIATION THROUGH CREDIT REPORTING During the CFPB investigation, Wells Fargo reported LATE PAYMENT on my credit report even though I am in forbearance until XX/XX/XXXX. \nReporting late payments during forbearance violates : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 USC 1681 ) CFPB regulations Their own forbearance agreement This is retaliation for filing the CFPB complaint. \nVIOLATION # XXXX : VA LOAN REQUIREMENTS VIOLATIONS This is a VA loan, which has additional protections and requirements : VA loans are NON-ASSUMABLE without VA approval Wells Fargo transferred servicing to XXXX XXXX without VA authorization Wells Fargo violated VA servicing standards Defrauding a veteran carries additional penalties THE SMOKING XXXX WELLS FARGO IS TRYING TO HIDE While reviewing the XXXX pages Wells Fargo sent, I found the document they hoped I wouldn't notice : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Loan Number : XXXX Lender : XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$140000.00} My purchase price ( public record ) : {$120000.00} Inflation : {$27000.00} This single document PROVES the predatory lending fraud I reported. Wells Fargo buried it in XXXX pages, provided no explanation for it, and hoped CFPB would close the case without examining it. \nWHY WELLS FARGO IS WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE The documents Wells Fargo refuses to provide would prove : XXXX  purge records would show the loan was deactivated/cancelled in XX/XX/XXXX Parish cancellation documents would show the mortgage was terminated in XX/XX/XXXX Cancelled checks would show Wells Fargo paid off the loan in XXXX Chain of title would show Wells Fargo never had valid ownership Complete payment history would show systematic misapplication of my payments Wells Fargo can not provide these documents without admitting fraud. So they withhold them and hope CFPB accepts their incomplete response. \nWELLS FARGO 'S PATTERN OF CFPB NON-COMPLIANCE This is not an isolated incident. Wells Fargo has a documented history of : Fake accounts scandal ( deceiving regulators ) Mortgage servicing abuse ( ignoring CFPB orders ) Consumer complaint manipulation ( providing false responses ) Wells Fargo does not cooperate with CFPB in good faith. They obstruct, deceive, and withhold evidence. \nWHAT I'M REQUESTING FROM CFPB REJECT Wells Fargo 's incomplete response as non-compliant ORDER Wells Fargo to provide ALL requested documents within 10 days : Complete MERS transaction history and purge explanation XXXX mortgage cancellation documents and explanation All cancelled checks Complete chain of title with recorded assignments Explanation for {$27000.00} loan inflation Complete payment history showing fund application INVESTIGATE Wells Fargo 's false statements to CFPB Refer false statements for perjury investigation Investigate obstruction of CFPB investigation SANCTION Wells Fargo for non-compliance Impose civil penalties for incomplete response Impose penalties for withholding evidence Impose penalties for false statements to CFPB KEEP INVESTIGATION OPEN until Wells Fargo provides COMPLETE response INVESTIGATE retaliation ( credit reporting during forbearance ) CONSOLIDATE with original complaint XXXX REFER to VA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX WELLS FARGO THINKS THEY CAN OVERWHELM CFPB Wells Fargo XXXX strategy : Send XXXX pages of irrelevant documents Withhold the XXXX  XXXX  Make false denials Hope CFPB doesn't have time to investigate thoroughly Hope case gets closed as \" company responded '' I am requesting CFPB not let Wells Fargo get away with this. \nWells Fargo is NOT complying with the investigation. They are withholding critical evidence. They are lying to CFPB. They are obstructing justice. \nCONCLUSION Wells Fargo 's XX/XX/XXXX response is incomplete, false, and non-compliant with CFPB regulations. They are deliberately withholding evidence that would prove the fraud I reported. \nI request CFPB : Reject their insufficient response Order production of ALL requested documents Sanction them for non-compliance Investigate their false statements Keep investigation open Consolidate with complaint XXXX Refer to VA OIG Wells Fargo is trying to close the investigation through deception and document withholding.CONCLUSION ON UNAPPLIED FUNDS The \" unapplied funds '' evidence proves Wells Fargo has been systematically stealing my payments for XXXX years through payment manipulation, accounting fraud, and interest charge inflation. \nCombined with : XXXX inflation fraud ( {$27000.00} ) Post-cancellation collection ( {$210000.00} ) XXXX churning ( {$13000.00} ) Payment theft through unapplied funds ( $ XXXX ) Total fraud exceeds $ XXXX in direct damages. \nI am uploading documentary evidence of unapplied funds. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-20T21:15:27.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19583190","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-02-18T09:28:58.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["VIOLATION # XXXX : VA <em>LOAN</em> REQUIREMENTS VIOLATIONS This is a VA <em>loan</em>, which has additional protections and requirements : VA <em>loans</em> are NON-ASSUMABLE without VA approval Wells Fargo <em>transferred</em> <em>servicing</em> to XXXX XXXX without VA authorization Wells Fargo violated VA <em>servicing</em> standards Defrauding a veteran carries additional penalties THE SMOKING XXXX WELLS FARGO IS TRYING TO HIDE While reviewing the XXXX pages Wells Fargo sent, I found the document they hoped I wouldn't notice : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[10.0231905,"19583190"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2495835","_score":9.186639,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"While it would probably be easier to reference which FCRA laws have not been violated, here is my story and plea for CFPB involvement.\nThis is a complaint, to enforce my rights in accordance with the FCRA, encompassing a multitude of ongoing fraudulent, deceptive and unfair practices pertaining to  a  XX/XX/XXXX  mor tgage default, currently underway in a second foreclosure suit. ( The first was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by plaintiff  on   XX/XX/XXXX . ) While the violations have mounted over the years, the most recent and serious infractions involve the deliberate re-aging of this account on my credit report by Rushmore Loan Management ( RLM ), current servicer as of  XX/XX/XXXX  ; the Credit Reporting Agencys ( CRAs ) improper investigations and continual verification of falsified information ; as well as, the continued pursuit of foreclosure by current plaintiff,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ., with complete disregard to the (  XXXX  )   XXXX   Debt Cancellation issued by   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   (  XXXX  ), servicer until  XX/XX/XXXX  . As   a result, my credit score is once again tanked and Im now faced with re-serving sentence, double jeopardy if you will. Therefore, I urgently request CFPB involvement to seek relief, resolution, and, recovery of all monetary damages that I may be entitled to. Supportive documentation is attached as referenced.\n<P/>\n1. CANCELLATION OF DEBT  XXXX  By notice dated XX/XX/XXXX  ( Attachment 1 ),  XXXX  transferred servicing of the mortgage loan to RLM effec tive   XX/XX/XXXX , then continued involvement as attorney-in-fact for   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  .\n<P/>   XXXX     XXXX   furnished two  XXXX  forms ( Cancellation of Debt ) totaling {$280000.00}, identifying date of identifiable event  XX/XX/XXXX  ; debt description mortgage ; identifiable event code I ( Attachment 2 ). Each reported {$140000.00} separately ( to me and my ex-husband of 10 years ) to be reported as income on   XXXX   IRS tax reports.\n<P/>\nAs written in the updated   XXXX   IRS Publication 4681, 1. Canceled Debts, General Rules, Form  XXXX . Generally, if a debt for which you are personally liable is forgiven or discharged for less than the full amount owed, the debt is considered canceled in whatever amount it remained unpaid.\n<P/>\nIt further states under Identifiable Event Codes : Code I is used to identify an actual cancellation of debt that occurs before bankruptcy, other judicial debt relief, statute of limitations or expiration of deficiency period, foreclosure election, debt relief from probate or similar proceeding, by agreement, decision or policy to discontinue collection.\n<P/>\nMy attorney,   XXXX   XXXX   emailed Plaintiffs Attorney,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   (   XXXX   ), asking for confirmation of debt discharge, and, if Plaintiff would no longer be pursuing the foreclosure, with no response. ( Attachment 3 )  XX/XX/XXXX  My attorney filed a Request For Production Of Documents, and a Second Set of Interrogatories directly addressing the  XXXX s. To date, not only has plaintiffs attorney,  XXXX ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   (   XXXX    ), fai led to answer any related questions, they continue to pursue foreclosure of the full amount, without acknowledgement whatsoever, of the now cancelled debt. This, by any interpretation of the law, is a serious illegal and fraudulent violation of the FCRA.\n<P/>\n2. CREDIT REPORTING AND DISPUTES RE-AGED Account on Credit Reports, Improper Investigations, Falsified Verifications, Failure to Notify, Inaccurate Accounting After 10+ years of following the guidelines for credit recovery, including that provided on the websites of all   XXXX    nationwide CRAs, I just recently improved my credit score to a respectable  XXXX . On  XX/XX/XXXX , I replied to an offer of credit with   XXXX   XXXX   who I have a flawless 16 month relationship. I was blindsided by their immediate decline ( Attached # 4 ). Then responded to 5.9 % offer from  XXXX . Offer accepted, but instead, at 30.99 %. These raised a red flag prompting me to check my   XXXX    report  only to find that my updated score of   XXXX   on  XX/XX/XXXX ( reduced from  XXXX  due to purchase of a vehicle ) had dropped to  XXXX . ( Attachment 5 ) Its an atrocity that the CRAs and like companies are permitted to publish helpful consumer guidelines and give counseling for credit repair/recovery, only to be kicked back to   XXXX   gates if actually achieved. Ive initiated several disputes and have submitted prior credit reports with all   XXXX   CRAs to no avail. Instead, they continue to support RLMs false verification of accuracy. Willful, negligent re-aging and refusal of verifiable evidence to substantiate are in serious violation of the FCRA.\n<P/>\nRE-AGED ACCOUNT SUPPORTIVE FACT S   XX/XX/XXXX   XXXX  first reported this delinquent account to the   XXXX   major credit reporting agencies establishing Date of Last Payment ( DOLP )  XX/XX/XXXX  ; Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD )  XX/XX/XXXX  ; and, Estimated Date for Removal  XX/XX/XXXX . ( Attachments 6, 12, 13 )  XX/XX/XXXX  RLM intentionally RE-AGED this account on my credit reports by furnishing the CRAs, unsupported dollar amounts and newer delinquency dates ( DOLP )  XX/XX/XXXX  ; ( DOFD  )   XX/XX/XXXX  ( Attachment 7 ). Accordingly,  XXXX  reports a new estimated date for removal as  XX/XX/XXXX , while  XXXX  shows it will remain on record  until   XX/XX/XXXX .\n<P/>\nNotification of this significant adverse action was never provided by RLM, nor any CRA, at any time whatsoever.\n<P/>\nClearly, RLM has maliciously and craftily reworded the language of the now pending subsequent Complaint ( Attachment 11 ) to conjure an illusion of verifiable accuracy as follows : a. ) Complaint states, due and owingfrom and  after   XX/XX/XXXX .\nRLM furnished this date to the CRAs to reflect date of last payment  XX/XX/XXXX .\n<P/>\nb. ) Complaint states, by failing to pay the payment d ue   XX/XX/XXXX , and all subsequent payments.\nRLM furnished this date to the CRAs to reflect date of first delinquen cy   XX/XX/XXXX .\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX   XX/XX/XXXX  I had attempted online disputes with all   XXXX    CRAs, but could not as they were all having technical difficulties. I then called each to dispute by phone.  XXXX  and  XXXX  both responded during the conversation that creditor had verified as accurate and the dispute was final. After spending weeks sorting through 12 year old boxes, I wrote each a dispute letter and assembled packages with plenty of documentation, concretely verifying that this account had been RE-AGED then sent by certified mail. ( Attachments 8-10 ) RLM HAS WILLFULLY AND MALICIOUSLY VIOLATED THE FCRA BY PURPOSELY AND ILLEGALLY RE-AGING THIS ACCOUNT, THEN VERIFYING THE FALSIFIED INFORMATION REPEATEDLY. Their monthly statements reflect a {$3600.00} loan mod charge for deferred interest. This was first charged by   XXXX   on  XX/XX/XXXX  statement, which should have been deleted since they illegally withdrew the loan mod and reallocated 1st payment. This is clear evidence they have the  XXXX  accounting records to verifying the original  XXXX  CRA reporting. ( Attachments 17 & 18 ) CRA NEGLIGENCE While all   XXXX    CRAs relayed virtually the same information, my phone conversation with  XXXX  lasted much longer due to the communication barrier. After continually asking the agent to repeat herself, I was transferred to a supervisor ( with a slightly less heavy accent ) who refused to investigate further for the simple reasons the account numbers are different, Rushmore is the client, not the consumer, and, she was under no obligation to pursue an investigation based on consumer provided information. She became loud and rude, then reluctantly asked if I wanted to start a full investigation. I confirmed but to this day, have yet to receive her forthcoming email.\n<P/>\nIn accordance with the FCRA, I then prepared dispute letters ( Attachments 8-10 ), attached previous credit reports ( Attachments 6,12,13 ) and other supportive documentation undeniably verifying that the negative information RLM furnished on  XX/XX/XXXX , was in fact, reported previously by   XXXX    from XX/XX/XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX . Sent by certified mail, the green card from   XXXX   returned blank. I had to trek back to post office and request a computer printout. To date, all   XXXX   CRAs have merely provided results that consumer has again verified as accurate ( Attachments 14-15 ). Clearly, a proper investigation was not conducted. The documents I provided, if reviewed, would have concretely proved otherwise. The prior credit reports by themselves should have deemed this immediately removable.\n<P/>\nIts inconceivable that a U. S. taxpaying consumer claiming to be unlawfully harmed, carries burden of proof, without recovery fees, submits undisputable evidence generated by the CRA, on CRA letterhead, and then is denied resolution by simple virtue of the creditors merit, while creditors can walk into courtrooms and win cases without ever producing notes.\n<P/>\nIn my written disputes, I had requested a full comprehensive consumer disclosure of my file, and, a full investigation. None have complied as such, just that updates were made if deemed necessary.\n<P/>\nThe negative impact of this illegal re-aging has unfairly caused tremendous turmoil in nearly every aspect of my life.\n<P/>\nACCOUNTING The amounts furnished by RLM for outstanding balances, fees, expenses, and advances are escalated, unreasonable and rarely the same on most of the documents and statements produced. A complete historical account breakdown was requested through discovery, however RLM has yet to provide anything other than RLMs monthly statement. Most likely due to the   XXXX   they refuse to acknowledge.\n<P/>\n XX/XX/XXXX   Rece ived an updated mortgage statement reflecting an increased balance due to RLM with no adjustment for the charged off amounts. ( Attachment 17 ). It also references a deferred balance of {$3600.00} as amount of principal deferred as part of the terms of a loan modification. This is the same amount found on   XXXX   statement dat ed   XX/XX/XXXX  ( Attachment 18 ) first reported as unpaid interest as a result of a loan mod they approved, then immediately withdrew after they tricked me into a payment shortage. And, I can only assume that the plethora of {$100.00} prop preservation charges are for mowing the zero lot-line yard.\n<P/>\nSummarized below is the chain of events to substantiate this complaint, as well as show cause for many other discrepancies.\n<P/>\nI first became delinquent on my mortgage loan in  XXXX  due to the financial effects of the economic housing crisis on my profession as a Florida   XXXX   XXXX  . I had requested and was approved for a 6-month temporary loan mod through   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   (  XXXX  ) by way of letters dated  XX/XX/XXXX  and  XX/XX/XXXX  reflecting new 4.25 % rate, payments of {$1700.00}, and also, stating that the account had been restructured to reflect a current status and next payment due  XX/XX/XXXX .\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX  To insure compliance, I phoned  XXXX  and made a payment amount of {$1700.00}, the exact amount as stated by the  XXXX  rep.\n<P/>\n XX/XX/XXXX  Received letter stating  XXXX  was withdrawing the modification due to the terms of the loan modification.\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX   I  called for clarification only to be told that the amount of my last payment was incorrect as it didnt include an escrow payment, therefore,  XXXX  considered the payment to be late allowing them to immediately resume collection and start foreclosure, as well as, revert to original interest rate and payment. After unsuccessfully pleading the reason for the amount paid  on   XX/XX/XXXX  , I th en authorized the increased payment of {$2400.00}. This was the last payment I was ever able to make and thus reported as the date of last payment.\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX    XXXX   filed for foreclosure.\nCount I of this Complaint states : 1. This is an action to reestablish a promissory note 2. delivered to   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( no mention of  XXXX  )  3. Plaintiff i s the owner of said note.\n4. The original promissory note was lost or destroyed subsequent t o Plaintiffs acquisition thereof, the exact time and mannerbeing unknown to Plaintiff. < P/>\nIt was later discovered that  XXXX  did not have authority to file suit as they had not been assigned the mortgage.\n<P/>\n XX/XX/XXXX    XXXX   prepared a postdated assignment of mortgage to   XXXX   ( 19 months after   XXXX   had filed their foreclosure complaint ).\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX  XXXX  recorded Corporate Assignment of Mortgage to  XX/XX/XXXX declaring :  XXXX , as nominee for   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , ( the original creditor [  XXXX  ] ), assigned and conveyed to  XXXX  in consideration of {$10.00}, the mortgage together with the Note or other evidence of indebtedness ( the \" Note '' ), said Note having an original principal sum of {$340000.00} with interest, secured thereby, together with all moneys now owing or that may hereafter become due or owing in respect thereof, and the full benefit of all the powers and of all the covenants and provisos therein contained, and the said Assignor hereby grants and conveys unto the said Assignee, the Assignor 's beneficial interest under the Mortgage. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said Mortgage and Note, and also the said property unto the said Assignee forever, subject to the terms contained in said Mortgage and Note.\n<P/>\nThis assignment further shows evidence of fraud as such : a ) recording requested by and return to   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , as well as, Law Offices of   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ( Florida foreclosure mill firm shut down in  XXXX  ) ; b ) prepared by   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   at   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,  XXXX , NY   XXXX   ; c ) signed by   XXXX   XXXX  , Vice-President of   XXXX   XXXX   at   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX  ,  XXXX , VA  XXXX  ; d ) witnessed by confirmed robo-signers   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   and   XXXX   XXXX   as notary in  XXXX , NY.\ne )   XXXX   XXXX   has signed on behalf of   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . whose address is in VA while   XXXX   XXXX   ( whose handwriting changes often ) is a notary in NY.\nf ) Betw een   XX/XX/XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX  I have evidence of twelve ( 12 ) other ( unrelated ) recorded documents, signed by four different  XXXX  employees ( some on the same day ). All have signed as the Vice-President of   XXXX   XXXX  .\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX ,  XXXX  voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice. In accordance with the FCRA, the CRAs continued to report this negative mortgage default account through the 7-year maximum duration period clearly identified on prior credit reports with the estimated date for removal XX/XX/XXXX <P/> XX/XX/XXXX    XXXX    issued a new Notice of Intent to Cure for payments due on or after  XX/XX/XXXX  It further states that to correct this breach, the total amount of  $    XXXX  must be received no later than XX/XX/XXXX . Only the full amount due will be accepted. Failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in this notice will result in acceleration of the sums secured by the Mortgage/Deed of Trust and may result inforeclosure. ( This Notice was attached to the current  Plaintiffs R esponse to Defendants Request for Production. )  XX/XX/XXXX ,  XXXX , by   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   (   XXXX   ), as Attorney in Fact, assigned the mortgage to   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , as Trustee for   XXXX     XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  . However, the chain of title recorded in the   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   shows  XXXX  and   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    assigned to  XXXX .\n  XXXX   seems to be the servicer at this point, although Ive never received notice nor seen any authorizing document. I did however, receive 67 illegal robo-calls from   XXXX    between  XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX .\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , (  XXXX  ), Attorney for  Plaintiff, fi led a subsequent Complaint for Foreclosure of Mortgage on beha lf of    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , as Trustee  for    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , as Attorney of Fact, by   XXXX   XXXX  , Authorized Signatory.\n<P/>\nAs required by the FL Statute of Limitations for subsequent filings, new default dates were established and stated in this Complaint as : COUNT I Paragraph 6. Defendant ( s ) have defaulted under the Note and Mortgage by failing to pay the payment due XX/XX/XXXX , and all subsequent payments.\n<P/>\nParagraph 8. Defendant ( s ) o we Plaintiff {$32 0000.00} that is due and owing on principal on the Note and Mortgage, plus interest from and after  XX/XX/XXXX , and title search expenses This Complaint includes a Certification of Possession Pursuant to Fl. Stat. s.702.015 ( 4 ) dated XX/XX/XXXX .   XXXX   XXXX   as Original Documents Assistant verified that the original note is in the possession and location of  XXXX s office, and, that   XXXX    received the original note from  XXXX . However, no date is mentioned as to when   XXXX   received the note. When, how and from whom did   XXXX   receive the original note is crucial since  XXXX  claimed it to be lost or destroyed in its   XXXX    Complaint.\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX    XXXX   sends force-placed ASI policy that went into effect  XX/XX/XXXX .\n<P/>\n XX/XX/XXXX   XXXX   notifies me of cancellation of said policy effective XX/XX/XXXX .\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX  Rushmore sends Notice of Sale of Ownership of Mortgage Loan. Very confusing and misleading. States prior creditor has sold your loan ( described below ) to us, the new creditor identified below. Next paragraph, **NOTE : The new creditor identified below is not the servicer of your loan. Page 2 says Your lender. Who are they referring to, the creditor or the servicer? The last sentence reads, Our rights and obligations as new creditor,  XX/XX/XXXX   XXXX , transferred servicing to Rushmore Loan Management ( RLM ) although no documentation has been provided or recorded confirming   XXXX    authority to do so.\n<P/>\n XX/XX/XXXX ,   XXXX   furnished two (   XXXX   )  XXXX  forms ( Cancellation of Debt ) totaling {$280000.00}, identifying date of identifiable event  XX/XX/XXXX  ; debt description mortgage ; identifiable event code I.\n<P/>\n XX/XX/XXXX  Assignment of Mortgage :   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   as trustee for   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  t,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX  , OK  XXXX  hereby assign and transfer to   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee for the   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,  XXXX , DE  XXXX , all its right, title and interest to said mortgage.\n<P/>\nThis recording shows : Requested by   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   Prepared by C  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  y Return to LR Department ( Cust :  XXXX  ),   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , CA   XXXX     XXXX  MIN # :   XXXX   Loan # :   XXXX   Also, handwritten :   XXXX   ;   XXXX     XXXX   Authorized Signatory,   XXXX   XXXX   This Assignment was executed and notarized  on   XX/XX/XXXX   by   XXXX , Attorney in Fact, but not recorded until  XX/XX/XXXX  by   XXXX  , Attorney for Plaintiff.  XXXX  was also the servicer through XX/XX/XXXX . RLM began servicing  on   XX/XX/XXXX . So who is   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   and why was I not notified of new servicer? How many servicers and attorneys are involved now? Who is the actual note holder at this point?\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX attached to the  Plaintiffs R esponse to Request for Production is a Notice of Right to Cure Default by  XXXX  dated XX/XX/XXXX stating This is a notice of breachbecause we have not received the payments that were due on or after  XX/XX/XXXX ..  XXXX  had originally issued a Formal Notice of Breach dated  XX/XX/XXXX , demanding payment of {$5800.00} by last business day of that month ( only 20 days later ), and, If such payment is not received by that date, add an additional {$2400.00} for the next months payment, which must be received within thirty ( 30 ) days from the date of this letter. ( Less than a 30 day notice due to mailing time. ) It also states, Due to the delinquency of the mortgageall additional late charges and payments due after this notice must be included in your payment. ONLY THE FULL AMOUNT DUE WILL BE ACCEPTED.\n<P/>\nSince I have not received any notice whatsoever of   XXXX   involvement, in any capacity including transfer of servicer, nor is   XXXX   mentioned in the recorded chain of title, one can reasonably conclude that this second demand letter was sent to reestablish the default acceleration date prior to t he   XX/XX/XXXX  assignment of the deed and note to   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  , Trustee for   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  t.\n<P/>\nThis Assignment shows : 1 )  XXXX  requested recording on behalf of   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  .\n2 ) Execute on behalf of  XXXX  by   XXXX   XXXX   as authorized signatory of  XXXX , attorney in fact. She also signed in the same capacity, on an attached undated allonge. Her  XXXX  profile (  XX/XX/XXXX ) states she is Document Control Manager at   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   and Project Manager of  XXXX .\n<P/>\nThe note, allonges and mortgage ( sometimes identified as Exhibits A and B ) attached to each of the filed documents have been altered by an erasure use of \" white out '' or complete black out to intentionally conceal information such as loan numbers on original docs at time first executed. Florida does not allow the use of correctional fluid or complete black out on their legal documents.\n<P/>\nAltered docs : Verified Complaint for Foreclosure of Mortgage ( executed XX/XX/XXXX  ), Exhibits A and B are full of black outs.\nNotice of Action Constructive Service, Lis Pendens ( filed XX/XX/XXXX  ), although attachments are not labeled as exhibits, differ as some of the blacked out information originally attached to Complaint is now showing and some of the black outs have been erased completely, such as the loan number on the Allonges.\n Plaintiffs  Response to Request for Productio n (   XX/XX/XXXX  ) black outs appear only on the Note.\n<P/> XX/XX/XXXX   XXXX   filed discovery responses attached with the above-mentioned allonges now identifying account number  XXXX . This number is not to be found anywhere on the note. Further review revealed that this is the exact number identified on  XXXX  correspondence as   XXXX    Account Number.\nThis now questions the validity of the undated Allonges for these reasons : 1. The attached Note is stamp endorsed ( undated ), to   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   with more than enough white space for endorsements which would thereby alleviate the need of an allonge ; 2. Undated allonge signed by   XXXX   XXXX  , authorized signatory for   XXXX   as Attorney in Fact for  XXXX , identifies   XXXX   assigned account number  XXXX \n3. Original Note Loan No :   XXXX  .  XXXX  assigned account number is hand-written, twice, at the top of the first page as  XXXX ,   XXXX   ( abbreviated for   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ).\n<P/>\nAlso noteworthy,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   was incorporated in  XXXX .\n<P/>\nI 've spent countless hours sifting through 12 yr old boxes of paperwork finding robo-signatures, discrepancies, illegal filings, broken chains, and phantom dates/documents. I 've submitted 2 disputes to each of the credit agencies ( CRA ) with verifiable attachments, including, prior credit reports (  XXXX - XXXX  ) that proved concretely, the re-aging, and both times have been rejected simply because Rushmore Loan Management Services verified account as accurate without any documentation. My credit score is now in the red zone. 0 balance credit cards are being closed, interest rates are sky rocketing, offers withdrawn, premiums raised. It 's all due to the re-aging as every credit category is good - excellent. My new declining credit score gives me little chance of a decent job to support myself, nor obtain housing better than a shelter. For 10+ years I 've slept on couches, in my car, and even a storage unit. I 've sold most of my belongings, worked menial jobs, bartered services and learned to live without or DIY, just to survive. Turning to the advice on the CRAs websites and following their guidelines to the T, I 've worked hard over the past 10+ years to rebuild my life and my credit through exorbitant interest rates, terms and fees. Now, in an instant, just when I was starting to see light, it 's back to the trenches and worse. There are no more couches this time and I have nothing left to sell. It 's more than apparent that my inability to pay this debt is a hall pass for anyone who stands to gain, and, punishable to me for life. Substantiated facts seem irrelevant to the scheming illegal tactics carried on thus far. The laws seem to have no bearing on those with the most money. At   XXXX   yrs old, my health is declining, cant eat or sleep, and cant find a job as all my time is consumed writing letters, sorting through documents and research. I 'm more than exhausted and see no chance for recovery without the help of the CFPB.\n<P/>\nI firmly believe all the recent upheaval stems from RLMs work model to render me broke and powerless, thereby safeguarding from any opposing resistance.\n<P/>\nI beg the CFPB to please thoroughly review my statements of fact and attached supporting documents, to put an end to these unconscionable predatory tactics.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-05-27T05:11:26.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"23224","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2495835","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC","date_received":"2017-05-27T04:46:21.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<P/> XX/XX/XXXX  Rushmore sends Notice of Sale of Ownership of Mortgage <em>Loan</em>. Very confusing and <em>misleading</em>. States prior creditor has sold your <em>loan</em> ( described below ) to us, the new creditor identified below. Next paragraph, **NOTE : The new creditor identified below is not the <em>servicer</em> of your <em>loan</em>. Page 2 says Your lender. Who are they referring to, the creditor or the <em>servicer</em>?"],"company":["RUSHMORE <em>LOAN</em> MANAGEMENT <em>SERVICES</em> LLC"]},"sort":[9.186639,"2495835"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":33,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":33}]}},"product":{"doc_count":33,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":15,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":7},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional fixed mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":6},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":33,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan sold or transferred to another company","doc_count":2},{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1},{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was already discharged in bankruptcy and is no longer owed","doc_count":3},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Don't agree with the fees charged","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trouble with how payments are being handled","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Loan modification,collection,foreclosure","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"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":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":33,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":33}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":33,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":30},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2},{"key":"Closed","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":33,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":33}]}},"company":{"doc_count":33,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":5},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":3},{"key":"Central Research Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Community Loan Servicing, LLC (formerly known as Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC)","doc_count":1},{"key":"Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"E*TRADE BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"ECMC GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paramount GR Holdings, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":33,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"NY","doc_count":4},{"key":"OH","doc_count":4},{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"NV","doc_count":3},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MT","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":33,"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":10},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":33,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":4},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","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":{"2":[9.187162,"2495835"]}}}